Committee amends tie-breaking rule, forwards ordinance to full council with recommendation

The Portland City Council governance committee on Monday debated and amended an ordinance to add a council rule on mayoral tie-breaking and then voted to send the amended ordinance (document 2025-186) to the full council with a recommendation that it be adopted.

The ordinance as amended includes three outcomes the committee adopted in separate votes: striking language that would have let the mayor weigh in on resolutions and reports (amendment passed in committee), a change that establishes that, "in determining if a vote is a tie, absences, abstentions, and vacancies shall be counted as no votes," and an amendment that if the mayor is unavailable, either in person or virtually, to cast a tie-breaking vote on final passage during the meeting, "the vote fails." Committee members then voted to forward the ordinance, as amended, to full council with a recommendation to adopt.

Public comment and legal guidance: Public testifier Terry Harris urged the committee to align the code language with the charter, warning that the current draft could allow gamesmanship by absent council members; Harris told the committee that the charter's tie-breaking language was intended for 6-6 ties and warned against allowing a 6-5 situation to be treated as a tie. Harris said, "the charter amendment says in case of a tie, when the mayor casts the deciding vote, the mayor has a responsibility to do that. ... When the vote is 6 to 5 ... it's not a tie. There won't be a vote by the mayor and it loses, right? Because 7 votes is never achieved."

City Attorney Robert Taylor told the committee the charter contemplates a limited role for the mayor and that the mayor is part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch: "Mayor is the head of the executive branch, not part of the legislative branch." Taylor advised that the charter's reference to a "tie" means an equal number of votes on each side and explained procedures that already exist to compel attendance or use a motion to reconsider in some scenarios.

Committee debate centered on whether the mayor should be allowed to break ties only for final passage of ordinances and quasi-judicial matters, how to prevent tactical absences from altering outcomes, and what to do when the mayor is not available. Councillor Ryan stated his position succinctly: "7 votes is 7 votes." Councillors proposed and then approved language making absences and abstentions count as negative votes for the limited purpose of determining whether a tie exists, and they approved revised language providing that if the mayor is unavailable to cast a tie-breaking vote during the meeting on final passage, the vote fails. After amendments, the committee voted 5-yes to forward the ordinance (document 2025-186) to the full council with a recommendation it be adopted.

What it means: The committee's changes are procedural clarifications about how tie-breaking is applied in practice, not substantive changes to the charter. The measures the committee adopted will go to full council for final action.