Time for Some Civil Disobedience


Update: 13 June – The issue is covered in today’s Oregonian: “Talk to Metro, but skip the fee”, including a URL for this blog.


Speaking of the Regional Transportation Plan Update and Metro’s New Look, Metro has scheduled a Regional Forum on Friday, June 23rd to help gather ideas for the simultaneous updates of our regional land use and transportation plans:

This forum will offer an opportunity for you to join other leaders and innovators from throughout the region to take a new look at the critical regional decisions that will shape the livelihoods and lifestyle choices of today’s residents and future generations.

Sounds like a great opportunity for citizen participation, doesn’t it? Except that Metro wants you to pay $30 for the privilege! I’m reasonably confident this violates Oregon’s Open Meeting Law, since this is part of a process that ultimately leads to legislative decisions by JPACT, MPAC and the Metro Council. And even if a sharp lawyer can find a way to say it’s not a violation of the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law.

As a citizen rep on MPAC, I’ve been bugging everyone I know at Metro to fix this (and have been joined by other citizens who follow Metro closely). The best we’ve been able to extract is that Metro will provide ‘scholarships’ for folks who can’t or don’t want to pay.

So I propose that we protest. The best way I can think to protest is to participate in droves. To request a scholarship, the process is to e-mail NorrisC@metro.dst.or.us.

Here’s the e-mail I sent:

I would like to register for the regional forum.
I am philosophically opposed to paying a fee for a citizen involvement event.

Thank you.

Chris Smith
[address]
[phone]
[email]

While you’re at it, you might want to put the Metro Council members on the ‘cc’ line, as I did:

bragdond@metro.dst.or.us
burkholderr@metro.dst.or.us
libertyr@metro.dst.or.us
hostickac@metro.dst.or.us
parkr@metro.dst.or.us
newmanb@metro.dst.or.us
mclains@metro.dst.or.us

Let’s overwhelm them with protest-by-participation!


10 responses to “Time for Some Civil Disobedience”

  1. Chris – Thanks for the post. I am not sure how “participating in droves” and requesting a scholarship is considered civil disobedience. You are doing exactly what we want you to do. Anyone who wants to participate is entitled to participate and Metro will wave the fee for those unwilling or unable to afford the food and beverage fee (which covers the cost of refreshments and lunch). There is no form to fill out or any hurdles to climb if you want a scholarship as they are granted to anyone who requests one, no questions asked.

  2. Brian –

    If the reason for the fee is purely because of the food and refreshments, why not reduce the bureaucratic need to apply for a scholarship a bit and reverse the process: Anybody gets in free, but if you want more than a glass of water you can buy a meal/beverage ticket at the door?

    I think it is vitally important that the image of this event be one of easy and open participation. There has been a growing cynicism lately about regional and local planning and public involvement. Now is not the time, no matter how well-intentioned your original event rules, to risk any additional perception of barriers to public access.

    Needing to apply for a “scholarship”, even if done for everyone who applies, is still a _barrier_ to free and open participation.

    – Bob R.

  3. Bob – I believe that the scholarship process was proposed for two reasons:

    First, once people arrive at the forum, we want everyone treated the same whether they paid or not. This means that everyone gets coffee, refreshments and lunch and we don’t have second class citizens like they do at City Club with people drinking water while they watch everone else eat. We also want to avoid a mass exodux of attendees leaving early if they are hungry or want to buy lunch across the street.

    Second, we need to let the OCC staff know how many meals to prepare. It is a logistical nighmare if several hundred people show up and we dont know how many will buy lunches or not.

  4. Brian –

    Thanks for the reply. I do see your reasoning behind structuring the things the way they are, however I still maintain that in light of current political realities and recent well-publicised public process controversies, forums such as these should be open without any encumbrances.

