Charter Commission — Portland, ME
Date: 2022-05-11
Time: 18:00

City of Portland
 Charter Commission Agenda

 Charter Commission Meeting
 May 11, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Due to the existence of an "emergency or urgent issue", the Charter Commission & its Committees will conduct meetings
by remote methods/technology at the Zoom link provided below, in accordance with the requirements of 1 M.R.S. section
403 -B and the Charter Commission Remote Participation Policy.

Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live, a
recording will be available following the meeting in our Agenda Portal.

For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit
*9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

 1. Zoom Information
 a. This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
 by the Charter Commission and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B because of the
 existence of an emergency or urgent issue that requires the committee to meet by
 remote methods. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best
 meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available
 following the meeting.
 For public comment, you will need to use the “raise your hand” feature. To raise your
 hand via the telephone, please use *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is
 time for public comment.


 Please click the link below to join the webinar:
 https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/j/83572442866?pwd=OHppVlBkNGgxVzhpb1AxSVZDRWxxUT09
 Passcode: 270397
 Or One tap mobile :
 US: +19292056099,,83572442866#,,,,*270397# or
 +13017158592,,83572442866#,,,,*270397#
 Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 US: +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900
 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
 Webinar ID: 835 7244 2866
 Passcode: 270397
 International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/u/kdp8CyWnxp

2. Call to Order
3. Review and Approval of Minutes


 a. Approval of the draft April 27, 2022 Charter Commission Meeting Minutes.

4. Discussion about Schedule and Process to Complete Commission Work
 a. Description: Commissioners will deliberate on the schedule and process for actions
 prior to filing the Final Report on or by July 11, 2022. Example actions include the
 following:
 a. Public hearings on the report;
 b. Changes to the proposal texts (corrections, changes, and refinements):
 c. Grouping of proposals into Charter revision ballot questions;
 d. Preparation of summaries for Charter revision ballot questions that are too large to
 be placed verbatim on the ballot; and
 e. Preparation of the Final Report for filing with the Council on or by July 11, 2022.
 Relevant documnt(s);
 a. None identified
5. Discussion of Grouping and Order of Ballot Questions
 a. Description: Commissioners will deliberate on the grouping and order of the
 proposals into Charter revision ballot questions.
 Relevant document(s):
 a. Preliminary Report
6. New Business
7. Adjourn

City of Portland
 Charter Commission Agenda

 Charter Commission Meeting
 May 11, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Due to the existence of an "emergency or urgent issue", the Charter Commission & its Committees will conduct meetings
by remote methods/technology at the Zoom link provided below, in accordance with the requirements of 1 M.R.S. section
403 -B and the Charter Commission Remote Participation Policy.

Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live, a
recording will be available following the meeting in our Agenda Portal.

For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit
*9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

 1. Zoom Information
 a. This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted
 by the Charter Commission and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B because of the
 existence of an emergency or urgent issue that requires the committee to meet by
 remote methods. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best
 meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live, a recording will be available
 following the meeting.
 For public comment, you will need to use the “raise your hand” feature. To raise your
 hand via the telephone, please use *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is
 time for public comment.


 Please click the link below to join the webinar:
 https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/j/83572442866?pwd=OHppVlBkNGgxVzhpb1AxSVZDRWxxUT09
 Passcode: 270397
 Or One tap mobile :
 US: +19292056099,,83572442866#,,,,*270397# or
 +13017158592,,83572442866#,,,,*270397#
 Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 US: +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900
 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
 Webinar ID: 835 7244 2866


 Page 1
 Passcode: 270397
 International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-
 gov.zoom.us/u/kdp8CyWnxp

2. Call to Order
3. Review and Approval of Minutes


 a. Approval of the draft April 27, 2022 Charter Commission Meeting Minutes.

4. Discussion about Schedule and Process to Complete Commission Work
 a. Description: Commissioners will deliberate on the schedule and process for actions
 prior to filing the Final Report on or by July 11, 2022. Example actions include the
 following:
 a. Public hearings on the report;
 b. Changes to the proposal texts (corrections, changes, and refinements):
 c. Grouping of proposals into Charter revision ballot questions;
 d. Preparation of summaries for Charter revision ballot questions that are too large to
 be placed verbatim on the ballot; and
 e. Preparation of the Final Report for filing with the Council on or by July 11, 2022.
 Relevant documnt(s);
 a. None identified
5. Discussion of Grouping and Order of Ballot Questions
 a. Description: Commissioners will deliberate on the grouping and order of the
 proposals into Charter revision ballot questions.
 Relevant document(s):
 a. Preliminary Report
6. New Business
7. Adjourn




 Page 2
 City of Portland
 Charter Commission
 Meeting Minutes
 April 27, 2022
1. Call to Order. Chair Kebede called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m.

Present were: Chair Kebede; Commissioners Barowitz, Buxton, Chann, Eglinton (joined 6:30),
Houston, Lizanecz, O’Brien, Sheikh-Yousef, Stewart-Bouley, Washburn (joined 6:57), Waxman.

2. Review and Approval of Minutes. On motion by Commissioner Lizanecz, seconded by
Commissioner Sheikh-Yousef, the Commission voted to approve the draft meeting minutes of
April 20, 2022 by unanimous roll call vote of 10 to 0 (Eglinton, Washburn absent).

3. Ratification of Final Language for School Budget Process from Education
 Committee

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approval final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Proposal for school budget process

Commissioner O’Brien expressed his concerns that this is likely to lead to a costly lawsuit and
that there are other ways to address this, such as clarifying or amending State law.

On Motion of Commissioner Houston, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz, the Commission
voted by roll call vote of 8 (Kebede; Barowitz, Buxton, Chann, Houston, Lizanecz, Sheikh-
Yousef, Stewart-Bouley) to 2 (O’Brien, Waxman ) (Eglinton, Washburn absent) to ratify the
final language to include in the Preliminary Report.

4. Ratification of final language for Capital Improvement Program Process Proposal
 from Education Committee

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Proposal for capital improvement program process

On Motion of Commissioner Houston, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz, the Commission
voted by roll call vote 10 to 0 (Eglinton, Washburn absent to ratify the final language to include
in the Preliminary Report.


 {P2016079.1} 1


 Page 3
5. Deliberation and Vote on final language for Mayor’s Economic Development
 Leadership Amendment

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Mayor’s Economic Development Leadership Amendment

Commissioner O’Brien presented the proposal to allow mayor to work with City staff on large
economic development proposals.

Commissioner Buxton asked if public comment was needed before final ratification of this
language. Chair Kebede regarded this as an amendment to the Governance Model.

Commissioner Chann thought the proposal was too specific - why not include other tasks the
mayor can do? Commissioner Waxman stated she won’t be supporting it because this power
already exists. Chair Kebede was comforted by statement of this authority of mayor.

On Motion of Commissioner Barowitz, seconded by Commissioner O’Brien, the Commission
voted by roll call vote 7 (Houston, O’Brien, Barowitz, Lizanecz, Buxton, Sheikh-Yousef,
Kebede) to 4 (Chann, Waxman, Eglinton, Stewart-Bouley) (Washburn absent) to include the
language in the Preliminary Report as an amendment to the Governance proposal.

6. Ratification of Final Language for Governance Model

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.
Relevant document(s):

 a. Governance Model in charter language from Perkins Thompson

Main Motion. Commissioner Houston made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sheikh-
Yousef, to approve the Governance Model proposal language to and include it in the Preliminary
Report.

Amendment. Commissioner Lizanecz moved to amend the motion to add language with regard
to the mayor’s powers, seconded by Commissioner O’Brien. The proposed language read:

 The mayor shall not interfere with the daily operations of the City.

 The mayor shall not independently direct department heads, the COO, or their
 subordinates.

Commissioner Buxton was concerned about the breadth of this language; Commissioner
Barowitz shared this concern. Chair Kebede understand wanting to avoid a meddlesome mayor,
but worry about language, and suggested adding “unless authorized to do so by City Council.”

 {P2016079.1} 2


 Page 4
Commissioner Lizanecz was concerned about this potential Council loophole. He also
suggested adoption of this language as a concept to be mentioned in Preliminary Report and
anchored later.

On a roll call vote of the Commission, the amendment failed by vote of 4 in favor (O’Brien,
Houston, Lizanecz, Kebede) and 7 opposed (Barowitz, Waxman, Sheikh-Yousef, Washburn,
Stewart-Bouley, Buxton, Eglinton) with one abstention (Chann).

Amendment. Commissioner Buxton proposed an amendment for the City Council to elect a
council president and vice-president to serve with mayor as Executive Committee, seconded by
Commissioner Washburn.

Attorney Katsiaficas made a note to fix language in Section (e) that the Commission previously
had agreed to – the mayor’s duties include to set agendas and preside over council meetings, but
not to be a member of the Council.

Commissioner Barowitz noted that Jeff Levine thought it a poor idea to blend the executive
mayor and City Council. Commissioner O’Brien observed that he didn’t want a council president
at loggerheads with mayor, and so couldn’t favor this amendment. Chair Kebede favored a clear
separation of powers. Commissioner O’Brien noted that the mayor’s role under the proposal is
not to seek a result but to run a process – that he doesn’t want to create a second position of
power in City government.

On a roll call vote of the Commission, the amendment failed by vote of 6 in favor (Buxton,
Barowitz, Houston, Washburn, Kebede, Sheikh-Yousef) and 6 opposed (O’Brien, Lizanecz,
Chann, Waxman, Stewart-Bouley, Eglinton)

Amendment. Commissioner O’Brien moved to amend the Mayor, Article I, Section 2 language
to make the division of mayor/council authority less divisive than it appear to be in the
Westbrook charter language that was used as a model, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz.

Chair Kebede agreed the amendment is better language because the Westbrook mayor has
hiring/firing authority, and the Portland mayor would not. Commissioner Barowitz asked to
change “supervision” to “oversight” as a friendly amendment, which was accepted.

On a roll call vote of the Commission, the amendment passed by vote of 8 in favor (Barowitz,
Lizanecz, Buxton, Houston, Sheikh-Yousef, O’Brien, Washburn, Kebede) and 4 opposed
(Chann, Waxman, Stewart-Bouley, Eglinton)

Amendment. Commissioner Chann moved to amend the proposal amendment to among other
matters: remove executive/legislative” language in Article I, Section 2; move mayor back to
Council as Chair; restore City Manager; Mayor to work with City Manager on budget and CIP; .
remove executive committee since mayor would be on Council; clarify Council-staff
communications; and place department heads back under City Manager subject to Council
confirmation, seconded by Commissioner O’Brien. Commissioner shared his written draft
amendment by email.

{P2016079.1} 3


 Page 5
Commissioner Washburn asked why this was necessary. Commissioner Chann responded that
this amendment would assure more than six people would support the Governance proposal,
which would give mayor more authority and would break down firewalls and is in keeping with
existing charter language.

Commissioner O’Brien stated this was the first time he’d seen the amendment and that he was
inclined to support it. He said it was consistent with guidelines of the governance committee
proposal – that Commissioner Chann had pulled much of this from the s from governance
committee.

Commissioner Buxton noted the desire to have a mayor run on a policy agenda, but the mayor’s
policy options are limited in and left to the Council as reflected in sections (3)(a) and (b) and (f)
also remains – implementation of city policies.

Commissioner Sheikh-Yousef asked why the amendment eliminated the executive committee.
Commissioner Chann responded that the mayor would be the parliamentarian – the executive
committee is not needed if don’t have to keep mayor or council in loop through executive
committee. Mayor would be in addition to the 9 to 12 Councilors. Commissioner Lizanecz
thought this was something City can get behind – it moves the needle.

Commissioner Buxton stated she won’t support this and had discomfort with this as a different
proposal that doesn’t fit with the Governance Proposal before them that it was a new proposal
offered as an amendment to the proposal. Chair Kebede thought a wholesale change could be
offered this way. Commissioner Barowitz had the same concerns as Commissioner Buxton --
This is a complex amendment that reverting to current system with a few minor enhancements to
mayor’s role.

On a roll call vote of the Commission, the amendment failed by vote of 6 in favor (O’Brien,
Stewart-Bouley, Waxman, Chann, Lizanecz, Eglinton) and 6 opposed (Houston, Barowitz,
Buxton, Washburn, Kebede, Sheikh-Yousef).

Motion to table was made by Commissioner O’Brien, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz;
motion retracted. Commissioner Lizanecz asked if further possible changes could be brought
forward during May and June Commission meetings, and this was agreed to – proposed changes
could be made by amendments.

Main motion. On a roll call vote of the Commission, the main motion to include this Governance
Model proposal in the Preliminary Report and to ratify the final language to include in the
Preliminary Report passed by vote of 8 in favor (to include this governance proposal in
Preliminary Report in favor of ratification of the final language to include in the Preliminary
Report.) and 4 opposed (Chann, Waxman, Stewart-Bouley, Eglinton).

7. Ratification of Final Language for Peaks Island Council Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

 {P2016079.1} 4


 Page 6
Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Peaks Island Council proposal

Commissioner Stewart-Bouley noted that while she is an Island resident, she was not a part of
this proposal nor was she approached on it, but that she supports it.

On Motion of Commissioner Washburn, seconded by Commissioner O’Brien, the Commission
voted by unanimous roll call vote 12 to 0 to ratify the final language to include in the Preliminary
Report.

8. Ratification of Final Language for Clean Elections Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Clean Elections proposal
 b. Perkins Thompson memorandum

Attorney Katsiaficas provided explanation of language and question of whether necessary to
include Section 13 since it duplicates State law provisions that apply to Portland municipal
elections.

Commissioner Buxton stated that although the Section 13 language duplicates State law, it is
important to have it in the Charter in case State law is changed or overturned.

On Motion of Commissioner Washburn, seconded by Commissioner Waxman, the Commission
voted by unanimous roll call vote 11 to 0 (Eglinton absent) to ratify the final language to include
in the Preliminary Report

9. Ratification of Final Language for Redistricting Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Redistricting Proposal

Motion by Commissioner O’Brien, seconded by Commissioner Barowitz, to ratify the final
language to include in the Preliminary Report.

Commissioner Houston asked whether there should be 12 councilors, or 13 to avoid ties.




 {P2016079.1} 5


 Page 7
Commissioner Sheikh-Yousef moved to amend to enlarge the number of districts for City
Council from 9 to 12, seconded by Washburn; after discussion, motion to amend was withdrawn.

Commissioner O’Brien moved to amend the motion to provide one School Board member from
each district and no at-large seats, for a total of 9 seats. Commissioner Buxton seconded the
motion, observing that the School Board feels it would be unwieldy at 12 seats. Amendment
passed by vote of 9 to 2 (Waxman, Stewart-Bouley; Eglinton absent)

Motion to amend by Commissioner O’Brien so that expanded council votes by majority of
councilors present and voting so long as a quorum (7) is present, seconded by Commissioner
Buxton. Motion approved by a vote of 10 to 1(Washburn; Eglinton absent)

Main motion as amended passes by vote of 10 to 1 (Waxman; Eglinton absent).

10. Ratification of final language for Ethics Proposals

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Ethics Commission/Code of Ethics Proposals
 b. Ethics Commission Introduction and Summary

Commissioner Barowitz moved to ratify the final language to include in the Preliminary Report,
seconded by Commissioner Washburn.

Commissioner Barowitz offered a friendly amendment tohis own motion to replace “and” with
“or” in place of “and” in the sixth line of (c).

The motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Commission, 11 to 0 (Eglinton absent).

11. Ratification of final language for Proportional Ranked Choice Voting Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Proportional Ranked Choice Voting Proposal

Commissioner Chann noted that the language was obtained from the ranked choice voting
(RCV) expert. It allows for proportional RCV in a multi-seat municipal election instead of using
multipass RCV to fill each seat individually, with its 50% requirement.

Commissioner Washburn moved to approve with a change from “shall” to “may” in the second
line, seconded by Commissioner Buxton.



 {P2016079.1} 6


 Page 8
Commissioner Barowitz offered a friendly amendment to delete second sentence from the
proposal. amendment. Commissioner O’Brien was opposed to this, believing the election rules
should be solidified and can be changed by referendum; Commissioner Chann agreed that the
choice of vote counting method shouldn’t be at discretion of Clerk and Council.

The amendment failed by roll call vote of 5 in favor (Barowitz, Washburn, Lizanecz, Sheikh-
Yousef, Kebede) and 6 against (O’Brien, Chann, Waxman, Buxton, Houston, Stewart-Bouley)
(Eglinton absent).

On the motion, the Commission voted by roll call vote of 9 in favor (O’Brien, Chann, Waxman,
Washburn, Lizanecz, Buxton, Houston, Stewart-Bouley, Kebede) and 2 against (Barowitz;
Sheikh-Yousef) (Eglinton absent) to ratify the final language to include in the Preliminary
Report.

12. Ratification of final language for Universal Resident Voting Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Universal Resident Voting Proposal
 b. Perkins Thompson memorandum

Commissioner O’Brien stated that he supports this proposal deeply as a matter of justice, but that
he is not willing to put these people at risk given the legal uncertainty of this proposal Chair
Kebede responded that there will be time for a legal opinion May/June, and in the meantime, he
supported including this proposal in the Preliminary Report.

On Motion of Commissioner Washburn, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz, the Commission
voted by roll call vote of 8 in favor (Chann, Barowitz, Washburn, Lizanecz, Sheikh-Yousef,
Kebede, Buxton, Houston) to 3 against (O’Brien, Waxman, Stewart-Bouley) (Eglinton absent)
to ratify the final language to include in the Preliminary Report.

13. Ratification of final language for Vacancies Proposal

Description: Commissioners will deliberate and vote to approve final language for this proposal.

Relevant document(s):

 a. Final language for Vacancies Proposal

On Motion of Commissioner Chann, seconded by Commissioner Waxman, the Commission
voted unanimously by roll call vote 11 to 0 (Eglinton absent) to ratify the final language to
include in the Preliminary Report.

14. New Business

 {P2016079.1} 7


 Page 9
 a. Reconsideration. Commissioner Lizanecz moved for reconsideration of Governance
Proposal vote, seconded by Chann; Commission voted by roll call vote of 7 in favor (O’Brien,
Chann, Lizanecz, Waxman, Stewart-Bouley, Sheikh-Yousef, Buxton) and 4 against (Barowitz,
Washburn, Houston, Kebede) (Eglinton absent) to reconsider the Governance Proposal vote. e

Discussion on how to proceed followed, with some Commissioners considering a tabling motion
to a Wednesday May 4 meeting for preparation and circulation of amendments, and others not
aware this was part of the motion to reconsider.

On motion by Commissioner Washburn, seconded by Commissioner Sheikh-Yousef, to
reconsider the reconsideration motion vote, the Commission by roll call vote voted unanimously
(11-0; Eglinton absent) to reconsider the reconsideration motion vote.

 b. Preliminary Report. Additional discussion followed regarding whether to direct Attorney
Katsiaficas to compile the ratified final language for all proposals and the Committee summaries
into the Preliminary Report and to submit that Preliminary Report to the City Council for May 9.
Executive Committee members would individually review the draft and send any revisions and
sign off on the draft to Attorney Katsiaficas, who then would send the draft to Commission
members for their individual review and sign off by the end of day Thursday, May 5, so that the
Preliminary Report can be submitted Friday, May 6. Consensus of Commissioners was to adopt
this approach.

 c. Cancel May 4, 2022 meeting. Commissioners discussed how the May 4 meeting would
be conducted since Chair Kebede would be away, Commissioner Eglinton would be late to the
meeting, and Commissioner Stewart-Bouley could start the meeting, but would have to leave
early. On motion by Commissioner Washburn, seconded by Commissioner Lizanecz, the
Commission by roll call vote voted unanimously (11-0; Eglinton absent) in light of the approach
agreed to in b. above to cancel the May 4, 2022 meeting.

15. Adjourn

On motion of Commissioner Washburn, seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (11-0;
Eglinton absent) to adjourn at 10:40 p.m.




{P2016079.1} 8


 Page 10
 Portland Charter Commission

 Preliminary Report




Michael Kebede, Chair (Appointed by Council)
Shay Stewart Bouley, Vice-Chair (District 1)
Peter Eglinton, Secretary (Appointed by Council)
Dory Waxman (Appointed by Council)
Robert O’Brien (District 2)
Zack Barowitz (District 3)
Marcques Houston (District 4)
Ryan Lizanecz (District 5)
Catherine Buxton (At-Large)
Marpheen Chann (At-Large)
Nasreen Sheikh Yousef (At-Large)
Pat Washburn (At-Large)



 Submitted to the Portland City Council
 May 9, 2022



{P1999406.4}



 Page 11
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



 FOREWORD

The attached report is the Portland Charter Commission Preliminary Report. The Commission’s
Final Report is due on July 11, 2022. Prior to that Final Report, the Commission seeks public
input and comment on its recommendations for changes to the Portland City Charter.

The Commission’s planned meeting schedule is as follows:

  Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 6 p.m.;

  Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 6 p.m. (including Public Hearing on Preliminary Report);

  Wednesday, June 8, 2022, 6 p.m.; and

  Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 6 p.m. (including Public Hearing on Draft Final Report).

In view of the continuing public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
unpredictability of infection rates and variants, the Commission will conduct these meetings by
Zoom under its Remote Participation Policy adopted in accordance with State law.

Any schedule changes, copies of this Preliminary Report, commission meeting minutes, agendas
and background materials, as well as a list of the Commissioners and the ability to e-mail them,
may be found at: http://www.ci.portland.me.us/2665/Charter-Commission-2020-2022

Hard copies of this report are in the Portland Public Library and Room 211 of Portland City Hall.
You may also contact charter@portlandmaine.gov with your comments or concerns or send them
to City of Portland, Room 211, Portland City Hall, 389 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04101.




{P1999406.4} 2


 Page 12
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report




 Portland Charter Commission
 Preliminary Report

 Table of Contents

 Page No.

