In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

127 13 home rule arrIVes, a sherIff Is fIred, and roCky Butte PrIsoners esCaPe (1966–1973) A proposed new charter on the May 1966 ballot put forward sweeping changes in county governance; it would give the board broader powers to legislate its own new programs, much like city council, rather than limiting commissioners to carrying out state legislative mandates. the number of commissioners would be expanded from three to five, one of whom would be designated as chairman by the voters; all officials would be elected county-wide. the chairman would hold all administrative authority, exercise the power of the gavel in presiding over commission sessions, and cast one of the five commission votes. the new charter would eliminate numerous elected positions—sheriff, constable , surveyor, treasurer, assessor, county clerk, and district court clerk—with the aim of turning over those duties to trained professionals who would report to the county chairman. the district attorney and county judges were elected officials whose positions were governed by state law, rather than the county, so they were not affected by home-rule charter provisions. Commissioner Mel Gordon had spearheaded the drive for home rule. two years earlier, he had convinced his fellow commissioners to appoint an elevenmember committee to draft a Multnomah County charter for referral to the voters. Statewide voters had approved a constitutional amendment allowing counties to adopt home-rule charters six years before, and three Oregon counties had already adopted home rule—Lane and Washington in 1962, followed by hood river in 1964. Commissioner Mike Gleason, who liked things the way they were, was lukewarm about the idea at first but eventually went along.1 Lloyd Anderson, who was at that time the manager of local engineering firm Ch2M, chaired the charter drafting committee. Other members were George birnie; William brunner; Mrs. Arnold (Mary) Damskov, an active member of League of Women voters; Sylvia Nemer Davidson; Neva elliott, a lawyer; John 128 chapter 13 elorriaga, president of U.S. National bank; Alden Krieg; John Sonderen; and Stanley Swan. brunner served as vice-chair and elliott as secretary. the wording of the charter was drafted by Orval edder, an attorney employed by the League of Oregon Cities and the Oregon bureau of Municipal research. edder’s language was based on substantive decisions made by the appointed charter commission members. he copied the ballot title from the Washington County home rule measure passed four years before.2 County Commission Chairman Mike Gleason wanted to give the county board authority to create special districts, but charter commission member George birnie, who represented several water and sewer taxing districts, opposed granting that authority. birnie’s position won out by a contentious fiveto -four charter commission vote. An early draft of the charter eliminated the office of auditor as an elected official, but after the incumbent auditor, former teamsters’ dock worker Jack O’Donnell, threatened to publicly oppose the charter and encourage his union friends to do likewise, the auditor’s position was left an elective one. (Concerning O’Donnell’s qualifications for the job, Commissioner eccles once joked during an off-the-record commission meeting, “Jack O’Donnell doesn’t know the difference between an audit and a ham on rye.”the comment got quoted in a daily newspaper by a cub reporter.) voters approved the Multnomah County home rule charter by a narrow majority. “It was a surprise to almost everyone that the measure passed,” said Charter Commission Chair Anderson. “Most county officials were apathetic about the issue and those opposed did little to fight the measure.”3 Probably the major reason the county charter passed with so little debate was that the public’s attention was focused on a highly controversial “strong mayor” form of government proposal for Portland on the same ballot. Also, words used to describe the two measures undoubtedly affected their outcomes. “home rule” sounded folksy and friendly, whereas “strong mayor” conjured up visions of power-hungry politicians. the Portland measure was rejected by 68,158 votes to 41,848,4 while the county home rule charter “slipped in under the radar,” so to speak, with 71,771 yes votes to 64,331 no.5 Immediately after the May 1966 election, all the county officials whose elected positions were abolished by the new charter—with the exception of Sheriff Clark—circulated a petition to have the vote rescinded. the petitioners obtained enough signatures to put the measure on the November general election ballot before the charter went into effect...

Share