City staff gagged over formula biz limits
Allegations jobs were threatened
By Chris Busby
The top economic development and planning staff at Portland City Hall were warned not to make their concerns about the law limiting “formula” businesses downtown public – the implication being that doing so could cost them their jobs, say two city officials critical of the ordinance.
“They gave their opinion in private and were admonished, and told basically their job would be in jeopardy if they release that publicly,” said former City Councilor Will Gorham, who voted against the law two months ago. “The fear is widespread.”
Current Councilor Ed Suslovic said he’s asked staff for information about the law’s necessity and impact, including facts he suspects will illustrate its flaws. For instance, Suslovic recently asked staff to find an example of an independent Portland business that’s been forced by a formula business to close or relocate. He suspects they won’t find any.
“Several city staff have said, ‘Ed, if we provide what you’re asking for, we’re gonna get slammed,'” said Suslovic. “There’s a real undercurrent of fear that if they come up and tell the facts, because some facts don’t support what some councilors want, they fear for their ability to hang onto their jobs.”
“I find that utter nonsense,” said City Councilor Jill Duson, a supporter of the limits on franchise and chain businesses. “That’s crazy. The Council wouldn’t stand for it, and neither would the city manager.”
“No staff person said anything to me,” said City Manager Joe Gray, who added that city Planning and Economic Development Department Director Lee Urban had told him “he’d never heard that from any of his employees.”
City Councilors cannot fire individual city workers, but do have authority over Gray’s job and the jobs of lead city attorney Gary Wood and City Clerk Linda Cohen.
Urban declined to comment, and calls to his staff were not returned.
Duson challenged Gorham and Suslovic to identify the source of the alleged threats, rumors of which she has recently heard. “I’m just completely, energetically ticked at what that kind of vicious rumor does in terms of the Council’s process and the public’s process,” she said, noting the increasing acrimony surrounding this issue both inside and outside City Hall.
Suslovic declined to name the source of any threats, and said the specific threat of termination may have been made “covertly.”
“The strong sense I got was that no one was overtly threatened,” he said in a follow-up interview. “But it was made clear their input was not welcome…. There was a climate created that certainly made staff uncomfortable coming forward with information. It was communicated to them in various means that they were not to weigh in.”
Gorham also declined to name a source, but suggested “maybe one of the former councilors” was involved – apparently a reference to former City Councilor Karen Geraghty, one of the law’s leading proponents.
Geraghty did not return a call seeking comment.
“It’s preposterous [for a staffer] to think their job would be in jeopardy over having a policy disagreement,” said Councilor Jim Cloutier, who also supports the limits. “Even if some city councilor imagined that they had the opportunity to threaten someone’s job, [Gray] would stand up for them. He’d never put up with that from a city councilor.”
But Cloutier acknowledged that staff can sometimes be intimidated when issues before the Council have “a lot of energy around [them]. It signals, I suppose, to people not to be too effusive.”
On this issue, Cloutier said, “I don’t think it’s a secret the economic development people at City Hall don’t necessarily subscribe to all of the ideas expressed about formula business.” And while those staffers worked on the draft of the law, Cloutier said they were “aware” that the three-member Community Development Committee he chairs supported the basic principles behind it, and that the full Council had already passed a temporary moratorium on formula businesses downtown.
New Councilor Kevin Donoghue said he isn’t aware of any political pressure applied to staff on the formula business issue. But while observing city business in years past, he said, “I’ve seen instances where staffers have been given the gag order on certain issues.”
“I think it’s very clear city staff does not feel empowered to express their professional opinion,” Donoghue added. “You can see it from time to time.”
“I have heard from time to time that some members of staff have been concerned about their ability to be candid, out of a concern for their job,” said Councilor Jim Cohen. “That’s unfortunate. I believe our Council is far better served if members of staff feel comfortable expressing their views and information, so that the Council can make good decisions in the best interest of the people of Portland.”
Cohen added that he was unaware of any threats made in connection with the formula limits. Mayor Nick Mavodones also said he’d heard nothing about the allegations.
The lack of input from staff on this issue came up during the Council’s vote two months ago. In response to a comment from Cloutier that the law is “an economic regulation, not really a land-use [matter]” – a point made in reference to the fact the Planning Board never considered the ordinance – Gorham wondered aloud why there was “nothing from economic development staff” in materials given to councilors before the vote.
Indeed, there’s scant evidence in the public record that city economic development staff provided any input on this “economic regulation,” aside from some basic background data. Mayor Mavodones said he could not recall any staff presentation on the issue.
The Bollard was able to acquire one e-mail sent by Economic Development Division Director Jack Lufkin to several councilors in early November. In it, Lufkin raised concerns about the law’s impact in Bayside, where, in addition to acres of new private development, the city itself plans to sell acreage expected to create about 100,000 square feet of new, ground-floor retail space.
Given the size limits and dispersal requirements of the formula law, “we would only be able to place 2 to 3 more formula businesses there for a total of 6,000 to 9,000 sq. ft. leaving over 90,000 sq. ft. available for non formula businesses from just our property alone,” Lufkin wrote.
“That is problematic,” he continued, “as it sets aside an enormous amount of area that, I firmly believe, will be impossible to fill with non formula businesses. Heck, it’s going to be hard to fill even without the formula business restrictions, given there is yet to be a retail market presence established in Bayside.”
In an e-mailed response, former Councilor Geraghty told Lufkin, “I am glad to have your thoughts. Yet, I am disappointed to know that the City’s Economic Development strategy is reliant on national chain businesses.” Geraghty suggested Lufkin reread the broad city planning document titled “A New Vision for Bayside.”
“You appear to be looking for the fastest development plan, which is what the national chains offer,” Geraghty wrote, “but that’s the opposite of what the plan calls for.”
The Bollard could find nothing in “A New Vision for Bayside,” passed in 2000, that makes reference to national chains or any preference for or against such businesses. “You can’t find it, because it’s not there,” said Bayside Neighborhood Association Chairman Ron Spinella.
Spinella said he’s also gotten the sense city staff are being muzzled. “In general, the economic development staff probably feels they have to be careful, as probably most city staff do, with regards to the implications of what they say – especially if there’s a majority of city councilors [with opposing opinions],” he said.
“It’s inherent in the culture there,” added Spinella, whose organization advocated, unsuccessfully, for further study of the issue before the law passed.
“The most important information I can get from city staff is when they disagree with me,” said Suslovic. “Numerous city staff have said that specifically on this issue, they are not in a position to tell the truth as they know it.”