    Perhaps for future events such as these, for example, the could be held in a location with ample local restaurants nearby and a scheduled lunch break, while the main event only provides basic coffee/juice/water and has a “suggested donation”.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  5. Brian, I sort of feel like the loyal opposition here. I think something went radically wrong when Metro even thought about charging for an event like this.

    I have tried to ‘work within the system’ bringing this up at MPAC and a Council Worksession, and the response first to ‘allow application for scholarships’ and then later to ‘give scholarships on request’ is a step in the right direction, but I think the only correct response would have been for the Council to say it was a mistake and the event is free to all. I’m dissapointed the Council has not directed this.

    My ‘protest by participation’ push is an effort to approach this constructively (I could have just sued in Circuit Court under the open meetings law). I hope that the majority of participants will be there on scholarship and Metro will get the message and never do this again.

    I think the comparison to City Club is off-point and something of a cheap shot. City Club is a private non-profit, albeit one with a very public purpose, but more importantly uses no tax dollars and is not subject to open meeting law. Nonetheless Club programs that don’t involve food are generally free to both members and non-members.

    If the pricing was set up because of providing lunch, then the tail is wagging the dog. Metro’s mission is to plan for our region’s future with the participation and for the benefit of our citizens. Its mission is not feeding people!

  6. i sure look forward to the big plate of sushi, glass of fine wine and delicious dessert that my thirty-dollar entrance fee is buying me. i mean, thirty bucks buys one hell of a lunch in a nice restaurant in this town. given the economies of scale in using the OCC kitchen staff plus a fixed menu, i would expect some classy food. like, outrageously classy. like, bizarrely, inappropriately classy.

    like: even if the purported reason for this fee — to pay for lunch — is the real, actual reason for the fee, it’s highway robbery. i’ll pack a lunch, thanks, and apply for my scholarship in person.

  7. I think something went radically wrong when Metro even thought about charging for an event like this.

    I think there is something radically wrong with citizen participation in Portland. This is just one example. It has come to be viewed by elected officials as a barrier rather than as an aide to making good decisions. Whether it is the process or the politicians that is broken, something needs to be done about it. Citizen participation is widely regarded as a charade that masks how decisions are really made. As fewer people participate, it has become the province of cranks and special interests.

    Its pretty obvious that the purpose of the fee was exclusionary. As mykle points out, $30 is pretty steep for food. I’m sure part of that was wanting to get the real decision makers in the room, something that won’t happen with an open process.

  8. Ross Williams writes: “Its pretty obvious that the purpose of the fee was exclusionary. As mykle points out, $30 is pretty steep for food. I’m sure part of that was wanting to get the real decision makers in the room, something that won’t happen with an open process.”

    Nailed that on on the head didn’t you Ross.
    One other point. They could have arrainged for it to be on Saturday and more of us riff raff types might be able to show up.
    Michael Wilson

  9. Ross Williams writes: “Its pretty obvious that the purpose of the fee was exclusionary. As mykle points out, $30 is pretty steep for food. I’m sure part of that was wanting to get the real decision makers in the room, something that won’t happen with an open process.”

    Nailed that on on the head didn’t you Ross.
    One other point. They could have arrainged for it to be on Saturday and more of us riff raff types might be able to show up.
    Michael Wilson

  10. Nailed that on on the head didn’t you Ross.
    One other point. They could have arrainged for it to be on Saturday and more of us riff raff types might be able to show up.

    Nailed that, Michael. The $30 lunch –who buys $30 lunches?– pales in comparison to the exclusiveness of having to take a day off from work. Of course the people who will be there will, I suspect, be mostly on their respective employers’ clocks.

    Reminds me of a hearing I recently attended as a neighborhood association board member…on one side volunteers and neighbors, on the other paid attorneys and consultants. Some level playing field.

    The embarassingly –and transparently phoney– “alternatives analysis” over the eastside streetcar (“let’s see, we could do a streetcar, or do squat…which do we prefer?”) portends a public process formula that is in serious disrepair.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *