 Hi, I'm Lisa Savage. Welcome to Pathways to Progress. I'm here with Portland City Councilor's Victoria Pelleteer from River Road, Rodriguez, and we are going to talk about municipal politics and what's going on here in the city of Portland as we are accustomed to do. Let's check in a little bit first. This is the halfway mark of the second year of both your turn. You were fresh and new when we started this project, and now you're halfway through the second year. So how are you feeling? Is it all downhill? Are we at peak count? This is like peak council performance where we're at right now. This is exciting. It's a year and a half. I love that. You know, I've always really appreciated that Tori and I are like on parallel, you know, timelines that we got like for the same year. And especially this show which less is kind of like like check in once a month and be like, how are things going? And we kind of do this like, but yeah, we're at the peak. And it might be all downhill from here. Yeah, I feel, I feel like it's, it's wild to think that we're at the halfway point because when we first got elected three, just three years in general feels like a really long time. And I think like I had that moment too of saying like, okay, this is, this is three years of my life. There's going to be a lot that happens. And the fact that I, that we've made it a year and a half actually feels really significant because I remember our first show when we were sitting out there and I think we had had our first meeting and I was like, well, this is great. This is great. So I think the fact that we are now sitting here, we've had a bunch of shows, we had a bunch of experiences. Some have been good, some have been really bad. And I think like being at the halfway point actually feels really exciting, like an accomplishment for both of us. You hit your stride. Yeah. Which is, I think was really neat to like, even, you know, I was on the school board before doing this, but like we were necessarily like well-known and a year and a half into it, like we've gotten too many opportunities to meet with people, talk with neighborhood, we're just talking about how now people actually know us. And at the beginning, there was this idea of like, oh, these like crazy progressives have joined the council. And now they're, as they get to know us and they hear us speak and they understand more of like where our minds come from, our decision-making comes from, they're like, they're like normal people. So that I think has been, that's the rewarding part, right? When you actually feel like the community starts to understand where you come from and you see the people that value, you know, both the work that you're doing and why you're doing it. You have to question a little bit why they elected you if they thought you were, you know, not good reps. But as we know, many people go, I think I've heard of that person once. I shall mark the box. So we had made a plan last time to talk about the citizens referenda process. It gets used a lot in Portland. It gets used a lot in municipalities all over Maine. It gets used a lot at the state level. We have, you know, we've had the referenda process in the state constitution since the early, early 1900s. And it's really interesting. Kind of, I looked into the history of it a little bit. I went to the library today and went in the Portland room and looked at some old newspapers. I want to share a kind of a funny one with you that you'll allow to kind of set up our discussion. We can hear you, you know. Yes, we can. So this is from April 3rd, 1990. And you might think this was a city counselor's picture accompanying the outraged Portland citizenry put city counselors to flight. They did not actually run from the room, but this is actually a concerned citizen. This is not a city counselor. Portland residents, angered by the possibility that city counselors were about to restrict one right of political expression, used another right to give the city's elected leaders a three hour chewing out. Have you guys ever had a three hour chewing out? Yeah. Yes. Sorry. Outraged over a proposal to make it harder for residents to initiate a referendum, a bunch of angry citizens let counselors have it during the public comment. Portion. So there are a lot of things that the people said, I'll skip, kind of cut to the chase here. You still consider the citizens the enemy and that's the problem, said Walter Kozinski. We only bite when we're provoked and I guess we felt provoked tonight, said Kerry Lord. Counselors practically lined up to apologize after the opposition and forced them to scuttle a proposal that would have changed the signature requirement for citizen initiated referendum. So they had an agenda item to increase it and the public comment was so vociferous that they back down and tabled the motion and didn't go forward. That's 1990. 