Daniel DeMelo
@demelo4portland.bsky.social
🌹 Portlander 🗳️ Tech Leader 🖥️ Urbanist 🏙️ Transit Expert 🚃 Homebuilding Wonk 🏠 and Man About Town.
Or maybe the other 47 people who applied were so bad that even someone who could only stay two years was the best choice?
That says something pretty damning about the County's ability to recruit and retain competent executives. Did no other qualified people want this job?
That says something pretty damning about the County's ability to recruit and retain competent executives. Did no other qualified people want this job?
March 26, 2025 at 11:43 PM
Or maybe the other 47 people who applied were so bad that even someone who could only stay two years was the best choice?
That says something pretty damning about the County's ability to recruit and retain competent executives. Did no other qualified people want this job?
That says something pretty damning about the County's ability to recruit and retain competent executives. Did no other qualified people want this job?
Either:
• Field didn't disclose the two-year limit
• There was no two-year limit and retirement is scandal-related; or
• Field told the county Chair but the information was hidden from Mayor Wheeler and other stakeholders
• Field didn't disclose the two-year limit
• There was no two-year limit and retirement is scandal-related; or
• Field told the county Chair but the information was hidden from Mayor Wheeler and other stakeholders
March 26, 2025 at 11:43 PM
Either:
• Field didn't disclose the two-year limit
• There was no two-year limit and retirement is scandal-related; or
• Field told the county Chair but the information was hidden from Mayor Wheeler and other stakeholders
• Field didn't disclose the two-year limit
• There was no two-year limit and retirement is scandal-related; or
• Field told the county Chair but the information was hidden from Mayor Wheeler and other stakeholders
And this is absolutely the ideal solution:
However, I do NOT think that the analysis and policy staffing NEEDS to be expensive. It's just that the small army of Portland govt analysts needs to be redeployed. Where Bureaus were developing policy before, Council will be doing it now. Same analysts, just in a different branch of govt. 4/
Paying for this is where this gets hard.
January 15, 2025 at 8:02 PM
And this is absolutely the ideal solution:
Good points here in this thread from Terry: even with these additional resources, Council will still be understaffed.
But first, just a quick reminder, the item the Council is discussing this evening addresses only one of several deficiencies in the staffing model: staff for individual councilors. The "conducting analysis and writing policy" problem will still be unaddressed. 2/
GTAC looked at each category of staffing: staff for individual councilors, shared legislative staff and operations staff, and additional staff for the presiding officer. Portland's staffing falls short in all categories. The proposal being discussed this week addresses only one of the categories. 3/
January 15, 2025 at 8:01 PM
Good points here in this thread from Terry: even with these additional resources, Council will still be understaffed.
The easiest way to handle reductions is simplistic, across-the-board cuts.
More staff means moving beyond the surface level. I hope additional council and mayoral staff will empower our electeds to do deeper work identifying inefficiencies within the discrete work of our bureaus.
More staff means moving beyond the surface level. I hope additional council and mayoral staff will empower our electeds to do deeper work identifying inefficiencies within the discrete work of our bureaus.
January 15, 2025 at 6:09 PM
The easiest way to handle reductions is simplistic, across-the-board cuts.
More staff means moving beyond the surface level. I hope additional council and mayoral staff will empower our electeds to do deeper work identifying inefficiencies within the discrete work of our bureaus.
More staff means moving beyond the surface level. I hope additional council and mayoral staff will empower our electeds to do deeper work identifying inefficiencies within the discrete work of our bureaus.
Paying for this is where this gets hard.
January 15, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Paying for this is where this gets hard.
Does more staff naturally result in more engaged or productive electeds? No.
IMHO, that's the best (yet still unsatisfactory) critique of this proposal: we need a way to predict how much we expect the government to improve so we can check later if we were right.
IMHO, that's the best (yet still unsatisfactory) critique of this proposal: we need a way to predict how much we expect the government to improve so we can check later if we were right.
January 15, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Does more staff naturally result in more engaged or productive electeds? No.
IMHO, that's the best (yet still unsatisfactory) critique of this proposal: we need a way to predict how much we expect the government to improve so we can check later if we were right.
IMHO, that's the best (yet still unsatisfactory) critique of this proposal: we need a way to predict how much we expect the government to improve so we can check later if we were right.