Governance committee outlines consultant search, advisory‑body review and cautions on caucusing and quorums

The Portland Governance Committee on June 23 discussed next steps to hire a consultant to advise on council governance and transparency, reviewed an ongoing citywide assessment of advisory bodies, and received legal guidance on caucusing and quorum risks under Oregon public‑meeting law.

Committee staff said the solicitation closed the day of the meeting, and a rating panel made up of council staff will review proposals and recommend finalists. Mary Lee, chief of staff to Tiffany Coyoma Lane, said evaluators will score responses on scope‑of‑work fit and experience with public bodies; cost will be treated as a separate criterion and may inform a later funding request to council. Lee said one group offered to perform work at no charge, and staff will consider that as part of the review.

The committee also heard an update on a citywide advisory‑bodies inventory. Amanda Garcia Snell, the city’s chief engagement officer (referenced by staff), is leading an internal and external review of advisory boards, commissions and committees; staff said Julia Meyer is the project lead. Mary Lee told the committee the review will categorize boards by purpose, lifecycle and composition and is scheduled to deliver a final report with recommendations in October 2025 so the council can consider budget implications.

City Attorney Robert Taylor briefed the committee on how charter provisions, adopted council rules and city code interact when the president and vice president are absent. Taylor said the charter directs the council to select who presides when both officers are absent and that council may set default rules in its code so meetings can proceed smoothly. “Under the charter you can set your own rules of procedure, and under that authority you have a rule that says if the president and vice president both are absent, the council has defaults,” Taylor said.

Taylor also cautioned about the legal risks of large caucuses and serial deliberations. He warned that fewer than a quorum may meet lawfully, but if members of a group then communicate with additional members so deliberations are effectively extended, the group may violate the public‑meetings law. “If any one of those six then talks to a seventh member of council and includes them into that deliberation, then you may have a problem under the public‑meetings law,” he said. Taylor urged caution about any informal group discussing topics within the purview of committees where a subset of the group constitutes a committee quorum.

Committee members discussed tools to improve transparency and coordination, including a pilot legislation tracker for governance committees and examples of a public council message board used by another city. Taylor noted Oregon law does not currently allow the same kind of serial written communications between members that some other cities use without creating public‑meeting risks; he said emails and other written communications remain public records and can be evidence of an unlawful deliberation if they show a quorum deliberated outside a public meeting.

The committee made no formal decisions on hiring a consultant at this meeting; staff said the rating panel will bring a recommendation back, likely to governance and then to full council.