Portland councilor blasts city manager for ‘propaganda’ against Question 1

In what I think is perhaps the strongest language I’ve seen coming from a sitting city councilor against his or her city manager, District 2 councilor David Marshall called out City Manager Mark Rees for what the councilor called “propaganda” posted on the city website about Question 1.

Marshall went so far as to file a Freedom of Access Act request with his own City Hall, demanding to know who called for the information posted and on what grounds.

Question 1 on the Portland ballot asks voters whether to approve or deny a series of ordinance changes intended to protect publicly owned spaces against the threat of being sold, a referendum motivated in large part by the City Council’s controversial September decision to sell most of Congress Square to private hotel developers.

David Marshall (BDN file photo by Joel Page)

David Marshall (BDN file photo by Joel Page)

If the referendum passes, it would be retroactive to a point before that council vote, so it would force another citywide vote to ratify the pending Congress Square sale.

Marshall was one of three councilors to vote against the sale originally, along with Kevin Donoghue and John Anton, who has since left office.

In a letter to Rees dated Monday and forwarded to a number of City Hall reporters, Marshall laid out his concerns about an information sheet about the Question 1 vote originally posted on the city website in late May.

Marshall wrote to Rees, in part:

As you are aware, numerous constituents have contacted me with their concerns about the use of your office to influence the public vote. You heard from one constituent during the First Friday Art Walk when we crossed paths on Congress Street. While the particular constituent is planning on voting “no” on the referendum question, he expressed to us … concern that you are using the city website to push for a “no” vote. He expressed his desire to have a city manager who does not interfere with elections and focuses on administrative duties as prescribed by the City Charter. He was the eleventh person on Friday alone to approach me to express concerns about your actions.  

City Hall responded to Marshall’s complaints. Jessica Grondin, city spokeswoman, issued the following statement about the information sheet, which can be seen by clicking here:

The item posted on the website is a compilation of information generated by city staff and others in response to questions or requests from the mayor and city councilors, and is part of the public record. This information was produced at the request of the mayor and city councilors, as part of the council’s review of the proposed ordinance and the subsequent enactment of their own parks ordinance.

The council sets the policy directives for the city and staff carry out those initiatives. In this case, the council voted 6-3 to support the sale of Congress Square and 7-2 to enact an alternative ordinance that enhances the protections of the city’s parks. Any work produced or disseminated by city staff is reflective of those council actions.

The city clerk’s office operates independently from the city manager’s office and its staff, as laid out in the City Charter, and has not been involved in this.

(Oct. 2013 BDN file photo)

(Oct. 2013 BDN file photo)

So, in a nutshell, Grondin is saying that the information is prepared at the behest of the City Council — of which Marshall is a member — includes only public information and is written in a way that’s reflective of the majority council opinion, which was in favor of the sale.

The will of the City Council is, by all legal means, the will of the city of Portland. So when the council votes to sell a property, City Hall is arguing, the city is by extension in favor of that sale.

Marshall disagreed. He wasn’t satisfied with Grondin’s statement, which was similar to one he said was published in the Portland Sun. Here’s the city councilor’s comeback, in part:

The problem is that you took information from the public record and presented it in a biased view of the election under the caption of “city news” in order to promote a vote against the citizens initiative. The development of biased information to sway public opinion meets the definition of propaganda. This is the first time I have witnessed a city manager create and distribute propaganda to defeat a citizens’ initiative during the 17 years I have been a resident of Portland. …

We are curious who asked you to create propaganda and post it on the website. While councilors may have asked for you to create a fact sheet or a question and answer page, we did not hear any requests in public asking you to create propaganda to defeat the citizens initiative. … 

We take issue with that fact that you believe you should use your office a political tool to effect the results of an election. The vote of the council was for the sale of land and for an enactment of an ordinance, and not a directive for you to use your office as a political tool and post propaganda on the city website. We are concerned that your actions will negatively affect the confidence of residents of the city, who expect the city administration to provide unbiased information to the public.  

Marshall went on to file a FOAA request for “all city records, emails, notes and other communication recorders pertaining to the development of the information” posted on the city website, as well as copies of all different drafts of the information, which Marshall said some observers claimed was changed after he brought up the issue initially on June 2.

The degree to which the city’s information list may be influencing the vote today may be hard to determine, even after the votes are counted.

The last public polling we saw on the issue came back in September, and was commissioned by an anonymous person who was leaning against the sale. But for what it was worth, that polling showed Portlanders convincingly opposed to the sale — 49 percent against it and 34 percent in support. The same study found even more decisive numbers when it came to the question of whether Portlanders wanted to decide themselves whether to sell the park, with 63 percent saying they wanted the final choice instead of the City Council (a wish that would be indirectly granted with the passage of Question 1).

A more detailed breakdown of that poll can be found by clicking here.

Campaign signs on Park Avenue in Portland urge opposite votes on Question 1. (BDN photo)

Campaign signs on Park Avenue in Portland urge opposite votes on Question 1. (BDN photo)

If those gaps have been closed in the nine months since and the referendum is defeated, it could have been for a number of reasons. Campaigning on both sides of the issue has ramped up in recent weeks, and the dispute has remained in heavy rotation in the news thanks to the ongoing court case over the petitions (click here for more on that).

But by councilor Marshall’s tone in his letter to City Manager Mark Rees, it seems unlikely that he’ll let the issue of City Hall’s role in distributing information about the vote fade away after the results are tallied, even if the vote goes his way.

Seth Koenig

About Seth Koenig

Seth has nearly a decade of professional journalism experience and writes about the greater Portland region.