1990? Wow. Okay. So interesting huh? Absolutely. Tori, you guys said some things in the past that I think are really relevant here about the reason that the referendum process gets used so frequently is that many voters feel like or citizens, people, residents of Portland feel like that's the way they can express their views. That's where their voice comes in. Yeah, well I'm really honest about the relationship that is between the people of Portland and the council because I am a person of Portland and I was elected as somebody that was like an activist and community leader. So I recall the frustration that is felt towards the city council. There's a huge gap between the people and local government and this isn't specific to Portland. This is everywhere and people aren't feeling like they're being listened to. People aren't feeling like they are being heard. They oftentimes they have a council. I think like we're better at this than others but oftentimes they have a council that's not accessible, that's not transparent, that they can't get a hold of. All of us, I think try and do our best in terms of like social media posting and being a little bit more in tune with the community. But yeah, I mean people are putting forward referenda items because there's something that they're not getting from us and as the policymakers there is a thing or an ordinance or a policy or just a listening ear that they're not receiving from us. So they're going forward and putting their own ballot measures or their own measures on the ballot. And I think in terms of citizens referenda, it's a really normal part of democracy. It's just the way that it goes, especially in a politically active city like Portland. So I'm in favor of keeping it and I'm in favor of keeping it the way that it is. Yeah, no changes. I'm actually like, yeah, I'm totally exhausted by this conversation if I'm being honest because I feel like we've talked about it multiple times. I think like we've never moved this quickly on an item before. Like we talked about this, I think we had a workshop in March. It's now July and it will potentially be sent to the ballot depending on how the meeting on Monday goes. And I say this, I feel like every meeting as well, but this wasn't a council goal when we were talking about what are our goals. This wasn't something that we set as a goal. We set like racial equity as our number one goal. And if anything, this isn't complete opposition to racial equity because we are taking, I think we're taking a measure that is initiated by the people that is initiated by most often the working class and the disenfranchised individuals of Portland who feel like they're not being heard. And we're saying this process that you're utilizing isn't good. And we're going to make it so much harder for you to actually put something on the ballot and for you to utilize your voice and your rights as citizens of Portland. So that's not racial equity to me. That's not social equity to me. That's just slashing it and essentially saying like, okay, yeah, you can put stuff on the ballot, but we can change it after 18 months. You have to have even more signatures than you have ever gotten. Collecting signatures is extremely difficult. I don't think it's an easy thing. And I feel like I made this point at the last meeting too. You need a certain number of signatures. I don't remember how many it is to be mayor of the city, but I think like the signature count in terms of like being the mayor of the city was probably less, I think, than what you would need to put a citizen's referenda forward. So if anybody can run to be the mayor of the city and get a small number of signatures, I don't know why we're focusing on like a citizen's referenda and not the seats that all of us have earned. Like you need 75 signatures to be a district counselor. That's not to me. That's actually not that many. So I feel like if we're going to look at that and look at who can be in these seats to be policymakers, like that's a conversation that I think we should have if we're going to talk about citizen's referenda. So I don't know. I feel like I'm like a broken record with it because I think I've said it at every meeting, but people aren't feeling heard and they're not feeling valued and they're especially not going to feel heard or valued if they look at the city council and say like, wow, this is what they're focusing their time and energy on, especially when we have Nazis in the city, especially when we have a huge issue with our unhoused population, huge issue with asylum seekers and finding places to live. To me, this is so and not a priority and it's frustrating that we have talked about it as long as we've talked about it. So you're going to have a meeting Monday and craft what will probably be on the ballot in November. Is that what I'm understanding correctly? Do you want to give us a preview of what do you think is going to be decided or at least discussed at the Monday meeting? Yeah. So I mean, we've had over the last workshop that we had, we went over some of the options of, you know, the items that we want to change out of chapter nine. I think, so I do want to kind of like just sort of kind of give my perspective of it because I'm a little bit different than where Tori is at. I think I agree a lot. First of all, number one, like the fact that this is an important piece of like the democratic process for citizens, right? Like this is a leverage that citizens have when they need, when they feel like they need to advance an issue. And that needs to be protected. And it was really interesting, like over the course of our conversation, I started being open to changing the number of signatures that are required to put a referendum up. And I was looking at it because the conversation was being framed as, you know, let's look at what the state citizen's initiative process looks like and see if we can mimic that. And so using a different way to figure out how many signatures are required, like a certain percentage of the last gubernatorial election. And so I was open to that. But then, as I heard a lot of like the discussion around it, I felt less, you