Eight reasons Portland union members should
vote ‘no’ on the Water District measure
By DON McINTOSH
Associate Editor
Measure 26-156 is a City of Port-
land charter amendment placed on
Portland’s May primary election ballot
by citizen initiative. It would take the
water and sewer bureaus away from
City Council and give them to a newly-
elected seven-member board to over-
see. For Portlanders who feel burdened
by high water and sewer rates and frus-
trated about “Portland City Hall politi-
cians” and their “pet projects,” it might
sound like a good idea … until they get
to know details of the measure. Local
unions have studied the measure and
are unanimous in opposing it, and so
are environmental groups, the Demo-
cratic Party, and every newspaper edi-
torial board in Portland.
Unions, particularly AFSCME,
which represents hundreds of Water
Bureau employees, are making a seri-
ous effort to get the word out. Here are
eight reasons Portland union members
should fill out and send in their ballots
with a “no” vote.
Consider the source . The Meas-
ure 26-156 campaign is led by Kent
Craford, an airline CEO and former
manager of Chris Dudley’s 2010 Re-
publican campaign for Oregon gover-
nor. The campaign is advised by John
DiLorenzo, partner in the Davis Wright
Tremaine law firm and one of Oregon’s
top corporate lobbyists. The campaign
is funded almost entirely by three big
water users — Siltronic ($80,000),
Portland Bottling Company ($75,000),
American Property Management
($25,000) — and by four “smaller”
donors: conservative timber baron An-
drew Miller ($8,000), anti-union Mar-
quis Nursing Homes ($5,000); New
System Laundry ($5,000); and Hilton
Worldwide ($5,000). And the cam-
paign is supported, with arguments in
the Voters’ Pamphlet, by Richard
Leonetti, a blogger associated with the
right-wing think tank Cascade Policy
Institute, and Robert Clark of the Tax-
payers Association of Oregon, a group
funded by Nevada millionaire Loren
Parks, the longtime backer of union
arch-enemy Bill Sizemore.
It would disenfranchise resi-
dents of Portland’s outer east
side. Literally. Measure 26-156 gives
Portland City Council two months to
draw up boundaries for seven new Wa-
ter District board zones. Voters in each
zone would elect a resident of the zone
to represent them. “To the extent feasi-
ble” the zones are to be established
“coextensive with the zones established
for the board of Portland Public
Schools.” That works great until about
92nd Avenue, where the Portland Pub-
lic Schools district ends. But the City
of Portland extends another 70 to 90
blocks east of that. Outer-east-side
Portlanders who live in the Parkrose,
David Douglas, Reynolds and Centen-
nial school districts would either have
no representation on the new Water
District board, or City Council would
have to immediately violate the
amended City charter. Either way, it’s
sloppy legal work, and a colossal
screw-up by the measure’s backers. If
this amendment to the city charter had
gone through a public process — in-
stead of being crafted by private parties
on the 24th floor of the Wells Fargo
building — someone might have
pointed out this was a problem.
Sloppy legal work, Part 2:
Only retirees and rich people
need apply. Providing water and
AFSCME Local 189
Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council
Portland Fire Fighters Association
Portland Association of Teachers
SEIU Locals 49 and 503
Teamsters Joint Council #37
UFCW Local 555
IBEW Local 48
CWA Local 7901
UNITE HERE Local 8
UA Local 290
sewer service has been part of the mis-
sion and charter of the City of Portland
for 119 years. So when Measure 26-
156 authors were crafting the initiative
that would take those bureaus away
from the City, they combed through the
City Charter and specified which sec-
tions they didn’t want to apply to the
new water district, like the power to
compel testimony, and the right of the
City’s independently elected auditor to
review the books. But they missed a
section, the part that says that Port-
land’s elected officials shall have no
other employment. That makes sense
when the officials are full-time paid
members of Portland City Council. But
it’s definitely going to narrow the pool
of those who want to serve three-year
terms on a Water District Board which
is uncompensated, under Measure 26-
156.
Run for Water District board.
No experience necessary. In fact,
no experience allowed. Overseeing
the water and sewer system for Amer-
MAY 2, 2014
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
ica’s 28th biggest city is a complicated
business. There are federal mandates.
Engineering challenges. Bond financ-
ing. Measure 26-156 says to run for the
board, Portlanders must be residents of
the zone and collect 100 signatures
from fellow residents. But one of the
strangest things about the measure is
the long list of those who are barred
from running or serving: anyone who’s
worked for the water or sewer bureaus
for the last six years, anyone who
works for an individual or firm that has
worked for the water or sewer bureaus
for the last six years, and even anyone
who in the last three years served as a
citizen volunteer on a water or sewer
budget advisory committee. Suppose
you dedicated your career to water
quality and retired from the Water Bu-
reau five years ago — you’re barred
from running. Maybe you’re a building
trades union member; you weren’t one
of the thousands who worked on the
City’s $1.4 billion Big Pipe project, but
you’ve taken dispatch to work for a
company that did some of the work—
you’re barred. The list goes on. In sum,
as public interest attorney Dan Meek
put it in a Voters’ Pamphlet statement,
“The measure would prohibit nearly
anyone with Portland water or sewer
experience from serving on the board,
clearing the field for the big money
candidates.”
Drown the attorneys. Flush the
accountants. Is this public policy,
or someone’s personal agenda?
Measure 26-156 doesn’t just guarantee
that the new Water District will have an
inexperienced board; it ensures that it
will have inexperienced attorneys and
accountants too. The measure says no
attorney who’s done work for the City
— or even for firms that did work for
the City for the previous three years —
may be employed by the new Water
District. And it says no accountant who
does work for the City — or even for a
firm that does work for the City — can
do work for the Water District.
It puts regular City workers in
limbo. Measure 26-156 directs the
City to “transfer” its water and sewer
bureau employees to the new Water
District, and says the new district “shall
take charge of the employees and em-
ploy them…” It also says the obliga-
tions of the City legally incurred under
contracts entered into before the charter
amendment takes effect are transferred
to the new district. Does that include
the union contracts that cover over 500
water and sewer bureau employees?
The measure doesn’t say specifically,
but it’s a tricky puzzle to solve. The
largest group of City water and sewer
employees are members of unions like
AFSCME Local 189, Laborers Local
483, and IBEW Local 48 who are cov-
(Turn to Page 14)
PAGE 5