Council debates tie-breaking rule; adopts narrow provision to reschedule tied items for mayor'only vote

Portland City Council held a lengthy discussion July 17 about proposed code clarifications on when the mayor may cast a tie-breaking vote. The item is a first reading; council did not take final passage and the ordinance will return for a second reading. Councilors debated multiple amendments and procedural approaches for resolving 6-6 ties under a 12-member council.

Councilor Jo Ann Avalos (sponsor of the amendment) said she wanted to preserve legislative responsibility within council and give members "the opportunity as a council to debate our differences" before resorting to a mayoral tiebreak. She proposed an amendment to require multiple subsequent rounds of voting before the mayor could intervene; that amendment was discussed and ultimately failed on a 6-4 recorded vote.

City Attorney Robert Taylor explained the procedural background: under Robert's Rules, a member can change a vote before the result is announced, and a motion to reconsider has legal consequences if it fails. Taylor said that the proposed amendment's language that subsequent rounds "would not require a motion to reconsider" would be read to mean that a subsequent round brought before the body "is just back before the body as if there had been a successful motion to reconsider" and that "you can engage in debate. You can amend it. You can refer it back to committee." He advised council that the precise mechanics can be clarified in code language.

After extended discussion and multiple proposed changes, council adopted by roll call (7 yes, 3 no) a narrower amendment that reads, in effect: if the mayor is unavailable to cast a tie-breaking vote during a meeting, the tied result is "deemed inconclusive" and the matter will be automatically postponed and rescheduled to the next council meeting "for the sole purpose of the mayor casting their vote." If the mayor is not present at that rescheduled meeting, the mayor's absence is treated as a "no" vote under the code provision that treats absences as no votes.

Councilors who opposed expanding the mayor's role said they were concerned about carving exceptions into the charter or creating ways for an executive to delay council decisions. Councilor Smith argued the charter language is plain and cautioned against altering the charter's intent in code. Other councilors said the change is intended to minimize procedural confusion and give council a narrow, public opportunity to resolve ties when the mayor's presence is needed.

The ordinance was discussed at length but not voted on for final passage; the president noted that any amendments adopted on second reading would either require an emergency clause and nine votes to take immediate effect, or else would delay final adoption by the required post-adoption waiting period.

Key takeaways

- The item is a first reading; council will consider a second reading at a future meeting. - Council rejected proposals to require multiple additional rounds of voting before a mayoral tiebreak, but approved (7-3) a narrower process to reschedule tied matters so the mayor can cast a deciding vote at the next meeting for that narrow purpose. - The council and city attorney discussed how Robert's Rules and motions to reconsider interact with subsequent votes; the attorney said the proposed language could be interpreted to allow additional debate and amendment on subsequent rounds.

Representative quotes

- Councilor Jo Ann Avalos (sponsor): "I believe that policy differences should be resolved between councilors. I don't think that we should be relying on the mayor to settle debates." - City Attorney Robert Taylor: "If I was asked to interpret this language, I would say that, once you are engaged in the second round, it is just back before the body as if there had been a successful motion to reconsider. You can engage in debate. You can amend it. You can refer it back to committee."