know, comfortable making that change. But the entirety of the conversation, I'm approaching it as, you know, there's ways to improve the process so that it is more effective. Because what we're seeing now is, you know, we're seeing citizens initiatives coming up simply because that's the only way to impact some of the previous initiatives that have been passed because we're locked into that five year term. So for example, we recently saw the landlord association put up an initiative on the ballot that failed in June. And, you know, they, you know, they're by no means are they are disenfranchised, you know, the section of our community. It's ironic that the last one is actually just as interesting. But that's the only avenue that they had to like, you know, advance the goal that they felt was important because they didn't see like a cancel that was amicable to their views. So I think, again, they were exercising that same leverage. But I guess, though, to me, I want to see a way to improve the effectiveness of that system, not to limit the way that citizens can use it. And the changes, for example, that I would envision the council making in less than five years, I would want to make sure that we can capture in an ordinance that they wouldn't be substantive changes, that they'd be like operational changes. Like, how can we make this new ordinance without losing the impact that was envisioned by the folks that put it forward? How can we make it fit into our operations, right? Whether it's this new department, I have to, you know, organize whatever details are around it. So to me, these are things that would help it flow better. There are some things, however, and I'd be very clear about this on Monday night, that we got to make sure that that balance of power between both the citizens who are interested in being included in the process and then city staff and elected officials, how much can we leverage what they're intending to put into the ballot? So it has to be really, really clear that what the intention is of an initiative needs to be maintained, but I do think that there are procedural changes that we can make that would improve on that. And so, for example, including the city clerk's office in making sure that the language meets, or that the language is clear, I think we had a conversation last time about the language on the ballot that the council amended just to make sure that it wasn't, you know, leading voters one way or another. I think also this was actually, I'm interested to see the discussion around this because it could be used really negatively, but having the fiscal impact note attached to it, I think that that's also really important as well. It's just more information for voters to like figure out whether or not they're going to support something on the ballot. But I guess the important thing for me to communicate is that I'm really approaching this as a way to make it more effective as an leverage of democracy that people have, not to limit the effective, or not to limit the way that people can access it. I mean, it seems like it's working, even though ironically the last show we had, we talked at length about the originally called Act to Improve Rent Control. It was actually to allow or to take away the cap on rent increases. And the council decided to rename it because the original name was misleading, but then it went to the voters and by more than two to one, they rejected it. So the people still spoke even though that was basically a business interest developer initiated or a friend of mine. And our decision also, you know, the council will be putting it on the balance of voters would ultimately have to decide whether or not our proposal passes. Sure. And so the five-year window that you're talking about is that the stipulation that if something passes by citizens referendum, then the council can't come and change it within five years. It can only be changed by another referendum. And the referendum could be both citizens initiated or council initiated. But the people would have to vote. It's kind of a cumbersome process, you know, in that sense, because things a lot of things can change in five years. Even the people that originally put the measure forth might agree it just doesn't apply anymore. We've seen the example, remember when there was one on the ballot about changing the way the cruise ships came in. And then the unions and the cruise ships in the city got together and talked and said, okay, we worked out win-win-win. It's already on the ballot, but you know, we're not asking you to vote on that. Okay, I had something too. I feel like, and also this is good because last time people were like, Victoria and Roberto agree on everything, blah, blah, blah. And like, this is great. This is great. Yeah, so this is actually good for that person who thinks that we have the same views and everything. I think too, if we're gonna do it, I think oftentimes in the council body, when we talk about doing things, I feel like we use workflow and engaging stakeholders over and over again in terms of process. That's the process. We need to engage stakeholders. We need to do the process. We need to look at XYZ, and then we'll make a determination. And we did have two workshops, but nowhere in these workshops did I feel like we were engaging any stakeholders. It's not like we're going out into the community and talking to people who've put forward citizens' referendum in the past. It's not like we invited them into a space to have a