Last year, when the position of Special Assistant to the Mayor & Council was rolled out, it was quite controversial, and I heard from many constituents who were opposed to it. 

At the time, as a new councilor, I was told the position would serve as an assistant to the entire council, not just the mayor, and I thought it could be helpful. However, I also said that if I found the position to be superfluous, I would not seek to have it funded for another budget cycle. 

Well, here we are after a year of having the position in place, and I have, indeed, found it to be redundant. I have never required the services of this individual, and in fact the position only serves to place an additional layer between me and the information I seek to gather from city staff.

That's why I am proposing that the position be eliminated in the FY 2018 budget. I will be presenting an amendment to this effect at the May 15, 2017 City Council meeting. If you would like to express support for or opposition to my amendment, you can do so by contacting members of the City Council or by attending the May 15th meeting and speaking during the public hearing on the city budget. 

The agenda for the May 15th meeting will be posted here by Friday, May 12th.

On March 20th, 2017 I presented my school bond proposal to the City Council. I've posted a video of that presentation below, complete with the accompanying PowerPoint slides. (You wouldn't have been able to see the slides if you watched the meeting from home.)

Right now, there are three school bond proposals on the table, each with a different plan for making repairs and renovations to Portland schools. On Monday, April 24th, the City Council will decide which of these proposals to send to voters in November. 

I would like to see all three options offered to Portland voters. If this happens, voters will have a chance to vote YES or NO on each of the three bonds.

Here's a brief explanation the three proposals, why the Council is considering sending more than one bond proposal to voters, and how the voting will work if that happens.

I have tried to be transparent about my thinking on the proposed $64 million 4-school bond, so as most of you know, I am not in favor of bonding all four schools in one fell swoop. I felt it was important to wait for the district wide analysis to come out in order to make the best plan to move forward, and that report finally did come out in December.

Since that time, I have been working to create an alternative to the proposed bond that will allow us to address the most pressing needs at our schools and plan to move forward sustainably. I am pleased to present that proposal to you here.

Wondering why I chose Lyseth as the school to fully renovate with this bond? Why we need four new classrooms at Ocean Avenue? When we'll get to other elementary school renovations if we adopt this bond as our path forward?

You can find the answers to all of those questions—and many others—in this Q&A on the bond. 

In December, Superintendent Botana spoke before the State Board of Education in an attempt to obtain a guarantee of state funding for Longfellow and Reiche in advance of the new application cycle. This is the document he read.

In December, Superintendent Botana requested that Emily Figdor, a leader of Protect Our Neighborhood Schools, stay away from the significant deferred maintenance language when they were working together to craft the flyer that went home in students backpacks earlier this year.

A portion of their email exchange is below.
-----------------

I wrote an op-ed about the proposed school bond for the Press Herald. It ran in the paper on January 12th, and you can find it here on my blog and on the PPH website.
​
This piece is a follow up to address and clarify some of the points I couldn’t delve into in fewer than 750 words. You can read it straight through, or use the links below to jump to specific sections. 

I am a teacher. I have taught in public schools.

I know that good schools are central to the well-being and prosperity of a community. I also know that here in Portland, we need significant updates at all seventeen of our schools.
           
​Passing a narrowly focused $60-$70 million bond will not help us to achieve that goal. In fact, it will do the opposite. It will leave the most pressing needs in our school system unmet while raising property taxes, eliminating teaching positions, and decreasing municipal services. Here’s why.  

On November 21, 2016 the Portland City Council passed the following Housing Insecurity Package which was recommended unanimously by the Housing Committee. I voted in support of this package, and it passed the Council 9-0. Here is an outline of the package with brief explanations of each provision.