2 Comments
User's avatar
Richard Cheverton's avatar

I've covered the new charter for three years--so allow me to say that parroting the eyewash in the "Progress Reports," which you quote (without attribution) doesn't cut it. This came from a charter commission that was loaded with progressives, union shills, nonprofiteers...the usual reliable types. It had nothing to do with being representative.

The real purpose of the 3/4/25-percent idea was to get more minorities--specifically BPOCs--on the council...ignoring the ethnic makeup of the council they wanted to replace. If some sort of diversity was a goal, how come we wound up with three (count 'em) outright socialists? Woulda been nice if you dealt with the 12-member problem, which presented at the presidential election in which the mayor (and council) refused to obey the clear charter directive to resolve a tie.

As for your reportorial method--standing in parking lots isn't much of a survey. Also, at least you mentioned that your husband got a piece of the "inform the voters" pie, which was a standard, low-level machine giveaway. Which, typically, didn't work--but that was never the point.

It was just more money from me to thee.

And--golly!--I've just scratched the surface.

Expand full comment
Devin Boone's avatar

Hello! I'm not sure what progress reports you're referring to. I didn't quote anything without attribution. And my husband and I were hired by the non-profit Rose City Reform to make a video explaining single transferable vote. We did not receive any city money meant for informing voters. Thanks for reading.

Expand full comment