conversation with them. It's not like we're working with the citizens of Portland to say, okay, this process is getting a little out of control. How do we all make sure that we can feel like, one, you're being heard, but two, that we still have control and can do our job as policymakers and how do we like work together and kind of combine our efforts? If we were going to do it that way, then I feel as though I could be a little bit more on board with this conversation. But because we're not, and I don't feel like it has been an authentic effort to say, you know, why are people putting forward so many citizens' referendum? We should probably go into the community and actually have that conversation. If we're not going to do that, then I just feel like we're exercising our power as counselors and as a counsel body to do something that, again, is going to really make, I think, a lot of the public lose a lot of faith in us. Because they're saying, well, this is the one thing that we're able to do to get you to listen to us and to at least feel like we can be in this Portland community and we can live and work here. And if we're going to amend that process and not do what we say we always want to do in that space, which is like engage stakeholders and do the process, then I just feel like I don't know what we're doing if we're not going to actually take the steps to do what we say we should be doing as counselors in that space. You could be risking a three-hour chewing out, too. I'm sure it's coming. Yeah. I wouldn't we get a lot of emails. Well, one of the things that was interesting to me when I was at the library doing a little research about this issue is how many times Portland has voted on whether to change their form of government from the city manager form that we have now to a strong mayor or a strong elected mayor being the sort of CEO of the city. That has come up at least twice in the past. It's come up during the time that we've been doing this show a third time. That to me also goes right to the heart of the matter is city government responsive to the needs of the people. Right. Because the argument for that always is the city manager isn't, you know, the city manager doesn't report to you. And so if they say, oh, should we sweep an encampment? And there's a city council meeting and the city council is going, no, we shouldn't sweep the encampment. There's no place for these people to go. The city manager can go ahead and sweep the encampment anyway. And that's how city government works. Repeatedly, voters have tried to change that form and never have yet, at least in the time frame that I was looking at. Do you think that that will come up again? Is that one going to be a continually revisited issue? Or do you think that was put to rest when that one measure failed? No, I think that as you're kind of like alluding to, I think there's going to be one of these, what's the word, kind of like, you know, perpetual kind of Portland issues. I think all municipalities, and it's the right thing to do, right? Like these conversations should always be happening, like, right, God, I hate that I'm about to say this, to form a better union, a more perfect union, right? Like we're constantly, I know, we're constantly working to improve government, and we should never be satisfied with how things are, right? The status quo should never be like where we're all like, oh, the finish line, we're here. So I do, I think that that's a healthy conversation to continue to have. And I think it is however important to acknowledge that even though that has been put forward by initiatives or has been put forward because people have been calling for it, voters have also refused it. So the balance has been happening. I think that the conversation has gotten more inclusive. I think that now we're digging deeper into like what would it look like if we had a different form of government as opposed to just like, we don't like what it is right now, let's try something new. So we are progressing in that conversation as a municipality. And I think what we have through the last charter commission was different than what the charter commission had 10 years before that. So I don't think that that will ever be put completely to rest. Well, it's good to keep revisiting. I mean, that is a dynamic form of government. I wonder if you weren't a city councilor put back on your year in the cap to go hat. What kind of, I was really struck by how many trivial items have been really important items also at the state level. I was in the mains had it since 1907, I believe when the Constitution was. So many, many things have come before voters with citizens referendum, everything from bear baiting to like nuclear waste to like, well, we're going to build that school, but we're not going to put a pool in it. It was amazing to me the range. Do you have a sense that trivial things make it on to the referendum ballot? And if you do feel that way, is there a movement on the council to kind of go, you know, some things are just too small to go through this whole, yeah, it's expensive process and just not appropriate for referendum or what do you think about that? I think that the, well, I think it depends on like the lens that you're looking at it through and your own personal viewpoint because for me as a renter, like rent control was really important for me as, and I think that was a huge issue that impacted a lot of people when I saw the landlords referendum. That's when I was like, to me, this doesn't feel