Foreword 2

I. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 5

 Background 5

 Timeline 7

II. COMMISSION’S PROPOSED REVISIONS 8

Section 1 Charter Commission Recommendations 9

A. Departments Committee 9

 1. Citizen Police Oversight Board 9

B. Education Committee 18

 1. Vacancies 19

 2. School Budget Process 21

 3. Capital Improvement Program Process 27

C. Elections Committee 29

 1. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting 30

 2. Universal Resident Voting 31

 3. Clean Elections 36

 4. Redistricting 47

D. Governance Committee 53


{P1999406.4} 3


 Page 13
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 1. Governance Model 54

 2. Mayor’s Economic Development Duties Proposal 83

 3. Peaks Island Council Proposal 85

E. Procedures Committee 87

 1. Preamble and Land Acknowledgement 88

 2. Code of Ethics 90

 3. Participatory Budgeting 97

 4. Communications Policy 99

Section 2. Charter Commission Issues Considered But Not Recommended 101

 1. Councilor Pay Proposal 101

 2. Office of Information Services 101




{P1999406.4} 4


 Page 14
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


I. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL


The Portland Charter Commission submits its Preliminary Report to the Portland City Council.
The Report includes a Background section on the Charter Commission’s creation and process.
Section II discusses the Commission’s Recommendations for Charter changes, arranged by
Committee. Section III contains the text of each proposed revision.

This Preliminary Report as well as all of the agendas and minutes of the Commission meetings
are available on the Charter Commission’s section of the City’s website at
www.ci.portland.me.us/2665/charter-commission-2020-2022 Videos of most of the
Commission and its Committees meetings may be accessed on the webpage by clicking on “Live
Stream City Hall Meetings.”

BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2019, following lengthy discussion on the matter of whether to send a proposed
clean elections fund measure to Portland voters as a Charter amendment or through a vote on
establishing a Charter commission to consider the subject as a Charter revision, the City Council
voted to send the question of whether to establish a charter commission to the voters. On June 8,
2020, Portland voters approved establishing a Charter Commission. On August 10, 2020, the
Council appointed three Commissioners and the voters elected nine more Commissioners on
June 8, 2021. The discussions and public debates during the election periods covered a large
range of subjects, including changes to the elected mayor’s powers, the relationship between the
School Board and the city, Ranked Choice Voting improvements, the possibility of permitting
non-citizen residents to vote in local elections, and various changes to the number and size of
City Council districts and how councilors are elected.

Charter Commission Members

Michael Kebede (appointed by Council) (Chair)

Peter Eglinton (appointed by Council) (Secretary)

Dory Waxman (appointed by Council)

Shay Stewart Bouley (District 1) (Vice-Chair)

Robert O'Brien (District 2)

Zack Barowitz (District 3)

Marcques Houston (District 4)

Ryan Lizanecz (District 5)



{P1999406.4} 5


 Page 15
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Catherine Buxton (At-Large)

Marpheen Chann (At-Large)

Nasreen Sheikh Yousef (At-Large)

Pat Washburn (At-Large)

The Charter Commission held its first organizational meeting on June 28, 2021, and its first
Public Hearing on July 28, 2021. Over the summer of 2021, meetings focused on: the range of
issues for the Commission to consider, the process for moving forward on those issues, staffing
and budget considerations for the Commission, and ways to engage the public in the process.

In late summer, 2021, the Commission formed five committees and developed a Community
Agreement to govern the conduct of Commissioners and the public, and began work on many of
the 26 subject areas listed by the Commission after the public hearing. Those Committees and
their members are as follows:

Committee Members Chair

Departments Houston, Lizanecz, Barowitz Lizanecz
Education Houston, Eglinton, Chann Houston
Elections Buxton, Chann, Washburn Chann
Governance Sheikh-Yousef, Lizanecz, O'Brien, Stewart-Bouley O'Brien
Procedures Barowitz, Waxman, Kebede, Washburn Washburn

This Preliminary Report represents and collects the extensive work by the members of the
Charter Commission. Through Commission and Committee meetings combined, they have met
dozens of times since June 2021.

In its work, the Commission has followed the timeline that appears on the next page:




{P1999406.4} 6


 Page 16
 Portland Charter Commission Timeline


 July-Aug 2020 June 8, 2021 June 28, 2021 July 28, 2021 2021-2022 May 9, 2022 July 11, 2022 August 10, Nov. 8, 2022
 2022
 Election to Election of Organizational Public Hearing Meetings; Preliminary Final Report Commission Election on
 create Voter Meeting (at (within 30 days Hearings Report printed submitted to Terminates 30 Charter
 Commission; Members least 7 days’ of and circulated City Council days after Commission’s
 Appointments notice) Organizational (9 months (12 months submitting Proposed Final
 of Appointed Meeting and at after election) after election) Accounting Report;
 Members least 10 days’ Revision
 notice)


Revised 4-8-2022




{P1999406.4}



 Page 17
II. COMMISSION’S PROPOSED CHARTER REVISIONS

After extensive research, discussion and development of proposals in Committee meetings; after
presentation, public comment, deliberation, and vote in Charter Commission meetings; and after
public hearing and public comments, the Charter Commission recommends the following
revisions to the City of Portland Charter.

These recommendations are organized in the pages that follow by the Committee in which they
originated, and provide a summary explaining the process and content for each proposal and the
actual Charter revision language for each proposal.




{P1999406.4}



 Page 18
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Section 1 Charter Commission Recommendations

A. Departments Committee

 1. Citizen Police Oversight Board


Summary

 CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARD PROPOSAL SUMMARY

 Introduction

One overarching goal of the Charter Commission is to increase accountability and public trust in
our City government. The Departments Committee has given special attention to the Police
Department due to the fact that because mortal danger is inherent to police work, police reform
has become one of the most pressing issues of our times.

However, the Committee did not think that the charter is the appropriate forum to examine the
intricacies of police procedures or the police budget. Instead, the focus was on improving the
system of civilian oversight, specifically the practice of evaluating complaints brought against
the police.

Portland’s current oversight system is the Police Citizen’s Review Subcommittee (PCRS) which
is an appointed volunteer board that reviews completed investigation of complaints against the
police as to whether the process met the standards of being “fair, objective, timely, and
thorough” for which the PCRS submits an annual report to the City Manager.

Because policing is a core function of municipal government, the Committee recommends that
citizen oversight should be in the Charter to elevate the status of the existing boarding order to
mitigate the potential for harm and to build broader public trust between civilians and police.

To these ends, the Committee looked at various models and hybrid models, including:

  The early oversight (1920s-1960s) took the form of volunteer civilian review boards
 wherein investigations conducted by police command/Internal Affairs are reviewed for
 being thorough, timely, objective and fair. This is the least active form of oversight and is
 the model that we currently use as with the PCRS.
  In the 1970s-1980s some cities initiated investigative offices of trained staffers to
 investigate misconduct. This is a far more active, and far more expensive, form of
 oversight than review boards.
  Beginning in the 1990s municipalities began to employ a professional auditor to get a
 big picture assessment by reviewing cases, looking for patterns, and making
 recommendations accordingly.
  Newer theories are focusing on gaining a degree of civilian control of policies and
 procedures.

{P1999406.4} 9


 Page 19
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



Despite advances in the field, the rule of thumb of civilian oversight is not “best practice” but
best fit. Given that Portland has both an excellent Police Department and a low crime rate, the
committee did not feel that chartering a professional investigative or auditing office was either
operationally or fiscally necessary; and that such action is best left to the City Council or another
office. Rather, the Committee recommends retaining the current review board system with
several enhancements to strengthen community involvement and oversight capabilities.

Specifically:

  The board shall deliver its reports and recommendations to the City Council.
  Removing eligibility restrictions for board membership.
  Allowing complaints to be brought directly to the board and for the board to render
 advisory opinions on citizen appeals.
  Retention of the “police liaison.”
  Hiring of a “community liaison” who shall assist the board in conducting outreach and
 other duties as the board may assign. The City Council shall decide whether the
 community liaison and police liaison positions are part-time or full-time and/or whether
 the duties of these positions may be assigned to existing employees and/or the
 Accountability Officer.

 Methodology

The Departments Committee consulted with a diverse range of experts, readings, and community
members for their input on this topic. They are as follows.

October 4th, 2021:
 1. Maria Testa: (Former Member of the Portland Police Citizen Review Subcommittee)
 2. Dr. Brendan McQuade: (Professor of Criminology at University of Southern Maine)
 3. Cameron McEllhiney: (Director of Training and Education at National Association
 Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement)
October 25th, 2021:
 1. Dr. Lelia DeAndrade: (Former Member of Portland’s Racial Equity Steering Committee)
 2. Emily West: (Current Chair of the PCRS)
 3. Ali Ali: (Former Member of Portland’s Racial Equity Steering Committee & Currently
 with Maine Youth Justice)
November 1st, 2021:
 1. Discussion with Commission Attorney Katsiaficas
November 15th, 2021:
 1. Workshop on Police Oversight Board language

December 6th, 2021:
 1. Workshop on Police Oversight Board language
 2. Unanimous vote for passage out of Committee

 Documents & Research Consulted

{P1999406.4} 10


 Page 20
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



  PCRS meeting minutes, videos and documents
  National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement documents
 o “Guidebook for the Implementation of New or Revitalized Police Oversight”
 o “A Review of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Models of Police Oversight”
 o “Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Assessing the Evidence”
 o “Civilian Review of Police: Approaches & Implementation” by Peter Finn; US
 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice 2001
  Portland’s Racial Equity Steering Committee Final Report
  Memo from Commission Attorney Katsiaficas
  Memo and feedback from Portland Police Chief Heath Gorham




{P1999406.4} 11


 Page 21
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Amend the current CHARTER by adding the following new ARTICLE IX, CIVILIAN POLICE
REVIEW BOARD, as follows:

Article IX: CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARD

Section 1. Purposes, composition, term, appointment, first
board, qualifications, vacancies, removal, compensation.

 (a) Purposes. For the purposes of increasing public trust
 and confidence in the Portland Police Department;
 discouraging police misconduct; helping police officers to
 feel vindicated in the eyes of their fellow officers and of
 the public; reassuring the public that complaints are
 investigated thoroughly and fairly; helping the public to
 understand the nature of police work; providing oversight
 of Internal Affairs; defusing public hostility toward
 police officers; reducing the likelihood of lawsuits
 against the City; and improving police practices and
 procedures in interactions with the public, there shall be
 a civilian police review board.

 (b) Composition, term, appointment, first board.
 The civilian police review board shall be composed of nine
 (9) or more members who shall hold office, except as
 hereinafter provided, for a term of three (3) years unless
 appointed to fill a vacancy, and until their successors are
 appointed and qualified, but in no case longer than 120
 days after expiration of their term. A minimum of five (5)
 voting members shall be appointed by the city council, one
 (1) voting member shall be appointed by the mayor and three
 (3) non-voting members shall be appointed by the city
 council. A majority of the total number of voting members
 appointed shall constitute a quorum of the board and the
 board shall act by a majority of voting members present and
 voting.

 For the first board appointed following its creation, the
 city council and mayor shall first select from the current
 members of the police citizen review subcommittee,
 currently established by City ordinance, which subcommittee
 shall be supplanted by the board, in making appointments to
 the board. On the first board, two voting members shall
 serve for a one (1) year term, two voting members shall
 serve for a two (2) year term, one voting member shall
 serve for a three (3) year term, and the voting member

{P1999406.4} 12


 Page 22
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 appointed by the mayor, shall serve for a three (3) year
 term; and one non-voting member shall serve for a one (1)
 year term, one non-voting member shall serve for a two (2)
 year term, and one non-voting member shall serve for a
 three (3) year term. Thereafter, all members shall serve
 for a term of three (3) years. No person shall be
 appointed to, nor serve, more than three (3) consecutive
 full terms or nine (9) consecutive years, whichever is
 greater, on the board. Following appointment of the first
 board, the city council shall exercise its power of
 appointment only after the city clerk has published a
 notice announcing the availability of board positions,
 describing the responsibilities thereof and soliciting
 applications by qualified persons, in a newspaper of
 general circulation at least 15 days before city council
 acts to appoint to the board.

 (c) Qualifications. All candidates for the civilian police
 review board must be at least 18 years of age and must be
 residents of the City for a period of at least three (3)
 months prior to the date on or before which board member is
 to be seated.

 (d) Vacancies. A vacancy in the membership of the civilian
 police review board member shall occur by a death,
 resignation or removal. A vacancy in the office of
 civilian police review board member shall be filled by the
 appointing authority for that office, and the person
 appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve the remainder of
 that term. Any board member who subsequent to appointment
 becomes disqualified or ineligible to serve shall resign,
 and failure to do so shall constitute “cause” under (e)
 below.

 (e) Removal. Any civilian police review board member may
 be removed from office by the city council for cause, after
 notice and the opportunity to be heard. Failure to
 disclose grounds for disqualification or ineligibility to
 serve under (c) above shall disqualify the person from
 service on the civilian police review board and shall
 constitute “cause” for removal.

 (f) Training. Prior to assuming their duties hereunder,
 civilian police review board members shall attend training
 by city staff as to the board’s duties and
 responsibilities, applicable state and local law,
 ordinances and rules and regulations, accepted police

{P1999406.4} 13


 Page 23
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 practices and the police department’s internal affairs
 investigation process.

 (g) Confidentiality. Each member of the civilian police
 review board is obligated to maintain the confidentiality
 of all information and documents either provided to or
 reviewed by them, in accordance with state law. Failure to
 maintain such confidentiality will be constitute “cause”
 for removal from the board under (c) above. All reports
 and requests for disclosure of any information shall be
 referred to the corporation counsel for review prior to
 release.

Section 2. Powers and duties.

 (a)Complaints. The civilian police review board shall receive
 all complaints brought by civilians regarding the Portland
 police department and shall refer such complaints to the
 Portland police internal affairs department. Members of the
 police department may bring complaints to the board, to
 internal affairs, or to command; the board shall refer any
 such complaints it receives to internal affairs. Portland
 police department command shall review internal affairs
 draft findings on complaints and shall submit its report on
 the conclusions of any investigation on complaints to the
 board for consideration no more than fourteen (14) days
 after the findings become final and after any final
 disciplinary action has been taken and all appeals exhausted
 or settled or the case has been closed with no disciplinary
 action. Neither police officers nor their representatives
 may file complaints regarding disciplinary actions or
 personnel matters under this subsection.

 (b)Review, reports. The board shall review all final
 investigation reports submitted by internal affairs and/or
 command staff under Section 2. (a) above for due process
 issues, including but not limited to, issues of fairness,
 thoroughness, objectivity, and timeliness. Although it
 shall have access to individual internal affairs reports in
 order to review investigative methods and procedures, all
 reports of the board issued to address complaints filed
 under Section 2. (a) above shall be done in such a manner
 that particular complainants, witnesses and officers are not
 personally identifiable. Reports of the board shall be made
 available to the public to the extent consistent with the
 State Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. Sec. 401 et seq.


{P1999406.4} 14


 Page 24
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 (c)Appeals. The city council shall by ordinance adopt an
 appeal process consistent with federal, state, and local law
 for persons aggrieved by a report issued by the civilian
 police review board on complaints filed with the Board under
 Section 2. (a) above to appeal that Board report to the city
 council or such other body as the city council may designate
 or create for a hearing, in executive session where
 required, and for the issuance of an advisory opinion which
 shall not be legally binding on the city, the police
 department, police officers, or individuals, and which
 hearing and advisory opinion shall not include or address
 any disciplinary proceedings. Neither police officers nor
 their representatives may file appeals regarding
 disciplinary actions or personnel matters under this
 subsection.

 (d)Policy. The civilian police review board shall be able to
 make policy recommendations to the mayor, the city council
 and the chief of police.

 (e)Annual report, communications, additional duties. The
 civilian police review board shall hold a public hearing at
 least annually to receive comments upon the community
 complaint process and to engage City residents as to the
 board’s purposes and goals, and shall prepare and present to
 the mayor, city council, and chief of police an annual
 report, including but not be limited to, policy and funding
 recommendations, and the number of complaints submitted to
 the board and the number of complaints resolved during the
 previous year. Any recommendations made by the board
 regarding the police department shall be based on policy
 evaluations, may be assigned by the city council and mayor
 to staff for research, and may be enacted or implemented.
 The board also may, in its discretion, address the city
 council on an as-needed basis. The city council and mayor
 may add to the board’s duties by ordinance at any time.

 (f)Board Officers. The civilian police review board shall
 annually elect one of its members to serve as chair, and
 shall annually elect one of its members as vice-chair, to
 serve in the absence of the chair. The corporation counsel
 or his or her designee shall serve as secretary to the board
 and shall furnish any necessary administrative assistance to
 that board.
 (g)Procedural rules. The civilian police review board shall
 make suitable procedural rules, from time to time, for the
 conduct of its duties. Proposed rules shall be submitted to

{P1999406.4} 15


 Page 25
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 the city council and shall become effective only when
 approved by the city council. All such rules shall be
 recorded in the office of the city clerk.

Section 3. Funding, staff, resources.

 (a) Funding, staff. The civilian police review board shall
 be funded as needed by the city council through the annual
 budget. Such funding shall include professional staff,
 including but not limited to a “Community Liaison” and a
 “Police Liaison” familiar with Portland police department
 standard operating procedures. The city council shall
 decide whether the community liaison and police liaison
 positions are part-time or full-time and/or whether the
 duties of these positions may be assigned to existing
 employees. The community liaison shall serve at the
 direction of the board and shall ensure the public is aware
 of the methods for filing complaints, and shall assist the
 board with carrying out its duties, powers and functions,
 conducting outreach and with other duties as the board may
 assign. The board may request additional funding from the
 city council at any time. The police liaison may be the
 same person/position as the “technical advisor” described
 in Section 3(b) below.

 (b) Resources. The city shall make available to the board
 the services of a technical advisor, as needed by the
 board. The technical advisor may be used for the purposes
 of training; briefing the board on accepted police
 practices, applicable law and issues relevant to the
 discharge of the citizen review function; and educating the
 board on aspects of the internal investigation process.
 The technical advisor shall be retained by the city manager
 after consultation with the chief of police,
 representatives of the police unions and the chair of the
 board. Any person who presently maintains any business or
 professional affiliation with the police department shall
 be disqualified from serving as technical advisor. The city
 shall further make available all internal affairs
 investigation reports and police documents relevant to such
 investigations which are necessary for the board to conduct
 its duties hereunder. In no case shall the board have
 access to police officers’ personnel records except to the
 extent that they are part of an internal affairs
 investigation report or are considered a public document
 under the Maine Freedom of Access Act.


{P1999406.4} 16


 Page 26
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 (c) Coordination. The board shall work in conjunction with
 the City’s communication department, internal affairs, and
 any other city departments or offices to effectuate all
 powers and duties granted to it in this charter and any
 additional duties assigned to it by the city council or
 mayor.




{P1999406.4} 17


 Page 27
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


B. Education Committee

 1. Vacancies

 2. School Budget Process

 3. Capital Improvement Program Process




{P1999406.4} 18


 Page 28
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


1. Vacancies

Summary

 Currently, the Charter provides that if a vacancy on the City Council or School Board
occurs or is declared prior to the next regular election, it shall be filled by a special election to
take place on the same date as the next scheduled State or municipal election that is at least 127
days after the vacancy occurs or is declared, unless the City Council by vote of 6 or more
members votes to shorten the time to obtain and file nomination papers. That 127-day (or
shortened time period) minimum presumably is to allow time for the City Clerk to advertise the
vacancy, make nomination papers available, accept and process nomination papers (to check
validity of signatures), and to call and conduct the election.

 This proposed amendment was spurred by a request from the School Board, although it is
more restrictive than the School Board suggested. It would provide the School Board and the
City Council with the ability to appoint a qualified person from the same district or at-large, as
appropriate, to serve until the next regular municipal election if a vacancy occurs within 6
months of the next regular election. If the vacancy occurs more than 6 months from the next
regular election, the City Council maintains its ability to call a special election to fill the seat.

 This proposal is similar to the process used in Auburn (as referenced in an 3/10/2022
memorandum from Perkins Thompson to the Charter Commission’s education committee chair):

 If vacancy occurs more than 6 months prior to the next regular election, unexpired
 term is filled by special election, citywide or for a ward. If vacancy occurs within
 6 months prior to next regular election, School Committee appoints a qualified
 person from same ward or at-large, as appropriate, to serve until next municipal
 election. (Article 4, § 4.3)

 Brunswick also has similar language (as referenced in an 3/10/2022 memorandum from
Perkins Thompson to the Charter Commission’s education committee chair):

 Town Council to call a special election to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term
 unless the remainder of the unexpired term is less than 6 months, in which case
 the School Board appoints a qualified person to fill the vacancy. (Article IX, §
 904(c))




{P1999406.4} 19


 Page 29
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Amend the current ARTICLE II, CITY COUNCIL., Section 7. Vacancies, in the last
paragraph as follows:

If a vacancy in the membership of the city council occurs or is
declared more than six (6 months) prior to the next regular
municipal election, the vacancy unexpired term shall be filled
at a special election, citywide or for a district, to take place
on the same date as the next scheduled municipal or state
election which is no less than 127 days after the date the
vacancy occurs or is declared, unless the council, by a vote of
at least six (6) of its members, calls a special election on an
earlier date. Such election shall be called and held and
nominations made as in other elections. If a vacancy occurs
within 6 months prior to the next regular election, the city
council shall appoint a qualified person from the same district
or at-large, as appropriate, to serve until the next regular
municipal election.


Amend the current ARTICLE III, Board of Public Education., Section 6. Vacancies, in the
second paragraph as follows:

If a vacancy in the membership of the school board occurs or is
declared more than six (6) months prior to the next regular
municipal election, the unexpired termvacancy shall be filled at
a special election, citywide or for a district, to take place on
the same date as the next scheduled municipal or state election
which is no less than 127 days after the date the vacancy occurs
or is declared, unless the council, by a vote of at least six
(6)of its members, calls a special election on an earlier date
and shortens the time for obtaining and filing nomination
petitions established in article IV, section 6. Such election
shall be called and held and nominations made as in other
elections. If a vacancy occurs within 6 months prior to the next
regular election, the school board shall appoint a qualified
person from the same district or at-large, as appropriate, to
serve until the next regular municipal election.




