Paternalism Hinders Systemic Change
In Portland and across Oregon, a disturbing trend persists: each time voters push for radical change, politicians, corporate interests, and other powerful figures work hard to dismantle it.
Whether it's reforming police oversight or adopting a health-based approach to drug addiction, the will of the people often finds itself at odds with entrenched interests.
Let's delve into a couple examples that highlight this struggle for change and how we can push back.
Police Oversight System: A Battle for Accountability
In 2020, an overwhelming 82% of Portland voters approved a new police oversight system designed to investigate and penalize police misconduct. The reform's central aim was to prevent police officers from investigating their colleagues, including former law enforcement members and immediate family, to create a fairer and more transparent system.
The Police Accountability Commission (PAC), a diverse volunteer group appointed by Portland City Council, worked from December 2021 to August 2023 to develop a new police accountability framework. During this time, the PAC conducted community outreach sessions, consulted with city officials, the police union, and other stakeholders, researched best practices nationwide, and had attorneys draft recommendations for the city code. After numerous meetings and extensive efforts, the 20-member commission finalized their proposal and submitted it to the city council in September 2023.
In the final draft, the PAC proposed that the oversight board should consist of 33 members, excluding former law enforcement and their family members, and advocated for board complaint hearings to be held publicly. However, despite two years of community-centered planning, the finalized proposal was swiftly dismantled within a couple months.
Commissioner Renee Gonzalez argued that the voters who approved the ballot initiative are “...frankly a very different base that exists in 2023.”
In the final plan, the oversight board was reduced from 33 to 21 members, and most investigations will now be kept private. A selection committee, consisting of both police officers and local citizens, was established to appoint board members. Additionally, a clause was introduced to exclude individuals with a clear bias for or against law enforcement, although the criteria for this exclusion remains unclear.
Excluding individuals labeled as “biased,” without clear criteria, further underscores the condescending belief that the community cannot be trusted to make fair decisions.
Even after the watered down version of the plan was approved, some forces in the city tried to undo everything. Earlier this year, two lawyers connected to the police union proposed a new plan to get rid of the new system.
In March 2024, Joy Alise Davis, a Portland voter and the President of Imagine Black, along with the ACLU of Oregon, filed a petition with the Multnomah County Circuit Court. The plan was ultimately found to be unconstitutional.
The Misinformation Campaign behind Measure 110
In November 2020, 58.46% of Oregon voters passed Measure 110, the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, recognizing a health-based approach to addiction as more effective and humane than criminalization.
Since its passage, a moneyed few have spread disinformation, blaming Measure 110 for visible drug use and homelessness, and advocating for re-criminalizing drug possession, despite evidence that this increases overdose risks and disproportionately impacts Black and Indigenous communities.
These groups claim Measure 110 drew drug users and homeless individuals to Oregon. However, a December 2023 audit showed drug use was rising before the measure, mainly due to chronic underfunding of affordable housing, addiction services, and healthcare.
The implementation of Measure 110 faced obstacles such as inadequate support from the Oregon Health Authority, lack of training for law enforcement, and insufficient promotion of the screening hotline. Read more about how our elected leadership failed Measure 110 here.
Local Oregon groups representing Black and Brown communities sought to engage with state leaders about the potential harms of recriminalizing drug possession, specifically through targeted enforcement. Despite their efforts, they were largely overlooked in the legislative process.
Instead of addressing systemic failures such as the lack of affordable housing and inadequate access to drug and mental health treatments, lawmakers chose to scapegoat Measure 110. Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, R-Bend, was quoted in OPB associating Measure 110 with the increase in overdose deaths.
“ … what it turned into was a free-for-all of public drug use, increased fentanyl, opioid overdose deaths increasing exponentially, and Oregon becoming seen as a national dumpster fire,” — Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, R-Bend
In March 2024, Gov. Tina Kotek signed House Bill 4002, reclassifying drug possession from a Class E violation to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.
How much paternalism is too much?