like it's a necessary referendum item because it's quite literally just trying to undo what was done. So that wasn't even, I don't think like effective in the way of like a citizens referendum. I think it was just like a backlash to rent control that was going to protect so many people that are renters and also especially in my district, a high demographic of people of color. So that felt like it was going to protect people of color from being displaced in Portland, especially with like the over being overrun with Airbnb's and short-term rentals. So that to me seems like a big issue and other referendum items in the past that have seemed like this is to help the working class. The backlash that comes with it is like that's the part to me that I think feels trivial. And I understand that like, you know, people are saying, we can't govern by referendum. We can't just go like back and forth because I think there may be like another one coming for like another landlord referendum. So I get it, but I also think like we're just seeing a tug of war between two different demographics of saying like, we are afraid that we're not going to be able to live in Portland anymore. The rent is too high. We want protections. And then a group of landlords and property owners saying like, you have enough protections and like, we don't need to give you anything more than what we're giving you. So I feel like it's a deeper issue than even the referendum. It's just like how we're looking at living in Portland and the things that I think many of us as younger renters feel like we deserve and don't have. And so to looking at the lens of that from somebody who's putting referenda items on the council, I can understand why people would be very frustrated with the city council and very like defeated by the work of the city council. If they're saying, wow, I'm really trying to advocate for being able to live here and you're going to make that harder for me to do by increasing the signature count and being able to shorten the time that you have to intervene. So I don't know. I think it's, I think it's hard because I feel like sometimes there's a tone of like, we don't know why people don't like us and we don't know why nobody wants to work with us. And we're, we are the establishment, we are the system. So I really think that, you know, and I, I like, hey, feeling like that as well as somebody that is very against the system in the establishment, but I'm in it. And so I think it's really important for all of us to really say like, well, let's remember what it was like before we got into these seats and how frustrating it was to feel like your local government didn't hear you. So the only way that I know how to make them hear me is to put a referenda item on. So I'm going to take matters into my own hands. And I don't know. Again, I think it's a normal part of democracy. And I think we have a way bigger issue than the referenda. I think it's people in the city don't feel like their local government cares about them. And I can't say, Oh, no, we care about you guys when we're focusing on something like this. One of the things I found interesting, I just want to say quickly, and then we'll hear from you, Roberto, is that money, the money, the big money is big spending has lost. They are on the losing side of the last few referendum questions that we've been looking at. So that's been an interesting, the people's voice is getting through, even though they get outspent. Same thing with candidates too. Like though fundraising hasn't necessarily been indicative of who's winning. I was just going to add, because I think Tory's spot on a lot of the way that people use citizens initiative. There's also, and when she started to say about, we are in the system, the way that government functions, even when it's at its best, it's slow. And by the time that something gets through its normal process, the issues are already completely different. So often, it's not often, it is just frustrating as could be. So it's both not feeling like you're heard. And the fact that it is a system that's played with like processes that are slow. And so we both have to embrace it because we just talked about like that slow, like we talked about a potentially putting a commission on task force to evaluate, you know, the decisions that we're making. That's a slow process that's going to like, you know, literally just delay any action. If we were talking about some other issues that do have some urgency behind them, we would all look at like the idea of forming a task force or commission as a way to like perpetuate the issue or to like kill it down the line. So we have to always acknowledge that government works incredibly slow and that contributes to the sentiment of like, they don't listen to me. And then on top, we've talked about like, it's hard for, we're at every meeting, we're at committee meetings. And, you know, we still are learning. So by no means just because we're elected, are we professionals or experts in how things work? So take away then the fact that we're every meeting, you're just like a citizen, like a resident here, you're not at every meeting, you don't have the privilege of being at even as some of the conversations that we're in, but we gain a lot of insight. So it's, you know, it's not a balanced playing field or equal playing field, so to speak, level playing field three times. So it's not a level playing field. So there's so many reasons why people feel frustrated with the way that things