{P1999406.4} 20


 Page 30
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


2. School Budget Process Proposal


Summary

 One overarching goal of the members of the Education Committee was to establish a
better sense of collaboration and parity between the School Board and City Council. During
workshops, members heard from various school board members, past and present, that although
parity was a goal of the last Charter Commission, that sense of equal footing was not always felt
or seen. Currently, the Charter states that the school budget must be drafted by the
Superintendent, approved by the School Board, approved by the City Council, and then approved
by the voters. This proposed amendment is intended to address recommendations received
during workshops and public comment to increase the level of parity between the School Board
and City Council when it comes to each body’s budget processes. This proposal would create a
Joint Budget Guidance Committee consisting of four city councilors and four school board
members to increase collaboration between the two bodies and to set budget goals and priorities
covering a two-year period. In its current form, the Charter provides that the City Council has
authority over the bottom line number. This proposal seeks to remove that part of the process and
give that authority to the school board in an effort to establish a greater sense of parity between
the school board and city council. The goals and intentions of this proposal are to streamline the
process, make it easier for voters to follow and understand, and to increase transparency and
accountability.

Education Committee Work on Topic:

 1. October 6th Workshop:
 a. This workshop took place early in the process after the committee received a
 memorandum from Drummond Woodsum giving an overview of what is in the
 purview of the Charter Commission surrounding education. Members of the
 committee held a workshop to learn more from elected officials about what has
 and has not worked in the past. Members of the workshop included:
 i. Attorney Aga Dixon, Drummond Woodsum
 ii. Portland Mayor Kate Snyder
 iii.  Former Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling
 iv.  Former Portland Mayor Michael Brennan
 v.  Former At-Large City Councilor Nick Mavodones
 vi.  Portland Superintendent Xavier Botana
 vii.  School Board Chair Emily Figdor
 viii.  City Councilor and Former School Board Member Anna Trevorrow
 ix.  Corporation Counsel Danielle West
 x.  Commission Attorney James Katsiaficas

 2. November 3rd Meeting:


{P1999406.4} 21


 Page 31
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 a. Commissioners discussed what was heard during the October 2nd workshop and
 chose topics to research. Commissioner Eglinton chose to look at Capital
 Improvement and collaboration around budgeting. Commissioner Houston chose
 to research parity between Board and Council.

 3. December 1st Meeting:
 a. Members of the Committee present preliminary ideas and receive public
 comment. Commissioner Eglinton presents his idea for a Joint Committee on
 Budget Guidance to increase the collaboration between Board and Council on
 both budgets. Commissioner Houston presents his idea for increased budget
 autonomy for the school board.

 4. December 15th Meeting:
 a. Members of the Committee receive a memorandum from Commission Attorney
 Katsiaficas regarding the 8/11 memorandum from Drummond Woodsum
 explaining why it may not be possible to give the Board authority over the bottom
 line number on the school budget under Maine State law.

 5. January 5th Meeting:
 a. Commissioner Eglinton presents first proposal for the Joint Committee on Budget
 guidance. Members of the committee discuss what this would look like in practice
 and what the scope of these conversations would be.

 6. February 2nd Meeting:
 a. Members of the Committee receive another memorandum from Drummond
 Woodsum that argues for more school board budget autonomy. Members receive
 a briefing from School Board Chair Emily Figdor on the memorandum. Members
 continue to workshop the Joint Committee on Budget Guidance Proposal.

 7. February 16th Meeting:
 a. Commissioner Houston presents the proposal to give more budget autonomy to
 the school board. Commissioners Chann and Eglinton ask clarifying questions
 and Commissioners deliberate on how to proceed with two competing proposals
 and which proposal will be put forward for a public hearing and vote.
 Commissioners take public comment on the proposal.

 8. March 3rd Meeting:
 a. Members of the Committee hold a public hearing on the school budget process
 proposal brought forward by Commissioner Houston. During the public hearing,
 eight members of the public spoke in favor while eight members of the public


{P1999406.4} 22


 Page 32
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 spoke against the proposal. During deliberations, Commissioner Eglinton brought
 forward an amendment to include the Joint Committee on Budget Guidance to be
 included at the beginning of the proposal. That motion to amend passes
 unanimously. On the main motion to Approve the School Budget Process
 Proposal as amended, the motion passed 2-1 with Commissioners Chann and
 Houston voting yes and Commissioner Eglinton voting no. The proposal was then
 sent to the full commission.

Memorandums Consulted Throughout the Process:
  ● 8/11 Memorandum from Drummond Woodsum
  ● 12/14 Memorandum from Perkins Thompson
  ● 1/24 Memorandum from Drummond Woodsum




{P1999406.4} 23


 Page 33
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Amend ARTICLE III., BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, Section 5, School Budget, as follows:

Prior to the submission of a school budget, the school board and
city council shall establish a Joint Committee on Budget
Guidance, consisting of four city councilors and four school
board members, appointed by the Mayor and school board chair,
respectively. The purpose of the joint committee is to develop
guidance for the city and school district on budget priorities
and constraints, covering a two-year period and updated
annually. The joint committee shall obtain public comment on the
guidance prior to submitting the guidance as a proposed non-
binding joint resolution to the city council and school board
for their approval.

Not later than three and one-half (3.5) months before the end of
the fiscal year, the superintendent shall submit to the school
board budget estimates of the various sums required for the
support of public schools for the ensuing fiscal year and shall
thereafter provide the school board with such information
relating to such estimates as the school board shall require.

During the thirty (30) days following submission of the
superintendent’s proposed budget to the school board, the school
board and the city council, or their designated subcommittees,
shall meet jointly at least twice to review the proposed school
budget, focusing on its underlying assumptions and supporting
data and the ability of the city to raise the necessary funds
for the support of such proposed budget. The superintendent and
the city manager shall provide information regarding such
proposed budget as reasonably requested by the school board and
the city council, or their designated representatives.

The budget submitted by the superintendent to be reviewed
jointly by the school board and the city council shall provide a
complete financial plan of all school funds and activities for
the ensuing fiscal year. In organizing the school budget for
jjoint review by the school board, the superintendent shall
utilize the most feasible combination of expenditure
classification by fund, organization, unit, program, purpose or
activity, and object. The budget shall begin with a clear
general summary of its contents; shall show in detail all
estimated income and all proposed expenditures, including debt

{P1999406.4} 24


 Page 34
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

service for the ensuing fiscal year; and shall be so arranged as
to show comparative figures for actual and estimated income and
expenditures of the current fiscal year and actual income and
expenditures of the preceding fiscal year. The total of proposed
expenditures shall not exceed the total of proposed income.

Not later than the last Monday in April of each fiscal year, the
school board shall submit to the city council prepare a budget
of the various sums required for the support of the public
schools for the ensuing fiscal year in the format provided
above, and shall thereafter provide the city council with such
information relating to such budget as the city council shall
require.

The school board shall hold aA budget hearing on such budget
estimates shall be held at least seven (7) days prior to final
action by the city councildetermining the total amount of the
school budget. Within a reasonable period of time, the city
council may, at its discretion and after holding a public
hearing, provide a nonbinding resolution with its
recommendations to the school board for consideration. The
school board may or may not adopt, in whole or in part, the
recommendations of the city council. The city council shall
thereafter submit the school budget determined by the school
board to a budget validation referendum. If the voters
discontinue use of the budget validation referendum process, the
city council shall instead submit the school budget to a
municipal school budget referendum. The warrant calling the
budget validation referendum or the school budget referendum
shall include voter information containing the amount of locally
raised funds and the amounts for each cost center summary budget
category proposed by the school board.

The city council in its appropriation resolve for the ensuing
year shall, in addition to amounts appropriated for other
general city purposes, appropriate one gross amount for the
support of the public schools, which amount shall equal the
greater of (i) the amount adopted by the voters at the school
budget validation referendum or, if discontinued, at the budget
referendum, as appropriate, or (ii) not be less than the sum
required to be appropriated for such purposes by the general
laws of the state. Such gross amount shall not be less than the
sum requested by the school board except by a vote of at least
six (6) members of the city council. Such appropriation shall be
expended under the direction and control of the school board but


{P1999406.4} 25


 Page 35
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

no such appropriation shall be exceeded except by consent of the
city council or the voters. (Referendum 6/13/78; 11/2/10)




{P1999406.4} 26


 Page 36
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


3. Capital Improvement Program Process

Summary

 This proposed amendment is intended to address recommendations raised in public
comments to seek greater parity for the Superintendent and School Board in the discussions
around and decisions affecting Portland Public Schools. The proposal would explicitly include
the Superintendent in the capital improvement program (CIP) planning process on an equal
footing as the City.

 This proposal is similar to the process used in Auburn, which has the following language
in its Charter (as referenced in an 8/11/2021 memorandum from Drummond Woodsum to the
superintendent of Portland Public Schools):

 The city manager and superintendent must jointly prepare and submit to a joint
 meeting of the council and school board a multi-year CIP before submission of
 the budget, and must publish a general summary of the CIP. The CIP must be
 revised and extended each year with regard to capital improvements pending or in
 process of construction or acquisition. (§§ 8.9, 8.10)

 Sanford also includes the Superintendent in the development of the CIP process (as
referenced in an 8/11/2021 memorandum from Drummond Woodsum to the superintendent of
Portland Public Schools):

 The city manager and the superintendent annually prepare and submit to the
 budget committee a 5-year CIP. The budget committee reviews the CIP and
 makes recommendations to the council for approval. The city creates annual
 reserves for the CIP by raising and appropriating at least 4% of the budget each
 year. Projects funded by the CIP include road maintenance, vehicular
 replacements, roofing projects, major building renovations, major equipment
 purchase, airport projects, new buildings and the like. (§ 610)




{P1999406.4} 27


 Page 37
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

 Amend ARTICLE VI., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, Section 5. Appointment; qualifications;
 powers and duties of the city manager, in the second paragraph, subparagraph (i), as follows:

Section 5. Appointment; qualifications; powers and duties of
the city managerChief Operating Officer (COO).
 …
 The city managerCOO's powers and duties shall be as follows:
 …
 (i) To jointly prepare with the Portland Public Schools
 superintendent a five (5) year rolling capital
 improvement plan, at the direction of the mayor, for
 annual presentation by the mayor to a joint meeting of
 the city council and school board, which plan includes
 the following:

 1. A one (1) year plan of specific projects
 and their cost.

 2. A two (2) through five (5) year plan of specific
 projects and general categories, and amounts of
 proposed spending and funding sources; and

 3. A discussion of the basis for the plan and the
 factors which went into its development or
 amendments; and

 3.4. A listing and discussion of capital improvements
 pending or in process of construction or
 acquisition.




{P1999406.4} 28


 Page 38
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


C. Elections Committee

 1. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting

 2. Universal Resident Voting

 3. Clean Elections

 4. Redistricting




{P1999406.4} 29


 Page 39
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


1. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting Proposal


Summary

The Elections Committee prepared this proposal to permit the use of Proportional Ranked
Choice Voting (PRCV) in multiple-seat elections. In the election of at-large seats for the Charter
Commission, multipass Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) was been used with a 50% threshold as
required by the existing Charter, rather than the lower threshold recommended by the RCV
Resource Center. There was some criticism of the election results for that reason. To address
that criticism and to permit flexibility, the proposal allows the City Clerk to choose a PRCV
system that the City Council has authorized. At least one Commissioner observes that while
regular RCV favors coalition building and PRCV may not have as great an effect in that respect,
PRCV may achieve more representative voting results – that PCRV is fairer than RCV.


Text

Proportional Ranked Choice Voting Proposal

Amend ARTICLE II., City Council, Section 3. Ranked choice voting; instant runoff to add Section
3(f) as follows:


(f) For elections conducted by ranked choice voting where more
than one person is to be elected to a single office (i.e., a
multiple seat election), the winners may be determined by a
proportional method of ranked choice voting. Such method shall
provide for candidates to be elected on the basis of thresholds
determined by the number of seats to be filled plus one, ballots
to be counted in rounds, votes to be transferred from defeated
candidates, and for votes, in fractions or in whole, in excess
of the threshold to be transferred from elected candidates. The
City Council shall by ordinance establish such a proportional
ranked choice voting system.




{P1999406.4} 30


 Page 40
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


2. Universal Resident Voting

Summary

The Elections Committee undertook an extensive process in development of this proposal to
allow voting by all Portland residents, whether or not U.S. citizens, in municipal elections. Non-
citizens are unable to vote in State and federal elections. The Committee believes that extending
the right to vote in municipal elections to all Portland residents is a matter of fundamental
fairness, so that all who live in and contribute to the community may vote on how the community
is governed.

Commissioner Pat Washburn as well as the Committee's legal advisor consulted with Beth
Stickney, Executive Director of the Maine Immigrant Business Coalition, to create protections
within the Charter language that would help (though not ensure) safeguards are in place to
inform and educate non-citizens of their rights in municipal elections as well as of restrictions
and consequences for voting in state/federal elections.

The Committee and the Commission are aware of concerns 1) whether the proposal is a lawful
exercise of municipal home rule charter authority where State law establishes voter
qualifications, and 2) whether there could be unintended consequences and impacts upon
immigrants who register and vote in municipal elections, but a majority of the Commission
believes this is an important measure to promote justice that should be brought to the voters to
decide.


Text

Amend ARTICLE IV., ELECTIONS, by amending Section 11, State election laws applicable, and
adding Section 11-A, Municipal voter qualifications, as follows:


Section 11. State election laws applicable.

 The laws of the state in Title 21-A of the Revised Statutes
relating to the qualifications of electors, registration, the
manner of voting, the duties of election officials, and all other
particulars in respect to preparation for conducting and managing
elections, so far as they may be applicable, shall govern all
municipal elections in the City of Portland, except as provided
below regarding 42-day pre-election reports, municipal voter
qualifications under Section 11-A, and as otherwise provided
herein.

 In addition to the reports required for municipal
candidates by Title 21-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, 42-day
pre-election reports must be filed by municipal candidates no
later than 11:59 p.m. on the 42nd day before the date on which a

{P1999406.4} 31


 Page 41
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

general election is held and must be complete as of the 49th day
before that date.

 Nothing in this charter shall prohibit the use of
electronic or revised voting methods and procedures to the
extent authorized by state and/or federal law. (Referenda
11/4/08; 11/6/2018)

Section 11-A. Municipal voter qualifications.

 The right of all persons, regardless of United States
citizenship status, who are of legal voting age, as determined
under 21-A M.R.S. § 111(2), and are residents of Portland, as
determined under 21-A M.R.S. § 112, to vote in municipal
elections and on municipal initiatives is established.
Hereinafter, “municipal voter” shall refer to any person who, on
the date of the election, (1) is a resident of Portland; (2) is
of legal voting age; (3) meets all qualifications for
registering or pre-registering to vote under 21-A M.R.S. § 111,
except for possessing United States citizenship; (4) and
registers or has registered to vote in municipal elections in
Portland under this Section.

 To ensure and protect the right of municipal voters to vote
in municipal elections and on municipal initiatives, the city
council shall by ordinance implement a municipal voter protocol
that must comply with the following:

 (a) Registration forms.
 i. Registration forms for municipal voters shall
 be distinct from registration forms for state
 and federal elections and shall state that
 municipal voters will be registered for
 municipal elections only and are not qualified
 to vote in state or federal elections;
 ii. Registration forms for municipal voters shall
 not include questions regarding immigration or
 citizenship status and no inquiry shall be made
 as to the immigration status of a potential
 municipal voter or municipal voter;
 iii. Registration forms for municipal voters shall
 be translated in a manner consistent with
 translations of the statewide registration
 forms;
 iv. Registration forms for municipal voters shall
 include the following notice: “IMPORTANT NOTICE

{P1999406.4} 32


 Page 42
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 FOR NON-UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Any information
 you provide on this municipal voter
 registration form, including your name and
 address, may be obtained by Immigration and
 Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies,
 organizations, and individuals. Additionally,
 if you apply for naturalization, you will be
 asked whether you have ever registered or voted
 in a federal, state, or local election in the
 United States and, if you have, you will have
 to provide an explanation. It is advisable that
 you consult with an immigration attorney or an
 organization that protects immigrant rights
 before providing any information on this form
 and before registering as a municipal voter.
 You can find information on how to contact
 local immigration attorneys and organizations
 that protect immigrant rights at
 portlandmaine.gov.”
 (b) Public education regarding municipal registration and
 voting. Public education efforts shall be undertaken
 in multiple languages to advise Portland residents
 about municipal voter registration and the risks for
 municipal voters participating in municipal elections.
 Portland residents shall have access to written
 information regarding registering as municipal voters.
 Such information shall be translated into all of the
 languages listed on the Portland Public Schools’ list
 of home languages, updated annually, and shall be made
 available in multiple formats, including without
 limitation, on a dedicated page on the City of
 Portland’s website and in printed form at the city
 clerk’s office. At a minimum, the following
 information must be included:
 i. Municipal voters are eligible to vote in
 municipal elections only and are not eligible
 to vote in state or federal elections;
 ii. Under federal immigration law, there are severe
 consequences for persons who are not United
 States citizens and who vote in state and/or
 federal elections. These consequences include
 denial of permanent residency or naturalization
 to U.S. citizenship, a finding of
 inadmissibility, and deportation;

{P1999406.4} 33


 Page 43
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 iii. Upon request by the registered municipal voter
 or formerly-registered municipal voter, the
 City shall provide such individual with a
 written confirmation of the dates during which
 the individual was registered as a municipal
 voter and an explanation of the municipal
 voter’s rights and privileges afforded under
 this Section;
 iv. Before registering as a municipal voter, it is
 advisable to consult with an immigration lawyer
 or an organization that protects the rights of
 immigrants;
 v. Information regarding how to find immigration
 attorneys and organizations that protect the
 rights of immigrants;
 vi. The City cannot guarantee that municipal voter
 registration rolls will not become public or be
 accessed by federal immigration officials or
 other agencies or individuals.
 (c) Municipal voters shall be identified on the City’s
 voter registration rolls, however lists of municipal
 voters shall not be published, distributed, or
 otherwise provided to the public or any governmental
 agency separately from a complete voter registration
 list of all voters qualified to vote in a municipal
 election in Portland;
 (d) Procedures shall be established to safeguard against
 municipal voters receiving state and federal ballots,
 including the production of separate ballots, clearly
 marked as “Municipal Ballot”, to be distributed to
 municipal voters whenever a municipal election occurs
 on the same date and in the same district as an
 election in which a municipal voter is not eligible to
 vote;
 (e) Training shall be provided to election officials
 regarding, at a minimum, municipal voter registration,
 qualifications, and eligibility to vote only in
 municipal elections;
 (f) Upon request by the registered municipal voter or
 formerly-registered municipal voter, the City shall
 provide such individual with a written confirmation of
 the dates during which the individual was registered
 as a municipal voter and an explanation of the
 municipal voter’s rights and privileges afforded under

{P1999406.4} 34


 Page 44
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 this Section;
 (g) Procedures shall be established to facilitate
 meaningful review at pre-determined intervals by local
 advocacy groups, community associations, and
 immigration attorneys to determine whether the City
 needs to revise the municipal voter protocols;
 (h) The City shall maintain on its website contact
 information of local immigration attorneys and
 organizations that protect immigrant rights. These
 attorneys and organizations must be able to provide
 potential municipal voters with information regarding
 their rights and the consequences of registering
 and/or voting as a municipal voter under this Section;
 and
 (i) Procedures shall be established to allow municipal
 voters to cancel their municipal voter registration,
 to change their address, and, whenever applicable, to
 change their municipal voter registration to reflect
 United States citizenship status and eligibility to
 vote in municipal, state, and federal elections.




{P1999406.4} 35


 Page 45
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


3. Clean Elections


Summary

Clean Elections – Public Financing of Municipal Elections, Elections Committee

 “Those who do not have the money or time, and who do not belong to pre-
 existing organizations with resources, are less able to participate and less likely
 to have their needs taken into account when policies are decided. The result is a
 system nominally based on equal rights but whose natural structure, without
 effort, will produce unequal participation and influence ....Tools designed to
 bring more small donors into the system are meant to enlarge the table – to help
 give more people, and different kinds of people, a meaningful voice. They work
 by giving those who do have the resources to mobilize – candidates, parties and
 other donor mobilizers – an incentive to pay attention to those who do not. This
 concern goes to the heart of successful democratic representation.”
 - Michael J. Malbin and Michael Parrott, in The Forum, A Journal of
 Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

This report includes background, research, recommendations, and the proposed language for a
program that provides public financing for campaigns to qualifying candidates. For clarity we
will be calling the program “Clean Elections,” a term familiar to Maine voters as a similar
program exists for statewide races under this name.

History of Clean Elections Advocacy in Portland:

The Elections Committee took up the issue of public financing of municipal elections as one of
its first recommendations to consider. The question to form a charter commission was put on the
July 2020 ballot by the City Council. The Council did so in response to advocacy group, Fair
Elections Portland, and their proposal to, by charter amendment, create a public financing
program for local races. Corporation Counsel determined that the proposal could not be executed
by ordinance or charter amendment, but instead required a Charter revision and therefore the
formation of a Charter Commission due to the proposal’s requirement for annual funding from
the Council. In October 2019, councilors agreed to put the question of forming a Charter
Commission out to voters. In July 2020 voters approved the opening of the Charter, and the
following spring, an election was held to nominate 9 commissioners along with 3 appointed
commissioners to the Charter Commission. Nearly every candidate who ran reported that
they supported a clean elections program in some form.12

What is public financing of elections?

1 Portland Press Herald: https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/01/court-upholds-portlands-position-to-pursue-clean-
elections-proposal-as-a-charter-revision/
2 Portland Press Herald: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/10/22/portland-to-ask-voters-for-a-charter-commission/


{P1999406.4} 36


 Page 46
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Often known colloquially as “Clean Elections” in Maine and across the country, public financing
of elections is a widely popular idea with bipartisan support in the state and across the nation.3
These programs offer public campaign funds to candidates who meet qualifying criteria. Funds
come from a public program – usually supported through tax payer revenue, municipal or state
fees, private donations, or seed contributions from candidates.

Qualifying candidates must meet certain criteria spelled out by the program in order to
participate and make use of the funds. How candidates qualify, the amount of funding they’re
offered, and other details vary from state to state and program to program. Generally programs
put limitations on where donations come from and from whom, and often put contribution or
fundraising limits. Rules vary widely and different programs are set up and managed in different
ways. Some of the different clean elections programs that are in place across the country are
described later in this report.

