At-Large: James Gooch

Your Top Three Priorities

1.Craft a government capable of serious, consistent vision.
2.Establish a collegial and inquisitive attitude among the Commissioners.
3.Increase people’s sense of participation in their city.

Please list prior applicable experience:

JD '02 Yale Law, studies and published on state and local gov't law.
Work w/ municipalities in ME, seeing up close how various municipal structures function (or fail). Watch (sometimes help) them reach decisions about land use, financial expenditures, bonding. Work with managers, planners, conservation comm'ns and selectmen/councils. Also work with and lead stakeholder groups and steering boards.

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

This is a rare opportunity to closely examine our city’s constitution. I think we could be doing a better job. Whatever the outcome, the Commission should take a thorough, open-minded approach. The only way we’ll know if we’ve been successful is if the voters of Portland accept the recommendations we make. But even if that doesn’t happen, the exercise of cracking open the government structure and taking a good, hard look will have been worth the effort in itself.

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

We seem unable to articulate a forward-looking vision for Portland and then compelling the implementation of those goals. There a lot of discrete, smart ideas that get proposed. But progress proceeds in fits and starts, and some great things are left to die on the vine. A good example of this would be the ‘93 Transportation Plan. There were a lot of great ideas in there; now we’re finally rediscovering some of them. There is also a lack of transparency (see the RFQ process for the Maine State Pier). No matter the system it is at the mercy of the people we elect; there’s only so much a Charter can do. We should have a clear process for articulating a vision, then holding our government and its administrators accountable to that vision

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

The 86 Comm’n underestimated the neighborhood loyalty among Portland residents when they proposed electing all council and school committee members by the vote of the whole city. Though they retained a district residency req't for district reps, they would have deprived districts of distinct representation. There’s a balance between fostering a city-wide vision for gov’t, yet giving people a distinct voice in that gov’t. The 86 comm’n called this devotion to district “parochialism.” But look at the Peaks Island secession efforts, or the kerfuffle over the gym floor at the Expo. Neighborhoods matter. We’ll need to balance that reality with an equally important need for a unifying force. The 86 Comm’n also recommended voter approval for bonds beyond a certain amount. This question will probably come up again. Several issues considered by that Comm’n that were not put to a vote. Chief among these was whether we ought to have a mayor and if so, how “strong.”

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

I’ve looked at Bangor, Biddeford, Lewiston and Waterville; three w/ a mayor. Some of those cities require specific involvement of the council in creating the budget and monitoring the execution of policy. In each charter, some things present themselves as potentially valuable additions or amendments to our own – but none of them is an adequate replacement. Biddeford, e.g.: Strong mayor, large council. Their charter requires the council to work with the superintendent and the city mgr to establish those budgets before submitting them; ours doesn’t. Bidd has 7 wards and 9 councilors. W/ a mayor, it might make sense to have more districts. OTOH, their whole gov’t turns over in an election every two years. That doesn’t seem smart to me. W-ville’s charter has a Code of Ethics for all city employees and a section on Eminent Domain. In my mind, they’re both out of place in a charter. But W-ville also created a mandatory schedule for charter review: every 7 years.

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

Yes – if it’s done right. One of the duties of this Commission – if we agree to recommend a mayor – is to collectively figure out what “right” means for Portland.

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

I actually think the last Charter Commission did a pretty good job of cleaning up most of what was “antiquated” in the Charter. What’s in there is suitable to the times – the question is whether it’s suitable to this City.

There are some things that should be looked at if we decide that a mayor is warranted. For example, in this progressive city, we might want to consider some alternatives to the “first past the post” voting structure, such as IRV. It might make sense to require the eventual winner to obtain a minimum percentage of the vote. Another thing to consider not currently in the Charter would be a residency requirement for department heads.

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

Everything should be on the table. If we decide to propose a mayoral structure, then the balance of representation should be examined. There’s a tension between very local representation and a city-wide office with power. The balance between the two needs to reflect an accurate dialogue between neighborhood needs and over-arching, city-wide needs. A redistricting proposal should be based on population, but the splits would need to be rational. That said, there’s no requirement that we have a huge council. And there is a good argument to be made that smaller districts would have the effect of enforcing an unhealthy and unhelpful distinction between one set of streets and the streets next door.

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

I’d want to look at it a lot more closely before I decide on such a critical issue. Maybe certain correspondence btwn council and comm. Charter requires the schools to come to the city if they will overspend. They did in FY07 and 08, but never came back. To consider: make the schools fiscally autonomous. Came up in 86, but not referred.

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

Once the Commission has issued its report and summary, it would be a good idea to hold a series of public sessions to give people the opportunity to question the commission on their thought process. Evaluating the Charter is a more deliberative exercise than developing discrete policy proposals. People deserve the chance to learn about what the Commission has done – from the Commission – before they go to the polls to vote.

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

The fact that the Commission exists shows that Portland voters aren’t entirely happy with their city government. We need to find out more. Having a couple of “listening sessions” might make sense in that regard. I also feel that all Commission meetings should be open to the public.

What else would you like to add?

Your position matters, but it’s your approach that counts. It would be a disservice to the City to show up with a list of demands, plant your flag in the ground and then spend the next two years fighting over it all.