function. And then you have the historical kind of like systemical pressure that has like purposely disenfranchised people to add that to it. So there's so many reasons why, again, why the citizens initiative process needs to be protected. But it also needs to be, I believe, tweaked so that it is effective and it doesn't lock us into like it being weaponized the way that we've seen it, you know, recently with people that certainly have a lot of, you know, political and socioeconomic capital that are putting initiatives because now they don't like who is at the council. So I just want to make sure that that playing field becomes level. And we'll see. I mean, I'm one ninth of the equation. So I don't think that I'll have enough to like, you know, push people all the way and make it happen the way that I envision it. So we'll have a conversation. It should be a very interesting meeting. I know, because I actually have no idea how it's going to go. Probably Victoria's going to get a little salty, like she does over this particular question. Oh, we might have two hours with them like getting like just true. I want to make sure I eat this time because last time I think I did it before. I was really angry last time. So it came, I mean, like I'm just, I say it how I always say it, but it came out, it came out sharper. So I give a disclaimer that I'm hungry today. So it's going to sound a little harsher. But yeah, I don't, I don't know how it's going to go or how anybody's going to vote. I think that we'll get a significant amount of public comment. We've already gotten a ton of emails over the past couple of days about it. So I think it's going to be one of those like larger community issues where a lot of people I'm sure will come in and say their piece and it's going to be a long meeting. We'll see how it goes. I don't know. I think we're a little short on time, but I did want a couple of things that I think are super, super important to me on Monday. Perhaps it's not on Monday, but we're doing the budget, the final like, and one of the amendments that's coming up through the budget is to fund the Clean Elections Program. So this is like, to me, incredibly important. Again, something that was approved by voters that needs to be funded now so that all the kind of voters never think about the funding. So this, I am going to approve this amendment. I think Councilor Trobaro is going to bring it up and she worked really hard and I supported her work to make this Clean Elections Program what we advanced. So I really, I think I'm looking forward to the council to approve the amendment and to include the funding for Clean Elections in the budget. That to me, I've talked about it in this show, how to me that that's one piece of government that I think will be more inclusive by having this Clean Elections Program here and I'm so proud to be part of the council when we're actually putting it in and now to put the money behind it. And it takes a long time. So you said you had two things. We have about a minute and a half left, but what was your other thing? I misspoke. Just now, and that's a big one to me. I think to me, I've talked before, like the Clean Elections Program is as transformative a piece as what I believe we've had an opportunity to put forward while I've been in the council that does allow citizens a bit of an advantage that they haven't had before. And again, levels to playing field. You know what I love about both of you is that you both are really willing to refer to what did we start out to do? We came to drain the swamp or whatever it is. Now we're up to our ass analogators. What the heck were we doing? Both of you like to refer back to what were our goals. We agreed we had a strategic plan. Is the present action serving the strategic plan or is it off? You know, that's not everyone does that or things like that, but it's kind of important in this type of work. We are almost out of time, believe it or not. The time just flies when we're doing this, doesn't it? I want to thank a couple people. Well, mostly I like to thank our audience at home without you. We really wouldn't have a show. And so thank you so much for tuning in. We are on every second Friday of the month now. We have a regular slot here at seven o'clock. And so we will be continuing to talk about what's going on in municipal government and your government. We are going to get out in the street with a camera and ask people what questions they had for our counselors. And so our next show should be exciting because they will just be kind of winging it. Questions will just begin at coming. I'm scared. I want to thank Warren Edgar. Our director couldn't do it without you. Jeff and Luigi were our tech and production helpers today. And that was great. We couldn't do it without them either. Portland Media Center, thank you so much for having us do this show every month. We really appreciate the support and thank you viewers. So be looking for us out on the street. We'll probably be out on the sidewalk, right? Warren in front of the PMC, you know, asking people, what do you care about? So that should be a varied show. I'm excited. Yeah, should be fun. So I know one of you is going to run off stage here. And that's okay. You don't have to explain yourself, when you got to catch the ferry, you got to catch it. Which is real. This is a Portland thing. It's a totally Portland issue. Yeah. When he said, are you spending the night and you're like, no, I might catch that last 40 back famous last word to 1040.