Why public financing for elections?

Public financing of elections has long been considered a key mechanism to mitigating corporate
and moneyed interests in politics. These programs do so by limiting the amount, and often the
source, of campaign contributions to candidates who elect to participate in the program.

Clean elections programs also increase opportunities for candidates to run for elected office. Just
four years into the Maine Clean Elections program, the Maine Ethics Commission noted that the
fund encouraged more first-time candidates, especially women, encouraged challengers to
incumbents, and controlled spending growth overall for candidates.4 A Stanford study comparing
Maine and Arizona programs found that clean elections improved the overall quality and
competitiveness of candidates, especially non-incumbent challengers.5

By creating a more even playing field, Clean Elections empower candidates without access to
wealth (whether personal, family, or social networks) to run. As evidenced by these programs'
success in other cities, a municipal clean elections program in Portland will help increase the
diversity of candidates across race, gender, and socio-economic class, and offer more choices to
voters at the polls.6

3Report on For The People Act, including Small Donor Public Financing Program for Federal Elections
https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/01-25-
21%20HR%201%20Bipartisan%20Memo%20330pm.pdf
4 2007 Report on the Maine Clean Elections Act,
https://www.mainecleanelections.org/sites/default/files/research/2007_study_report.pdf

5 Malhotra, Neil, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Fall 2008): pp. 263–
281https://web.stanford.edu/~neilm/The%20Impact%20of%20Public%20Financing%20on%20Electoral%20Compe
tition.pdf
6 Elisabeth Genn et al., Donor Diversity Trough Public Matching Funds, Brennan Center for

Justice and Campaign Finance Institute, 2006 http://cfinst.org/pdf/state/ny/DonorDiversity.pdf
{P1999406.4} 37


 Page 47
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Across the country, the benefits of Clean Elections systems are felt. In a study by the think tank
Demos, researchers found that in Connecticut, Clean Elections programs meant that legislators
were able to spend more time interfacing with constituents. The program also helped voters
engage more deeply in the legislative process around issues they cared about, and empowered
legislators to pass more policies popular with the public.7

New York City also reported that public elections financing helped improve timeliness of
candidates campaign spending disclosures.8

Lastly, while Clean Elections funds cannot entirely override the influence of corporate or outside
spending due to the influence of Citizens United, Clean Elections programs allow candidates to
spend less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents. Because they are
guaranteed enough funds to run a competitive campaign, per the design of the program, publicly
financed candidates find they are able to distinguish themselves in a field, even against privately
funded candidates. A program that prohibits Clean Elections candidates from utilizing any funds
outside of their public allocation (like Maine’s program requires) could be the most effective at
curbing escalating elections costs and the influence of corporate money in Portland.

What’s in Portland’s Clean Election Proposal?

The Elections Committee proposal does not prescribe a specific type of program, but simply
requires that some sort of public fund for elections exist. The Council by Ordinance shall set up
the specifics of the program.

It asks the city to annually fund the program, and to ensure that there is adequate funding to offer
candidates enough to run competitive campaigns.

The program is voluntary. This is essential to the Constitutionality of the program. It is of
utmost importance that the Council in its ordinance ensures that measures passed do not
jeopardize the voluntariness of the program.

Stipulations of the program include that it must only be available to candidates who demonstrate
public support. (In the statewide program, this is done through candidates collecting a certain
number of “qualifying contributions” of $5.) The Portland program must limit the amount of
private funds that can be raised, but no specific limit is set in the Charter. Candidates must agree
to only use funds provided by the program, except for the limited amount of private funds
stipulated by ordinance.

After 100 days, all unused funds will be returned to the program.

7 Cha, J Mijin & Rapaport, Miles Fresh Start: The Impact of Public Financing in Connecticut, Demos, 2013
8 New York City Campaign Finance Board, “Impact of Public Funds” https://www.nyccfb.info/program/impact-of-
public-funds/

{P1999406.4} 38


 Page 48
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


An agreement of the program is that all candidates must participate in a city-sponsored forum or
voter engagement event. This is modeled after Seattle’s Democracy Voucher ordinance, which
requires candidates to participate in 3 debates.9

In Maine, the City Clerk is the Elections Officer, and therefore this program will be overseen by
the Clerk's office, and provided, per this Charter proposal, with adequate paid staff for
implementation.

Elections Committee Process:

The Elections Committee took up clean elections early in our process and hosted three public
workshops:

 ● September 21, 2021, we interviewed the following experts from both Maine and
 nationwide.
 ○ Anna Kellar - Executive Director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections & the
 League of Women Voters
 ○ Emma Burke, Candidate Registrar, Maine Ethics Commission
 ○ Tom Watkowski - Democracy Policy Network, & Los Angeles for Democracy
 Vouchers
 ○ Cindy Black - Executive Direct for Fix Democracy First, advisor for Seattle
 Democracy Voucher Program

 You can find resources from these presentations in the resource section of this
 report. We highly encourage the council to watch the recording of this meeting to
 get information about the different forms programs can take.

 ● December 7, 2021: Elections Committee workshopped the Clean Elections Proposal,
 drafted by Commissioner Buxton. Public comment included considerations to add
 campaign contribution limits, corporate contribution ban, restrictions on how funds could
 be spent.

 ● December 21, 2021: Elections Committee workshopped a second draft of proposal,
 which included some additional changes:
 ● Stronger language mandating consistent funding provided by council, submitted
 by Commissioner Chann.
 ● Stipulation to return unused funds to the program for all participating candidates
 ● Requirement to make campaign contributions searchable in online database, per
 advice of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections

9 Seattle City Code, Honest Election, 2.04.620,
https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT2EL_CH2.04ELCACO_SUBCHAPTE
R_VIIIHOELSE_2.04.620DEVOIS

{P1999406.4} 39


 Page 49
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 ● Added language about paid staff within the office of City Clerk
 ● Added new section on corporate contribution ban for municipal candidates.

Public Hearings & Votes:

 ● January 10, 2022: The Elections Committee hosted a public hearing for the proposal.

 During the hearing the following amendments were made:

 ● Language updated: Program to be administered by Office of City Clerk, with
 assistance of paid staff.
 ● Commissioner Buxton removed campaign contribution limit due to concern of
 legal threat posed to proposal.
 ● Commissioner Chann added a friendly amendment: fiscal note, utilizing LWV
 program cost estimate plus the cost of one mid-level staffer (60-80k per year)

 The committee unanimously voted to send the proposal to the full commission.

 ● January 19, 2022: The proposal approved by the Elections Committee first read by the
 full Charter Commission.

 ● March 9, 2022: The proposal, tabled for some time while waiting on a Maine Superior
 Court decision regarding a lawsuit from Fair Elections Portland, is picked up again for a
 new first read and clarifying questions.

 ● March 23, 2022: The proposal has a public hearing and vote. Proposal is approved
 unanimously with the following amendments:
 - Commissioner O’Brien added an amendment to prohibit financial gain in the form
 of city contracts from individual major donors to campaigns.
 Note: A similar such limitation exists in NYC.10
 - NOTE: This amendment did not make it into the language ratified by the
 Commission for our preliminary report.

 Proposal passes unanimously through commission. (11-0, Stewart Bouley
 absent.)

During the process we also consulted with:

 ● John Brautigam, Esq. - Lawyer, Fair Elections Portland board member, argued Maine’s
 Clean Elections with supreme court

10New York City Campaign Finance Board, Limits, https://www.nyccfb.info/candidate-services/limits-
thresholds/2017/

{P1999406.4} 40


 Page 50
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 ● John Wayne - Maine Elections Commission
 ● Kathy Jones - Portland, Maine City Clerk

Types of Clean Elections Programs:

As noted, Clean Elections programs can take a number of different forms.

*Starred programs are formats the Elections Committee recommends the Council consider in
Portland.

 - *Block Grant Program: Maine’s statewide Clean Election program follows this format.
 Candidates qualify, often by gathering small, grassroots contributions. (For Maine
 legislators, a few dozen qualifying contributions of $5 from 50-75 voters). Once
 qualified, candidates are given an allotted amount of campaign funds, and are restricted
 to using only those funds for their campaign expenses. Check out other rules for the
 Maine program here: Maine Clean Elections Act Rules
 - There are numerous benefits to this type of program. A number of research
 studies have shown it delivers on all the above mentioned advantages of clean
 elections programs. It can also help to curtail spending on elections, and is widely
 popular across parties in Maine.
 - One noted place where it falls short: The Maine program doesn’t go as far as
 other programs to encourage candidates to reach outside of their network. There
 are some incentives for voter engagement: Because candidates aren’t focused on
 fundraising they can spend more time with under-resourced neighborhoods or
 communities, but the program by design doesn’t incentivize this. Candidates
 could, in theory, just get their 50 qualifying contributions from 50 friends, and
 only outreach to their likely voters or known networks.

 - Small-Donor Matching Fund Program: Most familiarly used in New York & Los
 Angeles, Matching Fund programs will generally match grassroots or small donations
 below a certain threshold at a set rate. For example, in NYC and Los Angeles, the city
 matches donations 6 to 1, with public dollars. There is usually a campaign contribution
 limit that cities will match up to (In NYC, it’s up $175 per donor) and a total public
 contribution the city will give. (In NYC, they will give up to $7 million total public funds
 to a mayoral candidate. That’s a lot!)
 - Widely popular, with about 90% of candidates in primaries and 75% in general
 elections, NYC lists a number of benefits of their program, from increasing
 candidate diversity to promoting more incumbent challengers to increasing
 diversity of donors, and increasing the influence of small donors over large
 wealthy ones.



{P1999406.4} 41


 Page 51
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 - Results vary across programs, for example in Los Angeles the program has
 performed differently when compared to NYC. For example, LA historically has
 matched at a lower rate and their programs allows candidates to fundraise
 privately much more if they max out public funding available. Additionally, they
 are more permissive of qualifying contributions outside of the geography of the
 candidate, whereas NYC asks candidates to fundraise these contributions more
 within their district. Research finds that NYC’s small donors more accurately
 reflect the diversity of the city, whereas LA’s does not deliver as similar results.11
 - There are some concerns that matching grants programs don’t do enough to limit
 overall spending on elections.

 - Democracy Vouchers: A newer innovation in campaign financing, Democracy
 Vouchers is a system currently in place only in Seattle, WA, though there are efforts in
 Los Angeles, New Hampshire, and a number of other communities seeking to explore
 this system. The Democracy Vouchers system issues “vouchers” to all eligible voters,
 free of charge, who then can donate these vouchers back to their desired candidates.
 These candidates can redeem the vouchers for public campaign funds. Voters don’t have
 to contribute any of their own funds to use the vouchers. This is where the program
 differs from the others most: Democracy Vouchers capture the interests of voters who
 may not even be able to make those grassroots donations required in other programs.
 - In Seattle every voter received 4 vouchers of $25 to donate to any participating
 candidate. They could donate all to one candidate, or split them up, or use none of
 the vouchers. Seattle started with mail vouchers, but they now have an online
 system.
 - Implementation costs much higher than other programs, but experts we
 interviewed said that the program's benefits go beyond election financing.
 Because of the accompanying education campaign for the vouchers, there was an
 automatic voter engagement effort built into the program.
 - Adoption is slow, but studies have found positive results: Already the program
 has tripled the number of folks who contribute to candidates, and participation in
 the program doubled in just the second election cycle.12
 - Researchers found that the voucher program meant that donors were much more
 representative of the city, particularly by race, and more evenly distributed
 geographically.13


11 Malbin & Parrot, 2017, Small Donor Empowerment Depends on the Details: Comparing Matching Fund Programs in New
York and Los Angeles, The Forum https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2017-0015/html?lang=en

12 Democracy Voucher Internal Report, City of Seattle, https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/program-
data/internal-program-reports
13 McCabe & Heerwig, 2019 Diversifying the Donor Pool: How Did Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program
Reshape Participation in Municipal Campaign Finance?, https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/elj.2018.0534

{P1999406.4} 42


 Page 52
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


For more information and reading about the different forms a clean elections program may take,
please see the following resources as well as any of the research referenced in footnotes
throughout this document:

 ● Common Cause’s Public Financing of Campaigns Report: Offers helpful pros &
 cons of each type of existing program and example use cases across the country.
 ● Maine Citizen for Clean Elections Powerpoint
 ● Democracy Vouchers Resources
 ● Elections Committee Resources Folder

Additional components of Clean Elections proposal:

Section 13a: Corporate Contribution Ban

In 2021, the Maine State Legislature passed LD 1417. It will go into effect in early 2023.

The law bans corporate contributions statewide. In the Clean Elections proposal for Portland, the
Elections Committee included a ban on the municipal level. While this replicates the existing
statewide ban, this language was proposed so that in the event that the state wide ban is
overturned by the legislature, Portland’s would remain in effect for city races. City of Portland
races in the past have seen a huge influence of funding by private companies, with candidates
sometimes raising nearly 40-50% of their funds from businesses such as real estate developers.
The Elections Committee is so grateful to have LD 1417 passing in our state, and would like to
ensure its legacy in Portland, regardless of what happens in Augusta.

On the advice of our attorney, we added a provision to allow employees of a business to donate
personal funds to a Separate Segregated Fund should a company want to allow employees to
contribute in this way. This mirrors similar language in the Maine law as well.

Section 13b: Searchable Elections Database

The Clean Elections proposal also includes a stipulation that campaign contributions of all
candidates, whether they use private or public funds, will be made available to the public in a
searchable online database. One of the most important factors in having open, transparent
elections, and curbing the influence of corporate money in politics is for the public to have easy
access to all campaign contribution data. Currently, while Portland’s campaign contribution
information is available online, it is not available in a way that is easily accessible or searchable
for the average voter. Instead voters have to comb through scanned, often hand-written
documents, hidden deep on the city website, if they want to see what and how candidates are
using funds.

This amendment would help move the City towards addressing greater transparency in campaign
finance, which would be of even more importance should a public financing program be passed.

{P1999406.4} 43


 Page 53
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Fortunately, the City of Portland has reported that they are already working on a more
responsive electronic database for campaign spending reports, and it is the Committees’ hope
that this clause in the Charter will motivate compliance and adoption as soon as possible.
Likewise, there is pending legislation that may ask all towns with a certain population size to
move their campaign finance reporting to the Maine Ethics Commission, who has a much more
comprehensive and searchable system. This option would comply with the proposed charter
revision.

 COST ESTIMATE FOR
 CLEAN ELECTIONS PROGRAM IN PORTLAND, MAINE

Cost Estimate Compiled By: Commissioner Marpheen Chann (At-Large), Chair, Charter
Commission Ad Hoc Elections Committee

Initiative: Establishes a Clean Elections fund to be administered by paid staff within the Office
of the City Clerk, funds to be allocated by the City Council on an annual basis.

 COST ESTIMATE FY 23-24 FY 24-25
 POSITIONS 1.00 1.00
 Personal Services $87,733.73* $90,365.75
 All Other $200,000** $200,000

 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $287,734.73 $290,366.75




{P1999406.4} 44


 Page 54
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Amend ARTICLE IV., ELECTIONS, to add Section 12, Public financing of municipal elections,
and Section 13, Campaign finance rules, as follow:

Section 12. Public financing of municipal elections.

 The city council shall establish and fully fund a City of
Portland Clean Election Fund (hereinafter, the “Clean Election
Fund” or the “Fund”) to provide public campaign funds to
qualified candidates for elected municipal offices. The Clean
Election Fund must be available to candidates in municipal
elections beginning in 2024. Candidate participation in the
Clean Election Fund shall be voluntary.

 The city council shall provide an independent allocation
from the city’s budget each year to ensure the Clean Election
Fund is sustained at a level that facilitates competitive
campaigns for participating candidates who meet qualifying
criteria. The Clean Election Fund shall be administered by the
city clerk and the city council shall appropriate sufficient
funds to ensure there are adequate resources, including paid
staff, to effectively administer the Fund.

 The city council shall maintain an ordinance directing the
operation of the Clean Election Fund. The ordinance shall direct
that the Clean Election Fund must:

 (a) Limit the amount of private funds a participating
 candidate may raise;
 (b) Be limited to candidates who
 i. demonstrate public support;
 ii. enter into a binding agreement stating that the
 candidate will not accept private contributions
 other than those which are permitted by the
 Clean Election Fund; and
 iii. agree to participate in at least one (1) city-
 sponsored forum or voter education event.
 (c) Require that all unused funds from a participating
 candidate’s campaign be returned to the Clean Election
 Fund within one hundred (100) days after the date of
 the election.

 The city council may adopt additional regulations and
ordinances not inconsistent with this section.


{P1999406.4} 45


 Page 55
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

Section 13. Campaign finance rules.

 (a) Corporate Contributions. A business entity may not
 make contributions to any candidate for municipal
 office. The term “business entity” refers to a firm,
 partnership, corporation, incorporated association, or
 other organization, whether organization as a for-
 profit or a nonprofit entity. A separate segregated
 fund committee may not make contributions to any
 candidate for municipal office using funds that
 derive, in whole or in part, from a business entity.
 Where a business entity establishes a separate
 segregated fund committee, that business entity may
 provide the separate segregated fund committee with
 the use of offices, telephones, computers and similar
 equipment when that use does not result in additional
 cost to the business entity.
 (b) Campaign Contributions Reporting. All contributions to
 campaigns for candidates or ballot questions must be
 reported to the city clerk, in conformance with any
 applicable State law. The clerk must establish a
 searchable, online, and publicly-accessible database
 of all information included in all registrations and
 campaign finance reports filed with the clerk.




{P1999406.4} 46


 Page 56
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


4.Redistricting Proposal


Summary

The Elections Committee initially proposed to increase the number of district City Councilors
from 5 to 10, with 3 at-large seats, for a total of 13 Councilors. District lines would be drawn by
the City Council and adjusted as now happens under a State law requiring a reapportionment
ordinance after each decennial census. (The Mayor still would be a member of the Council
under this proposal, which currently is separate from the Governance Model.)

The Committee believes that a larger City Council would provide more direct representation of
more diverse populations and interests, would allow more Councilors to introduce legislation and
would reduce the overburdening of Councilors with committee assignments and work that now
occurs. A majority of Commissioners saw during their campaigns that there was much interest
among voters to broaden representation and diversity and for the Council to be more directly
representative.

The Elections Committee looked at nationwide research comparing compositions of city councils
and how electives are represented: at-large, solely in districts, or a combination of both. We were
especially interested in how these systems produced elected bodies that are representative of a
population, and how candidates of color were served, or not, by these different methods. While
at-large systems often disserve representation for minority populations, this is usually contingent
on minority populations being geographically concentrated. Research shows that this does not
hold true for populations that were more spread out or were a much smaller percentage of the
larger population. (As is the case for non-white populations in Portland.)

The Committee also heard from members of the public, as well as existing and former Council
members, that they found at-large seats were useful in building coalitions regardless of
geography and for including a more city-wide perspective in council decisions and legislation.
While increasing district seats will bring increased neighborhood representation to the council,
maintaining at-large seats will provide three representatives on the Council who will be elected
by all Portland voters, plus the popularly elected mayor."

After a public hearing on the proposal and deliberation, the Commission amended the proposal
to increase the number to 12 Councilors -- 9 district and 3-at large. Recognizing the benefit of
increased direct representation for the School Board as well, the Commission further amended
the proposal to provide that the three current at-large School Board seats would become elected
on a district basis. In this way, the City would have the same nine districts for the City Council
and the School Board, City Council representation would be increased, and more direct
representation would be achieved on the School Board.




{P1999406.4} 47


 Page 57
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text


1. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 1. City to be divided into election districts in
 the second paragraph, as follows

For the purpose of all elections the city, including its
islands, shall be divided into five (5) nine (9) districts to
establish compact and contiguous districts of approximately
equal population.

2. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 2. Composition, election, tenure of office, as
 follows:

The city council shall be composed of nine (9) twelve (12)
members, including the mayor who shall be one of the nine (9)
members of the city council, and shall hold office for a term
of three (3) years and until their successors are elected and
qualified, except as provided below for the term of mayor and
for four new districts one at large seat in the election of 2013
2023 only. Four Three (43) members, including the mayor, shall
be elected at large from and by the registered voters of the
entire city, and one (1) shall be elected from each of the five
(5)nine (9) districts heretofore provided for, from and by the
registered voters of each district. References in this charter
to the city council, councilors, council, its members or
membership, shall be deemed to include the mayor, unless
otherwise specifically provided.

For the municipal election in November of 20132023, one of the
two at large seats up for election shall have a one-time four
year term ending in 2017. Thereafter, the council term shall
return to be three (3) years for this seat. The city clerk
shall designate which seat shall be for the four (4) year term
prior to the availability of nomination papers for the 2013
election, and nomination papers shall be separately issued for
reach of the two at large seats. Each at large candidate may
take out and file nomination papers for only one of the at large
seats. The municipal ballot will list the 4-year and 3-year
council seats as separate questions. one of the new districts
shall have a one-time one year term ending in 2024, two of the
new districts shall have a one-time two year term ending in
2025, and one of the new districts shall be elected for the
standard three year term. Thereafter, the council term for all
seats shall return to be three (3) years for the respective
seats. The city clerk shall designate which seats shall be for


{P1999406.4} 48


 Page 58
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

the one (1) year term, two (2) year term, and three (3) year
term, and nomination papers shall be issued for each seat.

All candidates must be residents of the city for a period of at
least three (3) months prior to the date on or before which
nomination papers are to be filed. The candidate from each of
the five (5) nine (9) districts must be a resident of such
district for a period of at least three (3) months prior to the
date on or before which the nomination papers are to be filed.

