Mary Hull Caballero is the Portland city auditor.
The bedrock of the Portland city auditor’s credibility is independence from those who are subject to her oversight. Portlanders count on the auditor to deliver information without fear or favor about how their local government is performing. The auditor counts on Portlanders to strengthen city governance by using that information to hold their government accountable.
You can learn a lot about the character of government leaders by how they treat their accountability offices. As an auditor, I’ve witnessed leaders respond to critical reports with openness and humility, accepting responsibility and taking the opportunity to improve government on behalf of the public. I’ve also seen leaders become defensive, attacking the messenger, and using whatever leverage they have to undermine the watchdog’s work.
President Trump has shown himself to be the latter type, firing or removing five federal inspectors general in the last six weeks. Closer to home, the City of Portland has seen its share of both types of leaders. Apt leaders respect the role of the elected auditor and understand that she must deliver information to the public about how the city is performing (the late Commissioner Nick Fish comes to mind).
Others, however, are resistant and sometimes openly disdainful.
I write today because for the first time in my memory, we have a City Council that is united in its willingness to undermine the independence and the work of the Auditor’s Office – going so far as to possibly violate the City Charter. I am alarmed, and you should be, too.
The particulars of the current situation are arcane, but the principles involved are elemental. The city’s charter has contained a provision since 1994 that prohibits City Council from assigning additional duties to the auditor without the auditor’s consent. This independence provision ensures that the auditor can focus on evaluating government performance without city leaders unilaterally delegating random duties to the auditor that distract from that priority.
Last August, I informed the council that I was exercising my charter authority to withdraw consent to oversee an important city function: The City Hearings Office. The auditor’s office has provided operational support to the hearings office for many years, but inconsistent funding, turnover and a rising number of complex cases made it increasingly burdensome on the auditor’s office. Council declined to provide a staff position for the hearings office, and I could no longer justify continuing to divert a disproportionate amount of time and attention away from my office’s accountability functions.
Other city functions can support the hearings office. My office must be free to fulfill its core responsibilities because its primary purpose is to evaluate the city’s performance and report results to the public. The auditor’s office provides the only independent oversight in the commission-form of government, as there is no legislative check on the executive branch.
But instead of complying with the charter and finding a new home for the hearings office, council members have ignored my decision and misrepresented the issues involved. Most recently, Portland City Council has used the budget process to unlawfully put the hearings office’s budget back into my office.
City Council is apparently counting on the public being too distracted by the coronavirus crisis or dismissive of “politics” to care. But I know that Portlanders care deeply about having a city auditor who delivers credible information about how their local government is performing.
That’s why I want you to be wise to the fact that while some city commissioners profess to appreciate the work of the auditor’s office, they are working diligently to delegitimize it, including threatening to use their appointees on the Charter Review Commission to reduce my office’s independence from the council’s control. For Portland to have an accountable city government, it is critical that they not get away with it.