District 3: Joseph Malone

Your Top Three Priorities

-Educate the public through debate & lectures on primary topics by presenting both pro & con views.
-100% transparent public process.
-Allow public input in structuring questions that go to voters.

Please list prior applicable experience:

I am currently temporary president of the Deering Highlands neighborhood group. I was a member of the Portland Public Art Committee when they were establishing their guidelines and extensive policy process. I ran a city wide campaign against a housing moratorium in Portland in which we prevailed. I was president of MEREDA.  I assisted several years ago in the re-writing of Portland’s industrial zoning codes.

What do you hope to accomplish as part of the commission?

I hope to ensure that the commission does not rush to judgment on any single issue. I would intend to make sure that balanced information, both pro and con, is provided on all topics the commission decides to undertake as its priority issues.

What do you see as issues within the current structure of city government?

In general I think the current structure of city government is adequate and has served its citizens reasonably well. The one place I feel things could be improved is to have a focal point or a place where issues can be brought forward to the council and prioritized. In short, there needs to a place “where the buck stops.”

What are you thoughts on the 1986 charter report? What prior issues would be the most helpful for the current Commission to consider?

The previous charter commission seemed to be well run and could be a blueprint for a new review of the charter. I liked the way the commission looked at all items and then decided on which items to prioritize. I believe the new commission should go through all potential items by reviewing current charter section by section and agree on those which are priorities. I would add that the new commission might want to hold a more rigorous debate and educational process for the public. I believe it would be the role of the commission to spark debate, provide structure, and/or host these educational/debate forums.

What other city charters have you examined? How would it inform your approach to analyzing our city’s charter?

I have a looked at a few charters on line but would refrain from bringing any of these to the Charter Commission. If elected to the Charter Commission I would encourage a process where 3 charters that represent a mayoral system and 3 charters that are city manager systems be selected. I would suggest it would be the commission’s job to select these 6 charters and to use them, to whatever extent they would be helpful, in forming opinions on Portland’s new charter.
I believe it is important for all of the commission members to be working from the same page and 6 separate charters should be plenty to form a basis from which to work.

Would you support an elected mayor? If no, why not?

Yes, no, maybe. I suggest that it’s important for commission members to go in with a completely open mind on this issue & try not to have preconceived ideas. I believe the mayoral issue deserves intense scrutiny. Inevitably a host of other issues that are off-shoots from this discussion will shape the debate as to duties of a Mayor. The commission needs to be educated on the pros & cons of this particular issue as does the public. Significant debate should be undertaken & all voices heard before embarking on such a major structural change to Portland’s governance rules.

What parts of the current city charter do you feel are antiquated?

I don’t believe “antiquated” is the appropriate term. I think all pieces of the charter are interrelated and a decision to change one piece will necessitate changes in other parts of the charter.

Would you consider re-districting the City of Portland? Why and how?

Yes, if it is determined that population of a particular district is out of balance. No, if the purpose is for gerrymandering.

Would you modify the current relationship between the school committee and city council?

This is one of the largest issues that the commission will deal with & I firmly believe we should not go in with preconceived ideas. Should the council appoint or do we leave members to be elected. To take a stand on these issues without informed public debate would be a great disservice to the City and its citizens.

What role do you think the charter commission should play to educate the public on changes made to the city charter?

I believe the commission’s #1 role should be to seek public input, to provide education for the public on the issues by reaching out to local and regional experts and to provide debate for the community in open commission forums.

What role is the charter commission for public engagement during the process of re-examining the charter?

I believe the primary role is to engage the public. The commission’s goals should be to provide dozens of opportunities for input, debate & education. I suggest a three pronged approach: 1) heavy initial input into which priorities the public wants examined, 2) engage people who can educate the public on the pros & cons on each primary issue, 3) provide debate between experts & input in the form of questions & debate from the public. Then the commission should consolidate these ideas & make changes that are supported by the public process.

What else would you like to add?

It is a 16 to 24 month commission process to explore the most serious issues facing city governance today. The commission must be populated with candidates who have an open mind and have not determined their position on the key issues before hearing strong debate and public input.