Beginning with the regular municipal election in November, 2011,
the at large position then up for election shall be designated
as the mayor’s position and shall continue as the mayor’s
position thereafter. The position of mayor only shall be
elected by majority vote as provided in section 3 of this
article. The candidate(s) for mayor shall be nominated in the
same manner as other at large members of the council. The term
of mayor shall be four (4) years, with a maximum limit of two
consecutive terms. The election and position of mayor shall be a
non-partisan, full-time position. (Referenda 12/1/75; 6/13/78;
11/4/86; 11/3/87; 11/2/10; 11/6/12)

3. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 5. Mayor’s powers and duties,(k) and (l), as
 follows:

 (k) To chair any subcommittee with at least two (2)
 other city councilors to recommend the appointment or
 removal of the city manager, corporation counsel or the
 city clerk, but the full city council shall have the
 final decision in regard to such appointment or removal
 by a vote of at least seven (7) five (5) members of the
 council; and

 (l) To appoint the members and chairs of the city
 council committees and various ad hoc committees and
 communicate such appointments to the city council,
 which may override such appointments by a vote of at
 least six (6) eight(8) council members.

4. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 9. Special meetings, as follows:

Special meetings may be called by the mayor, and in case of his
or her absence, disability, or refusal, may be called by five
(5) seven (7) or more members of the city council. At least
twenty-four (24) hours notice of the time and place of holding
such special meeting shall be given to all members of the city
council. (Referendum 11/2/10)

{P1999406.4} 49


 Page 59
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



5. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 10. Quorum, as follows:

Five (5) Seven (7) members of the city council shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from time to time. At least twenty-four (24) hours
notice of the time and place of holding such adjourned meeting
shall be given to all members who were not present at the
meeting from which adjournment was taken. (Referendum 11/2/10)

6. Amend ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL, Section 11. Procedure in the second and third
 paragraphs, as follows:

No ordinance and no appropriation order or resolve shall be
passed until it has been read on two separate days, except when
the requirement of a second reading on a separate day has been
dispensed with by the vote of at least seven (7) nine (9)
members of the city council. The yeas and nays shall be taken
upon the passage of all ordinances and entered on the record of
the proceedings of the city council by the clerk. The yeas and
nays shall be taken on the passage of any order or resolve when
called for by any member of the city council. Every ordinance,
order, and resolve shall require on final passage the
affirmative vote of at least five (5) a majority of those
members present and voting so long as a quorum of seven (7)
members of the city council is present. No ordinance shall take
effect until thirty (30) days after its passage and no order or
resolve shall take effect until ten (10) days after its passage,
except as herein otherwise provided for emergency ordinances,
orders and resolves.

The city council may, by vote of at least seven (7) nine (9) of
its members, pass emergency ordinances, orders, or resolves to
take effect at the time indicated therein, but such emergency
ordinances, orders, or resolves shall contain a section in which
the emergency is set forth and defined, provided, however, that
the declaration of such emergency by the city council shall be
conclusive. (Referendum 11/2/10)

7. Amend ARTICLE III., BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, Section 11. Procedure in the
 second and third paragraphs, as follows:

Section 1. Composition, election, tenure of office,
compensation.

 The board of public education shall be composed of nine (9)
members who shall hold office, except as hereinafter provided,

{P1999406.4} 50


 Page 60
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

for a term of three (3) years and until their successors are
elected and qualified. Four (4) shall be elected at large from
and by the registered voters of the entire city, and oOne (1)
shall be elected from each of the five (5)nine (9) districts
heretofore provided for in section 1 of article II, from and by
the registered voters of each such district.

To transition from the mix of district and at-large seats to all
district seats, members who were elected to at-large seats shall
serve until their current terms expire; for the municipal
election in November of 2023, the at-large seat of the member
whose term is then expiring shall become one of the new district
seats; for the municipal election in November of 2024, the at-
large seat of the member whose term is then expiring shall
become the second of the new district seats; and for the
municipal election in 2025, the remaining two at-large seats of
the members whose terms are then expiring shall become the third
and fourth of the new district seats.

 All candidates must be residents of the city for a period
of at least three (3) months prior to the date on or before
which nomination papers are to be filed. The candidate from each
of the five (5)nine (3) districts must be a resident of such
district for a period of at least three (3) months prior to the
date on or before which the nomination papers are to be filed.

 The city council shall by order establish the amount each
member of the school board shall be entitled to receive as
compensation for all services rendered, which compensation shall
be the same as that received by members of the city council,
other than the mayor. The city council shall provide additional
compensation to the chair of the school board appropriate to
reflect his or her additional responsibilities as chair.
(Referenda 11/2/76; 6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/3/87; 11/2/10)

8. Amend ARTICLE VI., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, Section 1. Appointments, (a), as
 follows:

Section 1. Appointments.

(a) The following officers shall be appointed by vote of at
least five (5) seven (7) members of the city council: city
manager, city clerk, and corporation counsel, and they may
appoint constables at large.




{P1999406.4} 51


 Page 61
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


9. Amend ARTICLE VII., BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, Section 8. Mayoral veto
 of general city purposes appropriations in the appropriation resolve, in the third paragraph,
 as follows:

 An order to override the veto shall be placed on the next
city council agenda which is at least five (5) calendar days
after the date of the mayor’s veto communication, and such veto
may be overridden by a vote of at least six (6) eight (8)
members of the city council. The mayor shall not vote on such
override item.




{P1999406.4} 52


 Page 62
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


D. Governance Committee

 1. Governance Model

 2. Mayor’s Economic Development Duties

 3. Peaks Island Council Proposal




{P1999406.4} 53


 Page 63
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


10. Governance Model Proposal


Summary

 Introduction to Governance Proposal

The proposed governance model represents the fruits of many hours of research and discussion.
No single commissioner is responsible for it; no single commissioner can claim they got
everything they wanted. It is based in considerable areas of agreement and offers significant
improvements to Portland’s system of government.

This proposal seeks to establish a balanced and thoughtful government that is accessible to
citizens and responsive to their concerns. Under this plan, most decision-making is centered in
the hands of elected officials—the mayor and city councilors—who are directly responsible to
the ultimate source of governing power: the voters. At the root of the reforms proposed here is a
desire to establish effective and transparent citywide policy leadership that is directly
accountable to voters. The main changes are grouped below under subheadings. The final section
describes the commission’s methodology.

Executive Mayor

This proposed reform designates the mayor the city’s chief executive. However, it stops short of
granting the mayor all the powers of traditional “strong” mayor systems. This proposal gives the
mayor the power to propose the city budget, the power to veto the budget (including
supplemental appropriations), and executive leadership over the city. The proposal would give
the council the power to amend the budget, and to override the mayor’s veto by a two-thirds
majority.

Critics of the current system have argued that the mayor lacks enough power to implement a
policy agenda. Portland’s first elected mayor, Mike Brennan, testified that one way to solve this
issue is to give the mayor the power to propose the budget. This proposal would do that.

The mayor no longer would be a member of the council. The mayor’s duties regarding the
council would be limited to facilitating meetings by presiding over them, and setting meeting
agendas. However, the mayor would lack a council vote. The decision to keep the mayor
involved with council meetings is rooted in a desire to ensure that the mayor is fully informed of
all council policy decisions and the intent behind those decisions. The decision to deny the
mayor a council seat and vote was rooted in a desire to limit the mayor’s power.

The mayor would also lack the power to veto the council’s policy or legislative decisions. The
decision to withhold this power from the mayor, as well as to prohibit the mayor from
unilaterally firing or hiring officials, is rooted in a desire to prevent the mayor from being as
strong as mayors in cities like Westbrook, Maine, and Burlington, Vermont, both of which have
traditional strong-mayor systems.



{P1999406.4} 54


 Page 64
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


City Manager changes to Chief Operating Officer

Under this proposal, the City Manager position transitions to a Chief Operating Officer (“COO”)
who is expected to contribute expertise and management of day-to-day activities, but to report to
the mayor. This official would be hired through the same hiring process for department heads:
nominated by the Executive Committee and confirmed by the council. The official is modeled on
Westbrook’s City Administrator, who has provided stable managerial expertise to decades of
Westbrook mayors.

The COO is supervised by the mayor, and supervises the department heads. The mayor’s
direction and supervision over department heads is intended to operate through the COO.

Executive Committee

This proposal would also establish a new institution: the Executive Committee. This committee
would be made up of the mayor and two councilors elected by the council. The Executive
Committee is intended to solve concerns around cronyism, patronage, and the spoils system. The
committee would nominate key officials in city government: department heads, the city clerk,
corporation counsel, and the Chief Operating Officer. Subordinate city staff would, in turn, be
hired by these officials, such that no Portland mayor can unilaterally hire officials.

Under the current system, the chief executive, the city council appoints the city manager, the city
clerk, and the corporation counsel — but the city manager is the sole appointer of department
heads, subject to council confirmation. Under the proposed system, that power would not reside
in one office, but would be shared by the three members of the Executive Committee.

In addition to checking and balancing the mayor’s power, the Executive Committee would also
have the role of legitimizing the mayor’s power of presiding over council meetings. Some
commissioners raised the prospect of the mayor serving as “illegitimate council-chair,” since the
voters — and not the council — elect the mayor. The presence in the Executive Committee of
leadership elected by the council is designed to solve this issue. Under this system, it will be
three voices — one chosen by the people (the mayor) and two chosen by the council — that
constitute the council’s leadership.

Below is a more specific outline of the proposed changes.

1. The Mayor is City’s Chief Executive Officer. (Changes to Article I, Section 2 and new
Article II)
 a. Mayor has supervisory role over the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), or COO is
responsible to the Mayor, and they will work on a coordinated approach to management of
department heads; Mayor does not manage the rest of the City staff.
 b. The Mayor oversees implementation of City Council policy (Article II, Mayor, Section
3(f)).
 c. The Mayor is the “Public Figurehead” (Article II, Mayor, Section 3(m)) – in this role, the
mayor:



{P1999406.4} 55


 Page 65
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 1) shall serve as the official representative of the City in Augusta, nationally and
internationally or “worldwide,”
 2) shall serve as the official spokesperson for the City,
 3) may form public task force(s) by right with reasonable staffing support for any issue
not taken up by Council; and
 4) shall be a member of City’s Legislative Committee.

2. COO provides professional managerial expertise (Addressed in new Article II and revisions
to Article VII, Administrative Officers)
 a. Day-to-day administration of the City is carried out by the COO and Department Heads.
 b. COO is responsible to the Mayor.
 c. COO oversees Department Heads.
 d. City staff is managed exclusively by Department Heads.

3. The City Council is City’s Legislative Branch. (Changes to Article I and to Article III)
 a. The Mayor presides over meetings of the City Council and is “political leader” of City;
set agendas for Council meetings and acts as facilitator of Council meetings, but has no vote; and
the Mayor and Executive Committee assign committee/subcommittee membership.
 b. Budgetary Powers. (Article II, Mayor, Section 3(j) and Article VIII, Business and
Financial Provisions, Section 8)
 1) Mayor directs the COO in the preparation of the budget and communicates it to the
 City Council for consideration and adoption. (Article II, Mayor, Section 3(g) and (h)).
 2) Mayor may veto City budget and Council may override veto by 2/3 vote.
 c. Legislative Authority.
 1. The executive mayor can introduce legislation/policy, but must do so through a public
 process (i.e., task force or a Council committee).
 2. Mayor has no veto power over legislation.

4. Executive Committee. (Article VII, Administrative Officers, Section 9) There should be an
Executive Committee with three members – the Mayor, and two councilors elected by Council,
with Mayor having power to vote on Executive Committee; its role is to:
 a. appoint Council members to committees, and
 b. take on such other duties as may be assigned by City Council.

5. Hiring of City Staff (Article VII, Administrative Officers, Section 1)
a. Mayor does not have power to unilaterally hire and fire City staff and Constitutional
Officers (COO, City Attorney and City Clerk).
b. Hiring of Constitutional Officers and Department Heads - candidates are vetted by
Executive Committee and recommended to Council for approval by simple majority.

6. Removal of City Staff (Article VII, Administrative Officers, Section 10)
a. Removal of Constitutional Officers (direct reports to City Council) Process is:
 1. Mayor, any Councilor, or the Executive Committee may file or register a complaint
 against a Constitutional Officer,
 2. Review Committee (on which Mayor will be a member, Article VII, Administrative
 Officers, Section 10) will perform performance review or conduct

{P1999406.4} 56


 Page 66
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 review/investigation and will determine whether to bring forward request for removal
 to Council,
 3. After Council hearing in executive session, may remove by 2/3 Council vote.
a. Removal of Department Heads - Process for department head removal is:
 1. Mayor or any Councilor may file or register a complaint against a Department Head,
 2. Review Committee (on which Mayor will be a member) will review and investigate
 complaint, and will make recommendation to Council,
 3. After Council hearing in executive session, may remove by majority Council vote,
 4. COO would be a consultant/advisor to the process.
 c. Removal of Mayor - Process for removal of mayor is:
 1.) If mayor engages in official misconduct or neglect of duty, complaint is sent to Ethics
Commission for recommendation and recall election can be ordered by ¾ vote of Council
(Article II, Section 6, and Article I for citizen petition recall)
 2.) If mayor is convicted of a felony materially related to duties, removal by ¾ vote of
Council. (Article II, Section 6)

Under the current Charter, the Mayor is subject to the same rules for election, vacancy, and recall
as an at-large councilor. Therefore, a non-councilor mayor requires breaking those sections and
others out from the current City Council article into its own article, which is the reason for the
new Article I-A.

Methodology

The Governance Committee, as well as the entire charter commission, consulted a variety of
experts, civil servants, and community members for their input on this topic. Some charter
commissioners stated that their vote on various aspects of this final governance plan arose from
conversations they had with constituents during the campaign trail. Commissioners also
consulted research on municipal government. Although it is impossible to account for every
conversation and source, this list identifies some key personalities and research:

February 14th, 2022 Workshop with:

  Dr. Jered Carr (perhaps the leading national expert on municipal government)
  Dr. Andrea Benjamin (an expert on quantitative political science)
  Dean Anthony Crowell (worked for ICMA, as chief counsel for Mayor Bloomberg’s
 office, and as council for six charter commissions)
  Maine State Historian Earle Shettleworth Jr., and
  Tom MacMillan (wrote masters thesis about the Portland Charter Commission)

Nov. 8: Interview with Dr. Chyrl Laird (political scientist knowledgeable about municipal
leadership models).

Nov. 10: Interview with Tanisha Briley (served as City Manager in several cities with a weaker
mayor)

Nov. 10: Joe Gray (former City Manager of Portland just before the last Charter changes)

{P1999406.4} 57


 Page 67
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



Nov. 10: Kevin Sutherland (Town Manager of Bar Harbor, served as Chief of Staff to a strong
mayor in Ithaca, NY, and later as City Administrator to a weaker mayor in Saco)

Nov. 8: Dominick Pangallo (Chief of Staff to an executive mayor in Salem, MA)

Nov. 8: Dr. Jim Svara (editing researcher of the National Civic League's 9th edition of the Model
City Charter)

Former and current Portland officials interviewed in October and November of 2021: Kate
Snyder, Michael Brennan, Jill Duson, Jim Cohen, Karen Gerghety, Ethan Strimling, Belinda
Ray, Pious Ali, David Marshall, Kimberley Cool

Research Consulted

In addition to interviewing experts,
these are some of the peer-reviewed journal articles that informed the commissioners’ thinking:


  Carr, Jered B. (2015). What have we learned about the performance of council‐manager
 government? A review and synthesis of the research. Public Administration Review
 75(5): 673–89.
  Carr, J. B., & Karuppusamy, S. (2008). The adapted cities framework: On enhancing its
 use in empirical research. Urban Affairs Review, 43, 875-886.
  Carr, J. B., & Karuppusamy, S. (2009). Beyond ideal types of municipal structure:
 Adapted cities in Michigan. American Review of Public Administration 39, 304-321.
  Besley, T. and S. Coate, (2003), Elected versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and
 Evidence,Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(5), 1176-1206.
  Deno, K. and S. Mehay, (1987), Municipal Management Structure and Fiscal
 Performance: Do City Managers Make a Difference? Southern Economic Journal, 53(3),
 627-642.
  Choi, C.G., Feiock, R. C. and Bae, J. (2013). The Adoption and Abandonment of Council
 Manager Government. Public Administration Review 73(5): 727–36.




{P1999406.4} 58


 Page 68
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Note: This contains only the provisions related to the Governance Model proposal and only
those sections which will be changed if this proposal is adopted. Deletions are shown by
strikeouts; new language is underlined.

1. Amend ARTICLE I., GRANT OF POWERS TO THE CITY, by amending Section 2, Powers
 and duties, as follows:


Section 2. Powers and duties.

The administration of all the fiscal, prudential, and municipal
affairs of the City of Portland, with the government thereof,
except the general management, care, conduct, and control of the
schools of such city which shall be vested in a board of public
education as hereinafter provided (also referred to herein as
the “school board”), and also except as otherwise provided by
this charter, shall be and are vested in the mayor and in one
body of nine members, which shall constitute and be called the
city council, all of whom shall be inhabitants of the city, and
shall be sworn in the manner hereinafter prescribed.

 The executive powers of the city shall be vested in the
mayor and exercised through the chief operating officer (“COO”)
and the several departments and boards of the city, under the
mayor’s general oversight.

The legislative powers of the city shall be vested in the city
council. The mayor and the members of the city council shall be
and constitute the municipal officers of the City of Portland for
all purposes required by statute, and, except as otherwise herein
specifically provided, shall have all powers and authority given
to, and perform all duties required of, municipal officers and
mayors of cities under the laws of this state.

All other powers now or hereafter vested in the inhabitants of
such city, and all powers granted by this charter, except as
herein otherwise provided, shall be vested in the city council.
(Referendum 11/2/10)

2. Amend the current CHARTER by adding the following new ARTICLE I-A, MAYOR, as
follows:



{P1999406.4} 59


 Page 69
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


 ARTICLE I-A. MAYOR

Section 1. Election, tenure of office.

The position of mayor shall be elected by majority vote as
provided in section 3 of article III. The candidate(s) for mayor
shall be nominated in the same manner as at large members of the
council. The term of mayor shall be four (4) years, with a
maximum limit of two consecutive terms. The election and
position of mayor shall be a non-partisan, full-time position.

Notwithstanding the prior paragraph, for the municipal election
in November of 2023, the election for mayor shall be for a one-
time one-year term ending in 2024. Thereafter, the mayor shall
be elected every four (4) years in line with the U.S.
presidential election.

Section 2. Compensation of the mayor.

 Prior to the date nomination papers are available for the
first mayoral election, the city council shall set the mayor’s
compensation and shall re-set it prior to the date nomination
papers are available for each mayoral election thereafter.
During the mayor’s term, the city council may adjust the mayor’s
compensation, but no such order re-setting the mayor’s
compensation shall take effect during the then current municipal
year, and no such payment of compensation shall be made in
advance. At minimum, the mayor shall be paid compensation
consisting of a salary which is no less than one and one-half
(1.5) times the median household income for Portland as most
recently published by the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey, or successor index thereto, at the time such
compensation is set or adjusted, plus customary city benefits.

 The mayor shall not hold any office or employment the
compensation of which is payable by the city or school
department during the term for which he or she was elected.

Section 3. Mayor’s powers and duties.

The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city,
responsible for providing leadership, and shall have the
following powers and duties:


{P1999406.4} 60


 Page 70
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 (a) To articulate the city’s vision and goals and build
 coalitions to further such vision and goals. The mayor
 shall give an annual state of the city address during a
 special meeting of the city council called for that purpose;


 (b) To introduce policy and legislation to the city council
 through a public process, such as a task force created for
 such purpose, or through standing city council committees;


 (c) To convene and lead an annual workshop session of the city
 council to discuss and identify the city’s goals and
 priorities. The COO shall attend this workshop session, and
 a summary of the session shall be made available to the
 public;


 (d) To represent the city with other municipalities, levels of
 government, community and neighborhood groups, and the
 business community;


 (e) To set the city council agendas in accordance with city
 council rules and preside over meetings of the city council,
 but without a vote on any matters before the city council
 except as otherwise provided by this charter;


 (f) To ensure the implementation of city policies and keep the
 city council informed as to the progress on all city council
 directives, the general financial standing of the City, the
 current status of all negotiations, and recommendations for
 city council action. With regard to the delivery of city
 services, the mayor may inquire about specific issues
 pertaining to city services but shall not intervene on
 behalf of an individual regarding city business.


 (g) To direct the COO in the preparation of all city budgets
 and present the budget to the city council for approval;


 (h) To direct the COO in the preparation of the annual capital
 improvement program plan described in article VI, section
 5, paragraph (i), and to present such program plan to the
 city council;

{P1999406.4} 61


 Page 71
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



 (i) To facilitate among the COO, city council, board of public
 education and the public to secure passage by the city
 council of the annual city and school budgets;


 (j) To exercise veto power over the annual city appropriation
 as provided in article VII, section 8;


 (k) To be a voting member of the executive committee established
 pursuant to article VI, section 9;


 (l) To be a voting member of the review committee established
 pursuant to article VI, section 10;


 (m) To be the public figurehead for the city. In this role the
 mayor:


 1. Shall serve as the official representative of the city
 in Augusta, nationally and internationally;


 2. Shall serve as the official spokesperson for the city;


 3. May form public task force(s) by right with reasonable
 staffing support for any issue not taken up by the city
 council; and


 4. Shall be a voting member of the city council’s
 legislative committee.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, the COO shall manage the day to
day operations of the city and administration of the city budgets
presented by the Mayor and approved by the city council.
(Referendum 11/2/10)

Section 4. Absence or disability of mayor; acting mayor.

In the temporary absence or disability of the mayor, the mayor
may select an acting mayor from among the council members and
such person shall perform the duties of the mayor during such

{P1999406.4} 62


 Page 72
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

temporary absence or disability for a maximum of sixty
consecutive (60) days or return of the mayor, whichever comes
first. If through physical or mental incapacity the mayor is
unable to select an acting mayor, or if the mayor’s absence or
disability exceeds sixty (60) consecutive days, the council
shall select an acting mayor from among its membership until
such time as the mayor is able to resume his or her duties or a
vacancy is declared pursuant to section 7 below and a new mayor
elected. (Referendum 6/13/78; 11/7/00; 11/2/10)

Section 5. Vacancy of mayor.

A vacancy in the office of mayor shall occur upon the happening
of the following: (1) the death of the mayor;(2) the effective
date of the resignation of the mayor; (3) the removal of mayor
from the city; (4) the conviction of the mayor of a felony while
in office; (5) the recall of the mayor pursuant to the
provisions of article V; or (6) the removal of the mayor by the
council pursuant to section 6 of this article.

