updated voice and accountability

The Geo Politics of 2012 Gresham, Oregon

Based on Testimony Given at Gresham City Council

February 7, 2012

Geographic Representation

Gresham Citizen Ballot Initiative

04/10/23Citizen Voice and City Council Accountability2

A newly formed growing coalition of citizens are pursuing a ballot measure that would amend the city charter to require the majority of city council members to be elected from at least six geographic districts. This initiative is still in the formative stages and continues to gather citizen feedback and has set the target of November 2012 General Election for citizen approval

We are also seeking the support of a broad coalition of community organizations and encourage Gresham City Council to join this effort

Citizen Initiative Outreach to Formal Bridge Organizations for Feedback


City CouncilCity Charter Review CommitteeIndividual Neighborhood AssociationsNeighborhood Association CoalitionCouncil Citizen Involvement Advisory

CommitteeGresham Redevelopment CommissionFinance CommitteePublic Safety CommitteeNatural Resources and Sustainability

Committee Community Organizations, etc.

Citizen Voice and Neighborhood Associations Role


City Revised Code – 2.60.010 Purpose“The purpose of neighborhood associations is

to provide a formal way for neighborhoods to communicate with the city.”

2.60.020” Neighborhood Association is a volunteer group of people organized within a geographical area for the purpose of acting on issues affecting neighborhood and community livability.”

Association Responsibility – 2.60.050 “may make official recommendations to the council, its commissions, committees, and the manager on any matter affecting livability.”

Coalition of Neighborhood Associations


Gresham Revised Code – 2.60.080A volunteer group made up of the elected board

members of all recognized neighborhood associations

This group acts as support for the leaders of the neighborhood associations to enable more effective cooperation

The Coalition shall serve as a liaison between the neighborhood associations and city hall

The Coalition may make official recommendations to the Council and Manager on any matter affecting livability of the neighborhoods

Citizen Involvement Committee


Gresham Revised Code, Article 2.362.36.010 – “The membership shall be broadly

representative of geographical areas and community interests within the city.”

2.36.030 – Purpose, Powers and Duties“The purpose and function of the CIC is to advise the

Mayor and Council on the development and implementation of programs designed to facilitate citizen involvement in the deliberative process by promoting citizen engagement and involvement in all aspects of governance…initiate outreach to those groups that are underrepresented in governance of the city”

CIC City Code Statement on Geographic representation


Gresham Revised Code, Article 2.36.040 subsections (2) c, g,Promote, develop, and facilitate citizen

involvement opportunities throughout all geographical regions of the city

Develop and maintain program metrics to measure the scope and effectiveness of the city’s citizen involvement program in all aspects of city governance

Would voter turnout by neighborhood association CIC study help us decide if the exclusive at-large election system is achieving promised results?

How Did We Get Here?


What does the Map Indicate About Elections in Gresham?


The fact that emerges is that large parts of Gresham are not represented or are grossly underrepresented

Recent election history exposes extent of representation disparities

This moves the levers of democracy in the favor of a select few contiguous neighborhoods and, in fact, with a majority in a single neighborhood

Is this a new revelation? Is the City Council committed to gaining voter

approval for Council Districts that would provide for equitable geographical representation?

Geographic Representation?


Does the absence of Voting Districts create serious representation consequences?What is the definition of voting by district?

Each citizen gets to vote for her or his council member, a council member from the voters district, a council member who represents that voter and the voters neighborhood and is aware of their district interests!

Is this issue a major root cause of voter apathy, disengagement and citizen lack of meaningful involvement ?

Is it true that 80% of the city is not geographically represented?

Does recent low voter turnout and uncontested City Council and Mayoral races a result of exclusive at-large elections?

Unanswered Questions for City Council Feedback


It has been 25 years (1986 May Ballot Measure No 51) since the citizen voting community approved exclusive at-large voter districts. Is it time to revisit current citizen voice on at-large election system by placing this issue on the November 2012 Ballot?

It has been 25 years (1986 November Ballot Measure No. 53) since voters approved the level for Charter Amendments from 50% to 60%. Was this done to protect the May Ballot Measure 51 from being overturned?

Is it true that a minority of 40% can block a Charter amendment? Is this another example of reducing citizen controls on

government? Could this lack of ongoing geographic representation be causing

the City Council members to be less accessible and responsive? Is the current at-large electoral system the primary cause of the

high cost of campaigning and low voter turnout? Does this high cost of running for public office discourage

candidates therefore placing it out of reach and resources of all but those with high income and special interest groups?

Exclusive At-Large Districts


Do exclusive at-large voting districts dampen citizen voice and accountability?

What is the current cost to those who feel disenfranchised by Gresham’s exclusive at-large election system?

Could the City Council do more to level the playing field?

By a vote of 70%+ in 1998, Gresham citizens passed a City Charter Measure (Measure No. 26-86) which directs City Council to promote citizen involvement in city governance and which requires the Mayor and City Manager to report annually about citizen involvement progress. Many are puzzled why single voter districts took so long to be reconsidered when it has been a proven method for citizen engagement and involvement in direct governance.

Growth and Expansion


Due to our rapid growth and expansion, does the current electoral system contribute to downtown being a disproportionate beneficiary of the city’s public investment in facilities and services?

Can you think of any examples of some neighborhoods being deprived of essential infrastructure investment and services?

Has the Gresham exclusive at-large election process reduced the influence of single neighborhood associations and exacerbated the reoccurring problem of too many neighborhood associations being in an inactive status?

Had Southwest, Centennial and Hollybrook Neighborhood Associations been part of a single voter district would the original 2004 City Council approval for a Superstore at 181st Street have happened?

Can you think of other similar neighborhood examples?

Citizen Voice and Council Accountability?


The at-large election system means that all citizens – all 105,000+ of us are represented by every member of the city council

This current at-large election system fails to make any one council member responsible and accountable for our district concerns, or those of our neighbors

When every council member is responsible to every citizen, by definition, no one council member is responsible or accountable to a particular citizen.

The Balance of Political Power?


Has the current electoral system changed significantly the balance of power between the Mayor, City Council and the unelected City Manager?

Do the citizens understand the discriminatory and potential negative impact of a majority of City Council and the Mayor residing in a concentrated area and single location of a few neighborhoods?

How many citizens are aware that the city charter of 1978 City Council election process had six districts and the Mayor elected at-large?

Local Government Election Practice by Robert L. Kemp


Potential Citizen Engagement Methods for High Participation


City Charter Review Committee debate welcomed

Neighborhood Reaction Panel to square off after presentation

Open Microphone - Q & A

Neighborhood sign sheet to campaign for a election system that supports geographic representation to strengthen citizen voice and city council accountability

May 1986 Charter Measure on Election of City Councilors


Nov. 1986 Measure #53 Require 60% to Approve Charter Amendment


updated voice and accountability

News & Politics