In both cases, our elected leaders made decisions that contradicted the will of the people. This underscores a recurring theme of paternalism, where the state assumes a guardian-like role over the public.
Whether paternalism in government is inherently negative is up for philosophical debate. For example, seat belt laws could be argued to be a violation of our civil liberties. They also mitigate fatal injuries during car crashes.
During the COVID-19 pandemic before vaccines were available, mask mandates were hotly debated as an infringement on bodily autonomy. They also helped prevent the spread of infection, saving countless lives.
But when the public supports a measure and approves it through a ballot, how can leaders justify intervening and claim it’s for the greater good?
In both examples listed above, paternalistic overreach resulted in weakened policies that create more obstacles for long-term systemic change. For instance, the Police Accountability Commission's new, watered-down plan limits the board's impartiality, making it more susceptible to influence by police interests.
Lovisa Lloyd, a former member of the PAC, called City Council’s edits, “baffling, unnecessary, insensitive, and ill-informed.”
Similarly, changes to Measure 110 have raised significant concerns. The Oregon Judicial Department and Supreme Court worry that HB 4002 will overwhelm the already understaffed public defender system, which currently leaves over 2,500 jail inmates without representation. Recriminalizing drug possession is expected to add 1,523 cases per year, necessitating rapid adjustments to the court system.
Paternalism is not confined to politics. It is just as pervasive in social justice and nonprofit sectors. Leaders and organizations in these areas often possess more money, resources, and social capital than the communities they aim to serve.
This creates a power imbalance, where those “serving” hold more influence than those being “served.” As a result, program choices and services may reflect the priorities of those in power, rather than addressing the actual needs of the community.
At Sisters, we recognize our imperfections and prioritize guidance from the real experts on homelessness and poverty – those who experience it firsthand. This philosophy has guided our work for the past 45 years.
We can push back against this
In November 2022, Portland voters passed Measure 26-228 with nearly 60% support. This groundbreaking measure aims to reshape the city’s governance by shifting the administration of city bureaus from individual City Council members to a professional city manager overseen by the mayor.
It also introduces a new City Council structure, featuring four geographic voting districts, each represented by three councilors elected through ranked-choice voting. The mayor will oversee the city manager but will not have a vote on the council or veto power.
However, in the summer of 2023, Commissioners Dan Ryan and Rene Gonzalez attempted to overturn this voter-approved reform. They proposed scaling back the City Council from 12 to 8 members, with two councilors per district, and altering the ranked-choice voting system to match Multnomah County's upcoming method. Their plan also sought to grant the mayor veto power, directly contradicting the original reform’s intent.
The public outcry was immediate and intense. Supporters who championed Measure 26-228 accused the commissioners of undermining the voters' will in favor of preserving their own power.
Portlanders packed city council chambers, demanding that their votes be respected. The overwhelming opposition forced Ryan and Gonzalez to backtrack on their proposal just eight days after it was introduced.
This incident highlights a significant issue: our primary form of accountability (voting) at the city or state level cannot always hold our elected leaders accountable for altering the impact of legislation. For example, the implementation of initiatives like Preschool for All and PCEF (Portland Clean Energy Fund) are currently facing similar challenges. As we learned recently during the second iteration of our Community Voices Town Hall, implementation is often one of the most difficult aspects of passing legislation.
It’s also important to remember that paternalism is often intertwined with corporate interests aiming to maintain the status quo. Lobbying forces and fear-mongering tactics are used by business interests to counter progressive initiatives. These tactics include spreading disinformation, emphasizing worst-case scenarios, and appealing to voters' fears and insecurities.
The Portland Metro Chamber, formerly the Portland Business Alliance, wields significant influence in Oregon. In the last election, it allocated $131,000 to oppose a new government system and violated city lobbying rules 25 times in 2020, underreporting written correspondences and benefiting from undisclosed lobbying efforts.
Policies don't start or end at the ballot box. It's our responsibility to stay informed and engaged even after policies are passed.