The council shall declare a vacancy in the office of mayor to
exist upon the qualification of the mayor for any city or school
department office, or the acceptance of any employment with the
city or school department, the compensation for which is payable
by the city or school department.

The mayor may in writing addressed to the council resign his or
her office effective at a future date specified in such written
resignation. Once submitted to the council, such resignation may
not be withdrawn, and the mayor’s office shall become vacant on
such specified future date.

If a vacancy in the office of mayor occurs or is declared prior
to the next regular municipal election, the vacancy shall be
filled at a special election to take place on the same date as
the next scheduled municipal or state election which is no less
than 127 days after the date the vacancy occurs or is declared,
unless the council, by a vote of at least six (6) of its
members, calls a special election on an earlier date. Such
election shall be called and held and nominations made as in
other elections. (Referenda 11/2/76; 11/4/86; 11/2/99; 11/2/10)

Section 6. Recall and removal of mayor.


{P1999406.4} 63


 Page 73
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 The mayor may be removed from office by the city council
for any of the following reasons:

 (a) Engaging in official misconduct or neglect of duty.
 Complaints received by the city that the mayor is
 engaging or has engaged in official misconduct or
 neglect of duty shall be sent to the ethics commission
 for review. The ethics commission shall review such
 complaint under its ordinance and procedures. A
 recommendation to remove the mayor for official
 misconduct or neglect of duty shall specify as
 particularly as possible the acts of misconduct or the
 instances of neglect of duty complained of, should be
 filed with the city clerk, who shall serve a copy of
 that recommendation upon the mayor at the mayor’s
 residence. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the
 ethics commission to remove the mayor for official
 misconduct or neglect of duty, the city council shall
 vote whether to call a recall election of the mayor
 under Article V. Any vote to order a recall election of
 the mayor for official misconduct shall require a vote
 of three-fourths (3/4) of all the members of the city
 council.


 (b) Conviction of a felony materially related to the duties
 of the mayor. Upon the conviction of the mayor of a
 felony materially related to the duties of the mayor,
 the city council shall vote on a resolution to remove
 the mayor for such conviction. Any vote to remove the
 mayor for a conviction shall require a vote of three-
 fourths (3/4) of all the members of the city council.


At any hearing of the ethics commission or meeting of the city
council in which the removal of the mayor is the topic, the
mayor shall have the right to be present, speak, be represented
by counsel, and present a defense.

3. Amend ARTICLE II., CITY COUNCIL, by amending Section 2, Composition, election, tenure
of office, Section 4, Compensation of councilors and mayor, Section 5, Mayor’s powers and
duties, and Section 6, Absence or disability of mayor; acting mayor, as follows:


Section 2. Composition, election, tenure of office.

{P1999406.4} 64


 Page 74
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



The city council shall be composed of nine (9) members,
including the mayor who shall be one of the nine (9) members of
the city council, and shall hold office for a term of three (3)
years and until their successors are elected and qualified,
except as provided below for the term of mayor and for one at
large seat in the election of 2013 only. Four (4) members,
including the mayor, shall be elected at large from and by the
registered voters of the entire city, and one (1) shall be
elected from each of the five (5) districts heretofore provided
for, from and by the registered voters of each district.
References in this charter to the city council, councilors,
council, its members or membership, shall be deemed to include
the mayor, unless otherwise specifically provided.

For the municipal election in November of 2013, one of the two
at large seats up for election shall have a one-time four year
term ending in 2017. Thereafter, the council term shall return to
be three (3) years for this seat. The city clerk shall
designate which seat shall be for the four (4) year term prior
to the availability of nomination papers for the 2013 election,
and nomination papers shall be separately issued for reach of
the two at large seats. Each at large candidate may take out and
file nomination papers for only one of the at large seats. The
municipal ballot will list the 4-year and 3-year council seats
as separate questions.

All candidates must be residents of the city for a period of at
least three (3) months prior to the date on or before which
nomination papers are to be filed. The candidate from each of
the five (5) districts must be a resident of such district
for a period of at least three (3) months prior to the date on or
before which the nomination papers are to be filed.
Beginning with the regular municipal election in November, 2011,
the at large position then up for election shall be designated as
the mayor’s position and shall continue as the mayor’s position
thereafter. The position of mayor only shall be elected by
majority vote as provided in section 3 of this article. The
candidate(s) for mayor shall be nominated in the same manner as
other at large members of the council. The term of mayor shall
be four (4) years, with a maximum limit of twoconsecutive
terms. The election and position of mayor shall be a non-
partisan, full-time position. (Referenda 12/1/75; 6/13/78;
11/4/86; 11/3/87; 11/2/10; 11/6/12)

{P1999406.4} 65


 Page 75
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



Section 4. Compensation of councilors and mayor.

Except as otherwise provided in the paragraph below for the
mayor’s compensation, the The city council shall by order
establish the amount each member shall be entitled to receive as
compensation for all services rendered, and specify when any
compensation shall be payable, but no such order increasing
their compensation , including that of the mayor, shall take
effect during the then current municipal year, and no such
payment of compensation shall be made in advance.

Prior to the date nomination papers are available for the first
mayoral election, the city council shall set the mayor’s
compensation and shall re-set it prior to the date nomination
papers are available for each mayoral election thereafter.
During the mayor’s term, the city council may adjust the mayor’s
compensation. At minimum, the mayor shall be paid compensation
consisting of a salary which is no less than one and one-half
(1.5) times the median household income for Portland as most
recently published by the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey, or successor index thereto, at the time such
compensation is set or adjusted, plus customary city benefits.No
member shall hold any office or employment the compensation of
which is payable by the city or school department during the
term for which he or she was elected. (Referenda 12/1/75;
6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/3/87; 11/2/10)

Section 5. Mayor’s powers and duties.

The mayor shall be the official head of the city, responsible for
providing leadership, and shall have the following powers and
duties:

 (a) To articulate the city’s vision and goals and build
 coalitions to further such vision and goals. The mayor
 shall give an annual state of the city address during a
 special meeting of the city council called for that purpose;


 (b) To convene and lead an annual workshop session of the city
 council to discuss and identify the city’s goals and
 priorities in order to provide guidance for the city manager
 and to inform the public. The city manager shall attend

{P1999406.4} 66


 Page 76
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 this workshop session, and a summary of the session shall
 be made available to the public;


 (c) To represent the city with other municipalities, levels of
 government, community and neighborhood groups, and the
 business community;


 (d) To preside as chair of the city council, and vote upon all
 matters in the same manner as other members of the city
 council, except as provided in article VII, section 8. The
 mayor shall direct the city manager in the preparation of
 council meeting agendas;


 (e) To facilitate the implementation of city policies through
 the office of the city manager;


 (f) To consult with and provide guidance to the city manager
 in the preparation of all city budgets and to provide
 comments on such budgets at the time they are presented by
 the city manager to the city council for approval;


 (g) To consult with and provide guidance to the city manager
 in the preparation of the annual capital improvement
 program plan described in article VI, section 5, paragraph
 (i), and to provide comments on such program plan at the
 time it is presented by the city manager to the city
 council;


 (h) To facilitate among the city manager, city council, board
 of public education and the public to secure passage by
 the city council of the annual city and school budgets;


 (i) To exercise veto power over the annual city appropriation
 as provided in article VII, section 8;


 (j)(n) To establish performance guidelines in conjunction with
 the other members of the city council for regular
 evaluations, no less than annually, by the city council of
 the performance of the city manager, corporation counsel


{P1999406.4} 67


 Page 77
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 and city clerk, such evaluations to be based upon those
 guidelines. Such performance  guidelines shall have
 measurable goals and objectives, taking into consideration,
 as applicable, the achievement of city policies and
 priorities;


 (k) To chair any subcommittee with at least two (2) other city
 councilors to recommend the appointment or removal of the
 city manager, corporation counsel or the city clerk, but
 the full city council shall have the final decision in
 regard to such appointment or removal by a vote of at least
 five (5) members of the council; and


 (l) To appoint the members and chairs of the city council
 committees and various ad hoc committees and communicate
 such appointments to the city council, which may override
 such appointments by a vote of at least six (6) council
 members.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city manager shall be in
charge of the day to day operations of the city and
administration of the city budgets approved by the council.
(Referendum 11/2/10)

Section 6. Absence or disability of mayor; acting mayor.

In the temporary absence or disability of the mayor, the mayor
may select an acting mayor from among the other council members
and such person shall perform the duties of the mayor during
such temporary absence or disability for a maximum of sixty
consecutive (60) days or return of the mayor, whichever comes
first. If through physical or mental incapacity the mayor is
unable to select an acting mayor, or if the mayor’s absence or
disability exceeds sixty (60) consecutive days, the council
shall select an acting mayor from among its membership until
such time as the mayor is able to resume his or her duties or a
vacancy is declared pursuant to section 7 below and a new mayor
elected. (Referendum 6/13/78; 11/7/00; 11/2/10)

4. Amend ARTICLE III., BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, by amending Section 1,
Composition, election, tenure of office, compensation, and Section 5, School budget, as follows:


{P1999406.4} 68


 Page 78
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

Section 1. Composition, election, tenure of office,
compensation.

The board of public education shall be composed of nine (9)
members who shall hold office, except as hereinafter provided,
for a term of three (3) years and until their successors are
elected and qualified. Four (4) shall be elected at large from
and by the registered voters of the entire city, and one (1)
shall be elected from each of the five (5) districts heretofore
provided for in section 1 of article II, from and by the
registered voters of each such district.

All candidates must be residents of the city for a period of at
least three (3) months prior to the date on or before which
nomination papers are to be filed. The candidate from each of the
five (5) districts must be a resident of such district for a
period of at least three (3) months prior to the date on or
before which the nomination papers are to be filed.

The city council shall by order establish the amount each member
of the school board shall be entitled to receive as compensation
for all services rendered, which compensation shall be the same
as that received by members of the city council, other than the
mayor. The city council shall provide additional compensation to
the chair of the school board appropriate to reflect his or her
additional responsibilities as chair. (Referenda 11/2/76;
6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/3/87; 11/2/10)

Section 5. School budget.

Not later than three and one-half (3.5) months before the end of
the fiscal year, the superintendent shall submit to the school
board budget estimates of the various sums required for the
support of public schools for the ensuing fiscal year and shall
thereafter provide the school board with such information
relating to such estimates as the school board shall require.

During the thirty (30) days following submission of the
superintendent’s proposed budget to the school board, the school
board and the city council, or their designated subcommittees,
shall meet jointly at least twice to review the proposed school
budget, focusing on its underlying assumptions and supporting
data and the ability of the city to raise the necessary funds
for the support of such proposed budget. The superintendent and

{P1999406.4} 69


 Page 79
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

the city managerCOO shall provide information regarding such
proposed budget as reasonably requested by the school board and
the city council, or their designated subcommittees.

The budget submitted by the superintendent to be reviewed
jointly by the school board and the city council shall provide a
complete financial plan of all school funds and activities for
the ensuing fiscal year. In organizing the school budget for
joint review, the superintendent shall utilize the most feasible
combination of expenditure classification by fund, organization,
unit, program, purpose or activity, and object. The budget shall
begin with a clear general summary of its contents; shall show
in detail all estimated income and all proposed expenditures,
including debt service for the ensuing fiscal year; and shall be
so arranged as to show comparative figures for actual and
estimated income and expenditures of the current fiscal year and
actual income and expenditures of the preceding fiscal year. The
total of proposed expenditures shall not exceed the total of
proposed income.

Not later than the last Monday in April of each fiscal year, the
school board shall submit to the city council a budget of the
various sums required for the support of the public schools for
the ensuing fiscal year in the format provided above, and shall
thereafter provide the city council with such information
relating to such budget as the city council shall require.

A budget hearing on such budget estimates shall be held prior to
final action by the city council. The city council in its
appropriation resolve for the ensuing year shall, in addition to
amounts appropriated for other general city purposes,
appropriate one gross amount for the support of the public
schools, which amount shall not be less than the sum required to
be appropriated for such purposes by the general laws of the
state. Such gross amount shall not be less than the sum
requested by the school board except by a vote of at least six
(6) members of the city council. Such appropriation shall be
expended under the direction and control of the school board but
no such appropriation shall be exceeded except by consent of the
city council. (Referendum 6/13/78; 11/2/10)

5. Amend ARTICLE IV., ELECTIONS, by amending Section 2, Regular municipal election, and
Section 4, Nominations, as follows:


{P1999406.4} 70


 Page 80
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



Section 2. Regular municipal election.
On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each
year, the regular municipal election shall be held and the
registered voters of the city or district, as the case may be,
shall ballot for a mayor and for such councilors and for such
members of the school board as may be necessary to fill the
offices of those whose terms would then normally expire and fill
any existing vacancy in an unexpired term of office. (Referenda
12/1/75; 11/2/76; 6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/7/00; 11/6/01; 11/2/10)
Section 4. Nominations.
The nominations of all candidates for elective offices provided
for by this charter shall be by petition. The petition of a
candidate for mayor or an at large council seat or at large
school board seat shall be signed by not less than three hundred
(300) nor more than five hundred (500) registered voters of the
city. The petition of a candidate for a district council seat or
a candidate for a district school board seat shall be signed by
not less than seventy-five (75) nor more than one hundred
fifty(150) registered voters of the respective district. Voters
may sign petitions for more than one (1) candidate for each
office to be filled at the election. (Referenda 12/1/75;
11/2/76; 11/4/86; 11/4/08; 11/2/10)
6. Amend ARTICLE V., RECALL, by amending Section 1, Applicability, Section 2, Petition for
recall, Section 4, Calling of recall election, Section 5, Form of ballot, and Section 7, Election
may be ordered, as follows:


Section 1. Applicability.

The mayor or Aany member of either the city council or the
school board may be recalled and removed from office by the
registered voters of the City of Portland, as hereinafter
provided, except that this provision shall not apply to a member
of either body who has one (1) year or less to serve in his or
her term, i.e., any petition to recall a member must be certified
by the clerk no later than November 30 of the year prior to that
member’s next scheduled November re-election date. (Referenda
11/4/86; 11/2/10)

Section 2. Petition for recall.


{P1999406.4} 71


 Page 81
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

In the case of either the mayor, or an at large member of the
city council or of the school board, any five hundred (500)
registered voters of the city may affirm and file with the city
clerk an affidavit containing the name of the mayor or of the
member of the city council or of the school board whose removal
is sought, together with a statement of the reasons why such
removal is desired. In the case of a district member of the city
council or of the school board, any two hundred and fifty (250)
registered voters of the member’s district may affirm and file
with the city clerk an affidavit containing the name of the
district member whose removal is sought, together with a
statement of the reasons why such removal is desired. Members of
the city council and of the school board shall not be included
on the same affidavit and only one member’s name shall be on an
affidavit.

Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of such an affidavit,
the city clerk shall prepare a sufficient number of petitions
which shall contain the signature of the city clerk, his or her
official seal, the date, and the name of the person whose
removal is sought. In addition, the statement of reasons for
removal referred to above shall either be printed on such
petitions or attached thereto. Such petitions shall be on paper
of uniform size with as many individual sheets as reasonably
necessary.

The city clerk shall file the completed petitions in his or her
office. During the thirty (30) days following their filing, the
city clerk shall arrange to have petitions, noting that removal
is being sought as well as the reasons therefor, available for
signature both at city hall and also at public places as
indicated below. Notice of the location of the public places
where petitions may be signed shall be given by publication at
least forty-eight (48) hours in advance and such notice shall
contain the specific location of such public place or places,
the dates it or they will be open, and the times during
which petitions may be signed. In the case of either a district
councilor or a district school board member, the city clerk
shall select one (1) site outside of city hall, but within the
district of the member whose removal is sought, and such
location shall be open for four (4) days between the hours of
noon and 8:00 p.m. In the case of at large councilors or members
of the school board, the city clerk shall select four (4) sites


{P1999406.4} 72


 Page 82
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

outside of city hall and such locations shall be open for four
days each between the hours of noon and 8:00 p.m.

The city clerk shall designate election clerks to supervise each
such site. Election clerks shall be residents of Portland and at
least eighteen (18) years of age. They shall be sworn to the
faithful performance of their duties by the city clerk. Each
qualified voter who signs a petition shall include his or her
place of residence, providing either the street and number or a
description sufficient to identify the place.

To mandate a vote in the case of the mayor or an at large
councilor or an at large member of the school board, the recall
petition must be signed by at least three thousand (3,000)
registered voters of the city, or in the case of a district
councilor or district member of the school board, by at least
fifteen hundred (1,500) registered voters of that member’s
district. (Referenda 12/1/75, 11/4/86; 11/2/10)

Section 4. Calling of recall election.

If the clerk's certificate should show that the petitions are
sufficient, he or she shall submit them, together with the
clerk's certification, to the city council at its next regular
meeting following certification, and shall also notify the
person or persons whose removal is sought. The city council
shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of the clerk's
certificate, or on its own in the case of a council vote to hold
a recall election for the mayor under article I-A, section 6,
order an election to be held not less than forty-five (45) nor
more than ninety (90) days thereafter; except that, if a regular
municipal election should occur within ninety (90) days after
receipt of the certificate, the city council may, in its
discretion, schedule the recall election for the same date as
the regular municipal election. The recall election shall be
called and held as other elections under this charter, except
for the specific limitations imposed by this article.

All registered voters in the city may vote on the recall of the
mayor or an at large member of the council or school board; only
the registered voters of the applicable district may vote on the
recall of a district member of the council or school board.
(Referenda 11/4/86; 11/2/10)


{P1999406.4} 73


 Page 83
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

Section 5. Form of ballot.

Unless the mayor or the member or members whose removal is
sought shall have resigned within ten (10) days after the receipt
by the city council of the clerk's certificate or of the
council’s vote to hold a recall election for the mayor, the form
of the question to be submitted to the voters shall, as nearly as
possible, be: "Shall (name of official and his or her title) be
recalled?" (Referendum 11/4/86)
Section 7. Election may be ordered.

If the mayor or a member of either the city council or school
board who is recalled should either request a recount or dispute
the election as permitted by law, then that member shall remain
in office until the recount or dispute has been finally
determined; and the provisions of article I-A, section 5,
article II, section 7 and article III, section 6, relating to
vacancies in the office of the mayor, city council or school
board, shall be stayed. (Referendum 11/4/86; 11/2/10)

7. Amend ARTICLE VI., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, by amending Section 1,
Appointments, Section 4, Compensation and tenure of offices, Section 5, Appointment;
qualifications; powers and duties of the city manager, Section 6, Vacancy in office of city
manager, adding Section 9, Executive Committee, and adding Section 10, Review Committee as
follows:


Section 1. Appointments.

 (a) The following officers shall be nominated for appointment
 by the executive committee and confirmed appointed by a
 vote of at least five (5) members of the city council:
 city managerCOO, city clerk, and corporation counsel, and
 they may appoint constables at large.


 (b) All department heads shall be nominated for appointment
 by the executive committee and confirmed by a vote of at
 least five (5) members of the city council. appointed by
 the city manager, subject to confirmation by the city
 council.


 (c) All attorneys employed in the corporation counsel's office
 shall be appointed nominated for appointment by the

{P1999406.4} 74


 Page 84
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 corporation counsel, subject to confirmation by the city
 council.


 (d) All other employees shall be appointed nominated for
 appointment by the city managerCOO upon recommendation of
 the heads of their departments. (Referendum 11/4/86;
 11/2/10)


 (d)(e) All persons nominated for appointment shall be
 nominated solely  on the  basis of  character and
 qualification to perform the duties of the office or
 position to be filled by the appointment.


Section 4. Compensation and tenure of offices.

The city council shall fix by order the salaries of the
appointees of the city council. Salaries of the appointees of
the city managerCOO shall be fixed by the city managerCOO,
subject to the approval of the city council. All appointive
officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the appointing
power.

Section 5. Appointment; qualifications; powers and duties of the
city managerChief Operating Officer (COO).

The city managerCOO shall be nominated for appointment by the
mayor and chosen confirmed by the city council solely on the
basis of character and executive administrative qualifications,
and may or may not be a resident of the City of Portland or of
the State of Maine at the time of appointment. Such person shall
give bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties to the
City of Portland and in such sum as the city council shall
determine and direct, and with surety or sureties to be approved
by the city council. The premium on such bond shall be paid by
the city. Such person shall be responsible for the
administration of all departments and for the delivery of city
services the administrative head of the city and shall be
responsible to the city councilmayor for the administration of
all departments. The mayor shall recommend for adoption by the
city council rules that govern communications between city staff
and elected officials. Neither the mayor nor members of the city
council shall direct, request or interfere with the appointment

{P1999406.4} 75


 Page 85
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

or removal of any of the officers or employees of the city for
whom the city manager is responsible, nor shall any of them give
an order, publicly or privately, to any such city officer or
employee relating to any matter in the line of that officer’s or
employee’s city employment. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
nothing herein is intended to prevent the city manager from
assigning staff to work and communicate directly with
councilors, boards and commissions, council committees,
neighborhood and other groups and organizations, on city work.

The city manager'sCOO’s powers and duties shall be as follows:

 (a) To see that the laws and ordinances are enforced, but
 shall delegate to the chief of the police department the
 active duties connected therewith regarding criminal
 conduct.


 (b) To exercise control over all departments, divisions,
 agencies, and offices created herein or that may be
 hereafter created.


 (c) To implement the policy decisions of the mayor and city
 council.


 (d) To coordinate city programs and operations and recommend
 improvements in such programs and operations to the
 councilmayor.


 (e) To prepare city budgets, at the direction of the mayorin
 consultation with and incorporating policy guidance of the
 mayor, and to present such budgets to the council. Upon
 presentation of the budget by the mayor to the council,
 the COO may provide a memo to the council on behalf of
 city staff, which memo may include, but shall not be
 required, such advice, guidance, information or requests
 that the COO believes is relevant on behalf of all non-
 union staff and departments.


 (f) To make appointments as provided in this charter.




{P1999406.4} 76


 Page 86
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 (g) To attend meetings of the city council, except when his
 or her removal is being considered, and recommend for
 adoption such measures as he or she may deem expedient.


 (h) To keep the city council fully advised as to the business
 and financial condition and future needs of the city and
 to furnish the city council with all available facts,
 figures, and data connected therewith when requested.


 (i) To prepare a five (5) year rolling capital improvement
 plan, at the direction of the mayor, for annual
 presentation by the mayor to the city council, which plan
 includes the following:


 1. A one (1) year plan of specific projects and
 their cost;

 2. A two (2) through five (5) year plan of specific
 projects and general categories, and amounts of proposed
 spending and funding sources; and

 3. A discussion of the basis for the plan and the factors
 which went into its development or amendments.

 (j) To prepare and submit to the city council such reports as
 are requested or he or she deems advisable; and


 (k) To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this
 charter or required by ordinance of the city council.
 (Referenda 11/4/86; 11/2/10)


Section 6. Vacancy in office of city managerCOO.

During any vacancy in the office of city managerCOO, and during
any absence or disability of the city managerCOO of more than
sixty (60) days, the city council shall designate a properly
qualified person to perform the duties of manager and fix such
person's compensation. During a temporary absence of sixty (60)
days or less, the city managerCOO may designate a qualified
person to perform the duties of manager during such absence.
While so acting, such person shall have the same powers and
duties as those given to and imposed on the city managerCOO.

{P1999406.4} 77


 Page 87
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

Before entering his or her duties, he or she shall give bond to
the City of Portland in a sum and with surety or sureties to be
approved by the city council. The premium on such bond is to be
paid by the city. (Referendum 11/2/10)

Section 9. Executive committee.

The executive committee shall consist of the mayor and two (2)
city councilors elected annually by the city council. The mayor
shall serve as chair of the executive committee. In the absence
of the mayor, the more senior city councilor serving on the
committee shall serve as chair pro tem. The executive committee
shall appoint the members and chairs of the city council
committees and various ad hoc committees and communicate such
appointments to the city council and undertake such other duties
as may be assigned by the city council. The executive committee
shall also nominate the appointment of the COO, corporation
counsel and the city clerk, as provided in article VI, section
1(a) and of department heads as provided in article VI, section
1(b).

Section 10. Review committee.

The review committee shall consist of the mayor and members of
the city council. The review committee shall To establish
performance guidelines in conjunction with the other members of
the city council for regular evaluations, no less than annually,
by the mayor and city council of the performance of the city
managerCOO, corporation counsel and city clerk, such evaluations
to be based upon those guidelines. Such performance guidelines
shall have measurable goals and objectives, taking into
consideration, as applicable, the achievement of city policies
and priorities.

8. Amend ARTICLE VII., BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, by amending Section 1,
Accounts and records, Section 5, Annual budget, Section 6 Budget content, Section 7,
Appropriation resolve, and Section 8 Mayoral veto of general city purposes appropriations in
the appropriation resolve, as follows:

Section 1. Accounts and records.

Accounts shall be kept by the director of finance, showing the
financial transactions of all departments of the city, and the
school department. Accounts shall be kept in such a manner as to

{P1999406.4} 78


 Page 88
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

show fully at all times the financial condition of the city. The
director of finance shall furnish to the city managerCOO and
mayor each month a report containing in detail the revenues,
expenses and expenditures of the city on all accounts, and for
each appropriation item the expenditures made and the
obligations incurred during the preceding calendar month and the
total unencumbered balance. All the accounts of the city and the
school department shall be audited annually by a qualified
certified public accountant to be chosen by the city council.
(Referendum 12/1/75; 11/2/10)

Section 5. Annual budget.

Not later than two (2) months before the end of the fiscal year,
the city managermayor shall submit to the city council a proposed
city budget prepared by the city managerCOO and mayor for the
ensuing fiscal year. The mayor shall submit comments on the
proposed city budget, along with any proposed modifications,
concurrently with the manager’s submission.

The city council shall fix a time and place for holding a public
hearing upon the proposed city budget prepared by the managerCOO
and mayor, and shall give not less than ten (10) days prior
public notice of such hearing, which hearing shall be at least
ten (10) days before the final passage of the appropriation
resolve. (Referenda 6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/2/10)

Section 6. Budget content.

The proposed city budget prepared by the manager COO and mayor
shall provide a complete financial plan of city general and
enterprise funds and activities for the ensuing fiscal year. In
organizing the budget, the city managerCOO and mayor shall
utilize the most feasible combination of expenditure
classification by fund, organization unit, program, purpose or
activity, and object. It shall begin with a clear general
summary of its contents; shall show in detail all estimated
income, indicating proposed tax levies, and all proposed
expenditures, including debt service for the ensuing fiscal year;
and shall be so arranged as to show comparative figures for
actual and estimated income and expenditures of the current
fiscal year and actual income and expenditures of the preceding
fiscal year.


{P1999406.4} 79


 Page 89
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

The total of proposed expenditures shall not exceed the total of
proposed income. (Referenda 6/13/78; 11/2/10)

Section 7. Appropriation resolve.

The city council shall adopt the annual appropriation resolve
for the next fiscal year on or before the last day of the
twelfth month of the fiscal year currently ending. Such resolve
shall appropriate those amounts deemed necessary for general city
purposes and additionally one gross amount for school purposes
as required by section 5 of article III. The total amount
appropriated shall not exceed the estimated revenue of the city.

If it fails to adopt such resolve by this date, the city council
may make appropriation for current departmental expenses,
chargeable to the appropriation for the year, when passed, to an
amount sufficient to cover the necessary expenses of the various
departments until the annual appropriation resolve is in force.
These continuing appropriations shall not be subject to the
mayor’s veto in section 8 below.

The city council may by resolution appropriate to any purpose or
object for which there shall have been no appropriation for the
current year, or for which the appropriation for the current year
has proved insufficient, any accruing revenue of the city not
appropriated as hereinbefore provided and any unencumbered
appropriation balance, or portion thereof, remaining after the
purpose of the appropriation shall have been satisfied or
abandoned. Such supplemental appropriations shall not beare
subject to the mayor’s veto in section 8 below. (Referenda
6/13/78; 11/2/10)

Section 8. Mayoral veto of general city purposes appropriations
in the appropriation resolve.

Within five (5) business days of the meeting at which the city
council adopts the annual appropriation resolve or any
supplemental appropriation resolution referenced in section 7 of
article VII above, the mayor may veto the appropriation or the
supplemental appropriation for general city purposes in such
resolve by written communication to the other members of the city
council. Such communication shall specify the reasons for such
veto and shall, at minimum, be posted upon the city’s website or


{P1999406.4} 80


 Page 90
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

similar location and sent to the councilors by electronic mail
and by the same means that agendas are delivered to councilors.

Any such veto of the appropriation for general city purposes
shall not affect city payment of debt service obligations on
previously authorized bonds, nor shall it affect the school
budget appropriation.

An order to override the veto shall be placed on the next city
council agenda which is at least five (5) calendar days after
the date of the mayor’s veto communication, and such veto may be
overridden by a vote of at least six (6)two-thirds (2/3) of the
members of the city council. The mayor shall not vote on such
override item.

If a veto is overridden, the general city purposes appropriation
will take effect on the first day of the fiscal year, or on
the day immediately following the override vote, if such vote is
after the first day of the fiscal year.

If a veto is not overridden, then at the same meeting the
override vote is taken, the general city purposes appropriation
which was vetoed shall become an item for further consideration
by the city council, without the need for a motion for
reconsideration, and the city appropriation may be modified,
amended, or otherwise acted upon to secure passage at that
meeting or a subsequent meeting without the need for two readings
prior to passage.

In the event the city council does not override the veto or does
not secure passage of the annual appropriation for general city
purposes prior to the start of the fiscal year, or has not
otherwise acted to provide continuing appropriations under the
second paragraph of section 7 above, then the appropriations for
general city purposes in effect for the prior fiscal year shall
go into effect as of the first day of the fiscal year, with
expenditures chargeable to the appropriation for the year, until
the appropriation for general city purposes is approved.
(Referendum 11/2/10)

9. Amend ARTICLE VIII., MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, by amending Section 1, No
personal interest, as follows:

Section 1. No personal interest.

{P1999406.4} 81


 Page 91
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



No member of the city council or school board or board or
commission thereof and no officer or employee of the city or
school department, including but not limited to the mayor,
shall:

 (a) Have a substantial financial interest, direct or indirect,
 in any contract entered into by or on behalf of the City
 of Portland or the school board, except his or her
 employment contract, or in the sale to or by the city or
 school department of any land, materials, supplies or
 services when such officer, employee or member exercises
 on behalf of the city or school department any function
 or responsibility with respect to such contract or sale.
 All contracts or sales made in violation hereof are void,
 and the city treasurer is expressly forbidden to pay any
 money out of the city treasury on account of any such
 transaction.


 (b) Purchase or accept anything from the city or school
 department, other than those items or services which are
 offered to the public generally, and then only upon the
 same terms and under the same procedures offered to and
 used for the general public. This shall not include those
 items or services which are received as compensation, or
 as a part of such person's employment contract, or which
 are necessary for the performance of such person's duties.


 (c) Accept or receive from any person, firm, or corporation
 acting under a franchise, contract, or license from the
 city or school department, any frank, free pass, free
 ticket, or free service, or accept, directly or
 indirectly, from any such person, firm, or corporation
 any service upon terms more favorable than those granted
 to the public generally. (Referenda 11/4/86; 11/2/10)




{P1999406.4} 82


 Page 92
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


11. Mayor’s Economic Development Duties Proposal (to be added to Governance Model)


Summary

PURPOSE. To ensure the elected mayor has access to early conversations between city staff and
prospective developers of large-scale projects where details are being agreed upon for a final
proposal to the Planning Board and City Council.

RATIONALE. The elected mayor’s role may represent the public’s interest in the development
before the parameters of the proposal are solidified. The mayor’s involvement may touch upon
increased asks of the developer for environmental/energy, preservation, public amenities,
affordable housing, labor, taxation, subsidies, massing and scale, business types, design, or any
number of aspects available for negotiation if a project needs accommodations from the city.

LEADERSHIP. Because the mayor has a seat at the table with the development team, the mayor
may meet with neighbors and with councilors representing the district where the development
will occur, and be able to convey those legitimate concerns early on to developers, likely leading
to an improved and more palatable project that will meet less resistance as it approaches a vote
on the council.

The mayor would also be expected to champion the project before the council to reduce the
frequency and magnitude of last-minute challenges or demands on the project that might threaten
its viability. This would require the mayor to gauge support, opposition, or reservations of
councilors throughout the project evolution.

The mayor’s inclusion in the economic development process would legitimize the mayor’s role
in serving as diplomat for the City of Portland with investors scouting the city, as mayors do in
many other cities.

DESIRED OUTCOMES. With the mayor’s early and increased participation in the crafting of
development deals, the city will ideally experience fewer controversial and divisive votes on the
city council approving developments, making investments in Portland less risky and more
predictable; concerned citizens will have a vehicle to have their grievances assuaged; and
residents will have a more advantageous proposal with increased public value reflected in the
development.




{P1999406.4} 83


 Page 93
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Mayor’s Economic Development Duties Proposal

Amend ARTICLE 2., MAYOR, Section 3, Mayor’s Powers and Duties, to add subsection (n), as
follows:

(n) To work in collaboration with city staff to advance the
city’s economic development programs by, among other things,
meeting, negotiating, and planning with actual or prospective
investors in significant economic development projects.




{P1999406.4} 84


 Page 94
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


12. Peaks Island Council Proposal

Summary

The Commission prepared this proposal in response to this request from the Peaks Island Council
sent to the Commission on Sunday, January 30, 2022:

Dear Commissioners,

At our last meeting, the Peaks Island Council unanimously voted to recommend that the Charter
Commission draft language to codify the Peaks Island Council into our Portland City Charter.
We have explained our rationale in the attached resolution.

We look forward to discussing this further with you.

 Resolution

Whereas Peaks Island is a small community of Portland with very unique needs, different from
those of any other neighborhood in the city.

Whereas Peaks Islanders have historically felt under-represented and underheard by City Hall.
Whereas there has been an active secession effort on the island dating back to the 1880’s, with
the most recent secession effort in the 2000s leading to State Legislature action and eventually
the creation of the Peaks Island Council in 2007.

Whereas the Peaks Island Council has met monthly since January 2008, with subcommittees of
community members meeting regularly to cover topics such as Environment & Sustainability,
Ferry Service, Anti-Racism, Parking, Community Priorities, and more.

Whereas now in its 15th year, the Peaks Island Council has become a stable and reliable
institution providing a conduit between City Hall and the Peaks Island Community, advocacy on
behalf of Peaks Islanders, and support for island organizations and special projects.

Whereas the members of the Peaks Island Council are elected every November at Peaks Island’s
precinct 1-3— the voting precinct with consistently the highest turn-out in the city. Whereas the
Peaks Island Council was created by ordinance and is therefore the only office elected by the
residents of Portland that does not exist in a city or district charter.

Be it resolved that the members of the Peaks Island Council request the Charter Commission
protect the institution of the Peaks Island Council by codifying its role as an officially elected
advisory body of the City Council into the Portland City Charter.

Signed,
Peter Eckel, chair
S.E. Rafferty, vice chair
Peter McLaughlin, secretary
Fred Somers
{P1999406.4} 85


 Page 95
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Jerzy Sylvester
Natasha Markov-Riss
Scott Mohler

The City of Portland, by adoption of Chapter 9, Article IV of its Code of Ordinances, established
the Peaks Island Council as a body of seven voting members with listed duties and
responsibilities. This proposal would recognize the Peaks Island Council through the City
Charter as well as by ordinance.

Text

Peaks Island Council Proposal


Amend ARTICLE VIII., Miscellaneous Provisions, to add Section 1.-B, as follows:

Section 1.-B. Peaks Island Council.

 The city council shall maintain an ordinance establishing
the “Peaks Island Council”, including powers, duties, membership
requirements and other necessary provisions deemed appropriate
by the city council. The Peaks Island Council shall act as an
elected advisory body to the city council.




{P1999406.4} 86


 Page 96
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report



E. Procedures Committee

 1. Preamble and Land Acknowledgement

 2. Code of Ethics

 3. Participatory Budgeting

 4. Communications between City Staff and Council




{P1999406.4} 87


 Page 97
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


1. Preamble and Land Acknowledgement

Proposal Summary

In recent years, many institutions have considered their history and set out to make some kind of
amends for the wrongs of the past. While we cannot say that our City is perfect, we can at least
acknowledge the violent and genocidal nature of the events that led to its creation.

In crafting this acknowledgment, we have consulted with Native American leaders and historical
resources. Many Indigenous people of the Wabanaki nation were killed and most were driven out
of the ancestral lands where they had lived, hunted, fished, and raised their families.

By acknowledging those events and saluting the surviving Maine tribes in our preamble, we seek
to ensure that such events never happen again, and to make clear that Portlanders of all races
dwell on unceded land. We show respect and honor the truth -- both values that Wabanaki tribes
hold dear -- while paying tribute to the original stewards of this place.




{P1999406.4} 88


 Page 98
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text


Amend PREAMBLE by deleting the current language in its entirety and replacing it, as follows:
 PREAMBLE
We, the People of Portland, Maine, establish this Charter to
secure the benefits of local governance and to provide for the
general health, safety and welfare of our community. In so
doing, we build a government that meets the needs of the people
it serves and whose character it reflects. Our government shall
further cooperation, encourage leadership, solicit our input and
support the active participation of our residents in their
governance. Our government shall be effective and accountable
and shall promote equal rights and representative democracy. Our
government shall provide public education that enables all
residents to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
participate fully in Portland’s civic, intellectual, cultural
and economic life, in order to enrich and strengthen our
community and our common future.
(Referendum 11/2/10)

We, the people of Portland, Maine, establish this Charter to
secure the benefits of local governance and to provide for the
health, safety, and common good of all people in our community.
In so doing, we seek to build a representative, responsive, and
effective government that encourages leadership and
participation from all members of that community, with an
emphasis on accountability, equity, and inclusion, and a system
of public education that supports Portland’s civic,
intellectual, cultural, and economic life.

 Land Acknowledgement

Portland is located in the unceded territory of the Aucocisco
Band of the Wabanaki, which also includes the Abenaki, Maliseet,
Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot people. European
colonizers displaced Wabanaki people by force and went on to
displace and harm indigenous peoples throughout what is now
Maine and the United States. We acknowledge that displacement
and that harm with sorrow, even as we celebrate and honor the
Wabanaki knowledge and culture that continue to thrive in the
Tribal Nations that have and always will call this place, the
Dawnland, their home.




{P1999406.4} 89


 Page 99
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


2. Ethics Commission and Code of Ethics Proposal

Summary

Introduction:
Ethics boards, ordinances and charter amendments can be found in municipalities across the
State of Maine and across the country. They provide guidelines for city officials to execute their
duties in an ethical and forthright manner. This Proposal brings Portland up to speed with other
municipalities across the state that have similar provisions.

What does this Proposal do?
  ● Requires the Portland City Council to form an Ethics Commission (EC).
  ● Requires the City Council to adopt a Code of Ethical Conduct ordinance as recommended
 by the EC.
  ● Instills discretionary power of the EC to render advisory opinions on a number of matters
 of City business.
  ● Requires training to City officials on standards of ethical conduct.
  ● Allows the City to hire an Accountability Officer to provide education and guidance and
 to serve as an independent ombudsperson. The Accountability Officer may also look at
 administrative processes (“red tape”) and provide trainings to City boards, commissions
 and committees on ethical conduct. (See chart below on the differences between the
 Accountability Officer and the Ethics Commission).

Why are the Ethics Commission and Code of Ethical Conduct Ordinance needed?
Currently, Portland does not have an ethics board, a written code of ethics, nor requirements of
written disclosures of conflicts. While the existence of such instruments may not in and of
themselves prevent a bad actor from seeking pecuniary gain or to otherwise use or abuse their
power or position; it does provide standards and a process for which such matters may be
addressed. Additionally, while incidences of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption are relatively
rare in most municipal governments; the most common breaches of ethical standards include
improper sharing of information, improper gifts, and indecent treatment of colleagues. (Siewert
& Udani). Finally, a Code of Ethics serves no purpose if it just sits in a drawer, it should be a
living document. The existence of the Ethics Commission and the Accountability Officer will
ensure the utility of the Code and supervise training of City officials to make certain that the
standards are understood.

State law (30-A M.R.S. §2605) governs Portland’s officials (elected and appointed) in matters of
conflicts of interest. It requires that where elected and appointed officials directly or indirectly
own at least a 10% interest in the business entity before them in the matter of a question or
contract, they must disclose their financial interest in the matter before them and abstain from
voting upon the matter. The law also limits or prohibits the ability of former City or School

{P1999406.4} 90


 Page 100
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Department officials from acting in a proceeding for another party in which they had a role on
behalf of the City or School Department, and directs that every municipal official “shall attempt
to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by disclosure or abstention.”

Portland’s Charter currently provides that no City Councilor (including the Mayor), School
Board member, or City officer or employee of the City or School Department shall have a direct
or indirect substantial financial interest in any contract entered into by or on behalf of the City or
the School Board, except for his or her own employment contract and contracts entered into in
the course of his or her employment with the City or School Department. It also prohibits these
persons from purchasing or accepting anything from the City or School Department unless these
also are offered to the public under the same terms and procedures that apply to the public, and
from accepting or receiving any free pass, ticket, or free service from any person or entity acting
under a contract or license from the City or School Department.

Portland’s non-union employee Personnel Policy generally applies the State conflict of interest
law and the Charter prohibition on direct or indirect substantial financial interest and on gifts to
City employees:

 “In addition to adhering to general standards of conduct for employees of any organization,
 public employees are expected to treat everyone they serve with complete impartiality and
 are prohibited from using their official position for personal profit or the profit of friends
 and family. Employees must comply with the conflict of interest standards of State law 30-
 A M.R.S.A. Sec. 2605.”

However, unlike Maine cities such as Bangor and Waterville, Portland has no generally applicable
ordinance that establishes standards of conduct for its elected and appointed officials and
department heads. This Proposal provides the framework for both a Code of Ethical Conduct
ordinance and an Ethics Commission to administer it.

This Proposal is not intended to imply that City officials currently act unethically. Rather, it is a
provision that ensures our City maintains a code of ethical conduct for officials that will build
public trust and ensure Portland government has high ethical standards. This Proposal is a product
of public comment, campaign discussions and research by Commission members.

Other Purposes:
 ● Encourage proper use of office
 ● Compliance with advisory opinions
 ● Mitigate instances of personal gain, political favors, political solicitation, and favoritism.
 ● Protect against the “revolving door” of City officials, consultants, and contractors.



{P1999406.4} 91


 Page 101
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


General Reasoning for an Ethics Commission:
 ● Protect whistleblowers.
 ● Fight and discourage corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and favoritism from both elected
 and unelected individuals.
 ● Increase transparency and accountability in municipal government.
 ● Be a safe, independent place to send complaints and concerns regarding ethical conduct.
 ● Creates an ethics mission and code for the City of Portland.
 ● Cost effective, productive ethical conduct oversight that has proven to work elsewhere in
 Maine.
 ● To bring more voices to the table and the community oriented decisions on what ethical
 conduct is, rather than one individual.
 ● Build public trust in municipal government




{P1999406.4} 92


 Page 102
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Differences in Roles of Ethics Commission & Accountability officer
While the Ethics Commission considers actions and behaviors of officials that may not rise to the
level of illegality but are still wrong (such as being visibly drunk at a public meeting); the role of
the Accountability Officer is to resolve disputes, help streamline bureaucratic procedures, and
provide training for city officials.


 Ethics Commission Accountability Officer
  Gives advisory opinions on behaviors that Resolves disputes & cuts red tape
 may be wrong but not illegal

 Examples: Examples:

 Sharing of information that should not be Help avoid lawsuits and unneeded
 shared. controversy.

 Gifts (large and small) Complaints against city staff from members of
 the public/red tape and overly-rigid adherence
 to administrative procedures concerning
 trivial matters.
 Make recommendations to staff when a
 process has gone off the rails.

 Disrespectful behavior toward colleagues Provide training for public officials on ethical
 matters.

 Putting forth bad faith arguments in favor of a Obtain second opinions on legal matters/avoid
 policy. lawsuits

 “Bad faith” gathering of public input, for Recognize when regulatory requirements are
 example scheduling meetings at the least poorly communicated, improve public
 convenient time for most stakeholders, and understanding of why regulations are in force
 deliberately poorly advertising opportunities
 Address situations when regulations are being
 for public input.
 poorly or selectively enforced, either by
 calling on policy makers to update the
 Withholding information critical to the
 regulations or by updating administrative
 deliberation of a policy.
 procedures for more judicious enforcement

 Quid pro quo deals that do not rise to the level Implementation of policy that is not being
 of actual bribes, but confer some kind of implemented
 private benefit to the official or allies. These
 are distinct from the normal legislative deal
 Help standardize procedures against
 making process.
 unyielding bureaucratic norms




{P1999406.4} 93


 Page 103
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Text

Amend ARTICLE VIII., MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, by adding a new Section 1-A, Ethics
Commission and Code of Ethics, as follows:

Section 1.-A Ethics Commission and Code of Ethics

Ethics Commission and Code of Ethics Ordinance. The city council
shall enact and maintain an ordinance that establishes an ethics
commission and, with input from the ethics commission, shall
enact a code of ethics ordinance to be administered by the
ethics commission. The ethics commission shall provide impartial
oversight and render decisions and advisory opinions to ensure
that standards of ethical conduct are observed by elected and
appointed City officials and City employees.

 (a) Ethics Commission Ordinance. The city council shall enact
 an ordinance directing it to create an ethics commission,
 appointed by the city council and consisting of seven (7)
 members who are residents of the City, serving for three
 (3) year terms, to undertake the following duties:

 i. Prepare and recommend a code of ethics ordinance to
 the city council for enactment as provided in subsection
 (b) below;
 ii. Review the ethics commission and code of ethics
 ordinances not less than once every three (3) years and
 make recommendations for any amendments to the city
 council;
 iii. Hear complaints and render written decisions with
 findings of fact regarding alleged violations of the
 City’s code of ethics ordinance, provided that complaints
 regarding City employees’ ongoing or prior alleged
 violations or misconduct shall be referred to the City
 for appropriate action under its personnel policies;
 iv. Hear and render advisory opinions regarding
 questions of prospective application of the City’s code
 of ethics ordinance;
 v. Hear and render advisory opinions regarding questions
 of compliance with the City charter;
 vi. Hear and render advisory opinions regarding
 adherence to council and board rules and procedures;
 vii. On receipt of requests from a majority of the city
 council or of any board or committee, procure a second
 legal opinion from outside legal counsel; and

{P1999406.4} 94


 Page 104
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 viii.Design and oversee program evaluations.

 Elected City officials, candidates for any City elected
 office, and their immediate family members are not eligible
 to be appointed as members of the ethics commission.

 The ethics commission shall meet as needed, but no less
 than annually.

 The ethics commission ordinance shall establish the process
 for filing, hearing and deciding complaints and for
 soliciting advisory opinions. Complaints may be filed by
 any official, employee, or resident of the city, by the
 accountability officer, or may be initiated by the ethics
 commission, in accordance with that process. Requests for
 advisory opinions may be filed by any official or employee
 of the city, in accordance with that process. Receipt of a
 complaint or request shall be acknowledged by the ethics
 commission. If the ethics commission finds any complaint
 filed with it to have been based upon allegations it
 determines to be frivolous, scurrilous, libelous,
 unsubstantiated, unfounded, of nuisance, or with malice, it
 may so determine and may dismiss the complaint without
 deciding the merits of the complaint.

 The ethics committee ordinance and complaint process shall
 protect the identity and rights of complainants,
 whistleblowers, and persons complained against in
 accordance with and as required by all State and federal
 laws, regulations, codes, municipal ordinances, and
 policies, including but not limited to the Maine Freedom of
 Access Act, the Maine Whistleblowers’ Act, and the City of
 Portland’s personnel policies. The ethics commission shall
 refer any complaint alleging corruption, fraud, or abuse of
 a criminal nature to the appropriate law enforcement
 agency.

 The ethics commission shall be an independent body, free
 from interference from any city elected or appointed
 officials and employees. The ethics commission may request
 funding from the city council for independent
 investigations, legal services, staffing, or other demands
 pertinent to its mission.

 (b) Code of Ethics. The city council shall, with the
 recommendation of the ethics commission, enact and maintain
 a code of ethics ordinance defining the code of ethical

{P1999406.4} 95


 Page 105
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

 conduct for elected and appointed City officials and City
 employees. At a minimum, such code of ethics ordinance
 shall include and address:

 i. Standards of Conduct;
 ii. Conflicts of Interest;
 iii. Confidential Information; and
 iv. Disclosure Forms for City elected and appointed
 officials to complete and file with the city clerk and
 update as appropriate.


 (c) Appointment of Accountability Officer.
 The ethics commission may recommend that the city council
 appoint an accountability officer and fund that position.
 The accountability officer shall: serve as an ombudsperson
 to members of the public; provide City information to the
 public and officials to educate them about government
 accountability, integrity, and transparency; provide
 training for public officials on ethical matters; and
 undertake such other duties as may be requested by the
 ethics commission or authorized by the city council. The
 accountability officer may provide administrative support
 for the civilian police review board. The accountability
 officer also shall receive complaints from the public about
 alleged government waste, favoritism, mismanagement, and
 violations of the public trust; the accountability officer
 will refer matters that are within the scope of the ethics
 commission’s duties to the ethics commission, and vice
 versa.

 (d) Violations of the Code of Ethics.
 Violations of the code of ethics ordinance shall be
 addressed as set out in that ordinance, provided, however,
 that any city councilor or mayor found by the ethics
 commission to be in violation of or to have violated the
 ethics code may be reprimanded or censured by the city
 council.




{P1999406.4} 96


 Page 106
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


3. Participatory Budgeting

Proposal Summary

Participatory budgeting is a system that sets aside a portion of a municipality's budget to be
allocated by residents directly. The commission spent two Procedures Committee meetings
discussing the concept. Every member of the committee, and the members of the public who
spoke, supported the concept, and expressed their desire to see it enshrined in city government.
However, during deliberations, a consensus emerged that establishing the specifics of a
participatory budgeting system is a task better suited for the city council. Accordingly, this
proposal does not set forth specifics of such a system for Portland, but requires the City Council
to establish one.


Text

1. Amend ARTICLE VI. BUDGET, Section 5. Appointment; qualifications; powers and duties of
 the city manager, subsection i., as follows:

 (i) To prepare a five (5) year rolling capital improvement
 plan, utilizing the participatory budgeting process
 established by the city council pursuant to Article VII,
 Section 5, for annual presentation to the city council,
 which plan includes the following:

 1. A one (1) year plan of specific projects and their
 cost;

 2. A two (2) through five (5) year plan of specific
 projects and general categories, and amounts of
 proposed spending and funding sources; and

 3. A discussion of the basis for the plan and the
 factors which went into its development or
 amendments.

2. Amend ARTICLE VII. BUDGET, Section 5 Annual Budget, as follows:

 The city council shall develop and implement a participatory
  budgeting system wherein a portion of the city budget is
  allocated based on a process that involves the input from as
  many residents of Portland as possible. To achieve such
  participatory system, the city council may establish a
  subcommittee, task force, or any other structure that is
  necessary and proper for the design, implementation, and

{P1999406.4} 97


 Page 107
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report

  management of a participatory budgeting system.


 After the participatory budgeting process, but in no event
  Not later than two (2) months before the end of the fiscal year,
  the city manager shall submit to the city council a proposed city
  budget prepared by the city manager for the ensuing fiscal year.
  The mayor shall submit comments on the proposed city budget,
  along with any proposed modifications, concurrently with the
  manager’s submission.

 The city council shall fix a time and place for holding a
  public hearing upon the proposed city budget prepared by the
  manager, and shall give not less than ten (10) days prior public
  notice of such hearing, which hearing shall be at least ten (10)
  days before the final passage of the appropriation resolve.
  (Referenda 6/13/78; 11/4/86; 11/2/10)




{P1999406.4} 98


 Page 108
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


4. Communications Policy (to be added to Governance Model)


Summary

Communications between City Staff and Elected Officials

 Portland’s current charter allows the city’s executive to take a strict approach to how,
when, and whether elected officials may talk with city staff. Portland's Charter gives the city
manager the power to direct or make requests of city staff, and denies that power to elected
officials. Article VI, Section 5 of Portland's current charter provides:

 Neither the mayor nor members of the city council shall direct, request or interfere with
 the appointment or removal of any of the officers or employees of the city for whom the
 city manager is responsible, nor shall any of them give an order, publicly or privately, to
 any such city officer or employee relating to any matter in the line of that officer’s or
 employee’s city employment.

 Under the system that this provision establishes, elected officials may make promises to
constituents about how the city will function, and about how they will execute their vision. But
realizing those promises depends on the cooperation of the city manager. The city manager has
the exclusive power to direct city staff of every department, and to make requests of them.
Indeed, the next sentence in the same section of the charter underscores this interpretation:

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to prevent the city manager
 from assigning staff to work and communicate directly with councilors, boards and
 commissions, council committees, neighborhood and other groups and organizations, on
 city work.

 This section empowers the city manager to prohibit or monitor communications between
city staff and elected officials. Such a power is relatively expansive, even compared with other
council-manager systems.

 In recent years, this rule proved cumbersome for local officials. Indeed, it’s very drafter,
Attorney Jim Cohen, a former charter commissioner, has admitted as much to current charter
commissioners. Accordingly, charter commissioners decided to consider a new structure for
governing this area of municipal government.

 To answer the questions presented, commissioners combined analysis of the charters of a
random selection of cities across the country, and interviews with the city clerks of some of those
same cities. The research turned up three dominant models for governing this area of municipal
government. The first model is executive supremacy. Under this model, a charter gives its city's
chief executive relatively broad powers to restrict communications between city staff and elected
officials. Some charters spell out those powers in some detail, and others leave those details
vague and to be spelled out in the city code or policy manual. But they all give the executive the
exclusive, or almost exclusive, power to govern communications between city staff and elected

{P1999406.4} 99


 Page 109
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


officials. The National Civic League’s Model City Charter, Palo Alto, California (council-
manager) Hartford, Connecticut (council-mayor), and Austin, Texas all favor this model. The
second model is limited executive power, where the executive branch proposes rules to the
legislative branch, which the latter enacts after deliberation. Burlington, Vermont and
Youngstown, Ohio both favor this model. The third dominant model is legislative supremacy,
where charters grant a city's legislative branch the exclusive power to write the rules that govern
communications between city staff and elected officials. Portland, Oregon uses this model.

Of the three models, the commission opted for limited executive power because it seemed most
likely to foster cooperation between legislative and executive branches in a manner that leads to
a smooth and workable culture of communication between city staff and elected officials.


Text

Amend ARTICLE VI., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, by amending the first paragraph of
Section 5. Appointment; qualifications; powers and duties of the city manager, as follows:

Section 5. Appointment; qualifications; powers and duties of
the city manager. The city manager shall be chosen by the city
council solely on the basis of character and executive
administrative qualifications, and may or may not be a resident
of the City of Portland or of the State of Maine at the time of
appointment. Such person shall give bond for the faithful
discharge of his or her duties to the City of Portland and in
such sum as the city council shall determine and direct, and
with surety or sureties to be approved by the city council. The
premium on such bond shall be paid by the city. Such person
shall be the administrative head of the city and shall be
responsible to the city council for the administration of all
departments. Neither the mayor nor members of the city council
shall direct, request or interfere with the appointment or
removal of any of the officers or employees of the city for whom
the city manager is responsible, nor shall any of them give an
order, publicly or privately, to any such city officer or
employee relating to any matter in the line of that officer’s or
employee’s city employment. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
nothing herein is intended to prevent the city manager from
assigning staff to work and communicate directly with
councilors, boards and commissions, council committees,
neighborhood and other groups and organizations, on city work.
The mayor shall recommend for adoption by the city council rules
that govern communications between city staff and elected
officials.




{P1999406.4} 100


 Page 110
Portland Charter Commission – Preliminary Report


Section 2. Charter Commission Issues Considered But Not Recommended

1. Councilor Pay Proposal

This proposal, intended to establish greater equity for and access to public offices, would have
defined the position of City Councilor as a 20-hour-a-week job to be compensated at a rate
roughly equal to a non-executive job at a city business.

2. Office of Information Services

PURPOSE. The purpose of the proposed Office of Information is to consolidate disparate but
related functions in Portland’s government into one department to ensure the efficient transfer of
public information between City Hall and individual councilors, the press, and members of the
public.

RATIONALE. The concept of “gatekeeping”, or the act of controlling the allocation of
information or access to resources as either a leveraging tool or as a defensive measure, is
present in virtually every administration where the most powerful actor also controls the
information. This is not an indictment of any individual – it can happen periodically,
episodically, or selectively from administration to administration, and as such, one individual
may not experience it while another might quite frequently. The checks and balances to guard
against gatekeeping are often insufficient, such as the ability of a council or board to fire the
power actor or laws codifying access to public documents, because gatekeeping may include
delivering incomplete documents, intentionally supplying different documents than requested,
redacting documents, delaying documents, altering documents, and providing documents on the
same topic with contradictory information. These various tactics create enough doubt and
frustration that rarely a case prevails against the power actor. These tactics may also be
employed to augment allies and diminish opponents.

SOLUTION. By creating an independent office with access to all public documents but without
a stake in the success or fall of any actor (be it mayor, manager, or councilor), information
requests would be transactional rather than political. Because this office would be a standalone
department, there would be no bureaucracy to obfuscate the cause of undelivered information –
either the source failed to deliver the information or the office failed to procure it upon request.
In either case, the council may easily intervene.

DESIRED RESULTS. The Office of Information would allow our democracy to function more
freely and transparently with more rigorous oversight over public officials and a more robust
marketplace of proposals. It would allow the press to investigate city business without
deterrence; it would allow dissenting politicians to craft or bolster proposals without supplicating
an adversary; and it would allow engaged residents to request their government’s documents
without invoking state laws or threatening lawsuits.

{P1999406.4} 101


 Page 111

City of Portland
 Charter Commission
 Meeting Minutes
 May 11, 2022

Call to Order. Chair Kebede called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Present were: Chair Kebede; Commissioners Barowitz, Buxton (left meeting approximately
7:00), Chann, Eglinton, Houston, Lizanecz, O’Brien, Sheikh-Yousef, Stewart-Bouley (arrived
approximately 7:20), Washburn, Waxman.

Review and Approval of Minutes. On motion by Commissioner Washburn, seconded by
Commissioner Waxman, the Commission voted to approve the draft meeting minutes of April
27, 2022 by unanimous roll call vote of 11 to 0 (Commissioner Stewart-Bouley absent).

Discussion about Schedule and Process to Complete Commission Work

Commissioner Waxman hopes the public hearing can just be dedicated to public speaking on all
of their thoughts. Chair Kebede responded that he does not intend for the public hearing on the
Preliminary Report to be restricted.

Commissioner O’Brien stated that work sessions have been scheduled. These work sessions will
be done in public but without public comment. They are scheduled for Thursday May 19th from
6:00-8:00; May 24 6:00-8:00; and May 31 6:00-8:00.

Commissioner Buxton stated she would like to expand how the public is notified of the public
hearings. She asked if there was appetite beyond public hearings to do any sort of engagement
around proposals found in the preliminary report such as going to farmers markets. Chair
Kebede responded that expanding notification as much as possible should happen and supports
anyone who wants to publicize further. Chair Kebede has requested a summary of what is left in
the budget to determine if there is money in the budget to expand communications.
Commissioners Buxton, Waxman, Washburn and Sheikh Yousef volunteered to help coordinate
expanded communications.

Commissioner Lizanecz asked Commissioner O’Brien if the work sessions are intended to be a
place to raise potential amendments. Commissioner O’Brien’s intent was for the work sessions
to be more expansive than just amendments but for no votes to be taken rather just for discussion
purposes.

Commissioner Sheikh Yousef requested to move public hearing on the Preliminary Report to
May 18th. Chair Kebede responded that given the need to provide 10 days’ notice, the meeting
cannot be moved to the 18th.


 {P2021955.2} 1
Further Discussion about Work Session Process and Topics

Chair Kebede stated that amendments can and have been made between preliminary and final
reports but that not all commissioners have patience or desire to dig into all governance
proposals. Chair Kebede proposed that the work sessions serve as source of all governance
amendments. The work sessions will be open to all Commissioners to attend but not required for
those who do not desire to attend. The goal is to avoid amendments to governance proposal
coming to full Commission unless approved at the work sessions. Commissioner Washburn
questioned what the process for approval would be since no votes were intended to be taken.
Commissioner O’Brien responded that his intent was to keep it conversational so no votes were
to be taken. Chair Kebede recommended that the amendment must be discussed at a work
session before it can come before the full Commission at a public meeting. Commissioner
Buxton was comfortable with Chair Kebede’s recommendation. Commissioner Eglinton also
stated that he liked this approach as an alternative from hearing an amendment for the first time
especially what might be a last meeting before final report. This would give Commissioners
time to digest and ask questions ahead of vote and would be helpful. Commissioner Barowitz
also liked the idea and suggested that any item that comes before workshop should also be 2
days’ notice of things for consideration. Such notice does not need to be detailed but enough to
give Commissioners an idea whether to attend the work session.

Commissioner O’Brien did not object to formal amendments being brought up at the work
sessions, but suggested specific theme discussions at each workshop to include (1) the mayor
powers philosophically, (2) the mayors role in budget, and (3) work session focused on
Commissioner Chann’s prior amendments.

Commissioner Sheikh Yousef would like the opportunity to discuss reasons why Commissioners
supported or did not support certain proposals at the work sessions.

Commissioner Lizanecz raised a procedural question that since no voting was to take place in the
work session and they are meant for open discussion could that mean a Commissioner could
propose 10 amendments as long work session has been informed? Chair Kebede responded that
if a Commissioner wanted to be ambitious and bring that many amendments a Commissioner
could do so.

Commissioner O’Brien stated the work sessions were to be limited to 2 hours and if there are
topics on a deeper hearing there are 3 additional weeks that could have additional work sessions,
if needed.

Commissioner Chann asked if public meeting notice had been provided for work sessions, if
Roberts rules will be followed, and if Commission needs to agree how things will be voted on in
workshop sessions. Commissioner O’Brien stated that the work session dates had been provided
to the City for public notice and still intends no voting will take place. Rather, the work sessions
are to give Commissioners an opportunity for discussion and then would allow a Commissioner
to bring forward an amendment to the full Commission. Commissioner Chann is concerned it is a
bit too fluid and there should be some sort of formal consensus from work sessions. Chair



 {P2021955.2} 2
Kebede stated that it just serves as notice to other Commissioners that a possible amendment
might be brought forward with no votes.

Commissioner Waxman inquired what the intended outcome of the work sessions are in order for
the public to know and understand what will be produced at the end of each session.
Commissioner O’Brien compared the work sessions to “whiteboarding” the issues and to have
the work take place in public on some of the ideas that have previously garnered some support.
Commissioner O’Brien’s hope is that the work sessions can wordsmith the proposals enough that
they are in near final form for full Commission review. Commissioner O’Brien will work on
agendas with Commissioner Chann via GoogleDocs for each session and send to executive
committee. Chair Kebede found general agreement that no governance amendments will be
discussed by full commission unless discussed first at a workshop.

Discussion about Amendment Process for Non-Governance Proposals

Chair Kebede requested that the Commission go proposal by proposal at the end of the next
meeting to review any potential amendments Commissioners may have on non-governance
proposals. Commissioner Barowitz recommended that notice be given of amendments in order
to give Commissioners time to familiarize themselves with the concept behind each amendment.
Commissioner Eglinton encouraged Commissioners to have amendments that they plan to bring
forward in final format rather than wordsmith each in the moment. Chair Kebede stated that all
amendments be in final form and could utilize counsel to get each amendment in charter
language. Attorney Mazer cautioned the commission on the capacity of counsel to assist in
drafting large numbers of amendments. General agreement amongst commissioners that
submitted amendments must be in final language form.

Discussion about how to Group the Proposals

Commissioner Washburn stated she believed the Commission should refrain from grouping
proposals that were not worked on together. She believes it should be left to the voters to vote
items up or down.

Commissioner O’Brien stated that clean elections, school budget and universal voting should
stand alone. He suggested that the other proposals stand together as a package after these other
elements are taken separately.

Attorney Mazer stated to the commission that at a minimum the universal voting and school
budget proposals need to be separate questions given some of the legal concerns. He also
suggested having the clean elections stand on its own given that was one of the reasons the
council asked for the commission to be created.

Chair Kebede also believes combining the proposals as much as possible will reduce confusion
and is in favor of grouping governance, redistricting, communications, and smaller “one liner”
type proposals like proportional ranked choice voting and participatory budgeting into clean
election. Chair Kebede’s initial thought is to have 5 ballot questions total.



 {P2021955.2} 3
Commissioner Houston thought it might make sense to have school board and city council
vacancies as part of the smaller governance matters.

Commissioner Barowitz had 4 possible questions—universal voting, school budget, redistricting
and mayor powers, and then everything else.

Commissioner Houston suggested that the school budget question be split into two separate
questions—joint budget committee that did not seem to have any legal issues and general support
versus the budget issue that had some legality questions surrounding it.

Commissioner Sheikh Yousef raised general concern about grouping and wanting to make sure
public fully understands all of the proposals.

Commissioner Waxman does not want to underestimate the voter being able to know how to vote
on many questions. She still needs time to think about how to group the proposals.

Other Discussion

Commissioner Lizanecz stated he would not bring forward a motion for reconsideration and will
discuss amendments at workshop.

Commissioner Barowitz inquired if the Commission was going to discuss the summaries for
ballot language. Commissioner Eglinton stated that the items on the agenda were just a list of
things that need to be completed before final report.

Motion to Adjourn made by Commissioner Sheikh Yousef, 2nd by Commissioner Washburn
Unanimous 11-0 (Buxton absent) Meeting adjourned at 7:24 pm.




 {P2021955.2} 4