Is Portland’s Mayor “Strong” or “Weak”?

Understanding the Mayor-Council System

A 2018 survey by the International City/County Management Association found that 38% of U.S. municipalities with populations over 2,500 used a mayor-council form of government, while 48% operated under a council-manager model. These governance structures are primarily distinguished by how they distribute governmental power.

The mayor-council system, modeled after state and federal governments, divides authority between a legislative branch (the council) and an executive branch (the mayor). In contrast, the council-manager system vests all powers in the council, but delegates administrative and executive functions to a city manager. Although the council-manager system is the most widely used form of local government, most cities the size of Portland or larger opt for mayor-council systems with executive mayors. Among cities with populations over 500,000, 60% use this model.¹

The National League of Cities identifies the following characteristics of mayor-council governments:

• The mayor is elected separately from the city council, typically serving full-time with significant administrative and budgetary authority.
• The city council, also elected, functions as the legislative body.
• Some cities appoint a professional manager with limited administrative responsibilities.
• The extent of the mayor’s power—whether “strong” or “weak”—depends on the city’s charter.

Portland’s new structure aligns with this framework. The mayor is separately elected, serves full-time, and earns approximately $175,000 annually. As the city’s chief execitive, the mayor has broad administrative and budgetary authority, while the council remains the legislative body. Additionally, the charter requires the mayor to appoint of a professional city administrator to oversee bureaus under the mayor’s direction.

What Makes a Mayor “Strong”?

There is no single definition of a “strong” mayor. Scholars emphasize that the strong/weak dichotomy oversimplifies mayoral power, which exists on a continuum². The distinction originated as a way to differentiate between mayor-council governments where power was concentrated in the mayor’s office and those where the mayor shared executive authority with other elected officials, independent boards, or commissions.³ Over time, however, the terms “strong” and “weak” have become increasingly subjective, sometimes reflecting public perception and satisfaction with the mayor rather than formal powers.

For this report, we use the National League of Cities’ key characteristics of a strong mayor:

• Oversight of the city’s daily operations
• Power to draft and propose a budget to the city council
• Authority to appoint and remove department heads
• Responsibility for enforcing city laws and ordinances
• Not a voting member of the city council
• Possession of veto or line-item veto power

Portland’s Mayor Has Most Landmark Powers of a Strong Executive

Portland’s mayor either directly or indirectly holds these hallmark executive powers—except for veto authority. The charter states that the mayor “exercises all executive and administrative powers over the bureaus” and provides “careful supervision over the general affairs of the city.” It also requires the mayor to propose an annual budget and deliver a state-of-the-city address to the council, along with a budget statement outlining goals and recommendations.

Portland’s mayor has substantial influence over top leadership positions. The charter grants the mayor direct authority to appoint and remove three key officials: the city administrator, the city attorney, and the chief of police. While the council must approve these appointments, the mayor decides who is brought forward for consideration.

But what about the appointment and removal of bureau and department heads? Portland’s charter assigns these duties to a city administrator who is supervised by the mayor. This structure has led to some confusion about the mayor’s authority, as the public often conflates the city administrator’s role with that of a city manager in council-manager systems, where the manager operates with a high level of independence from elected officials.

The City Administrator—Ally or Competitor?

Portland’s mayor-council system does not impose the same restrictions as council-manager governments, where best practices discourage elected officials from intervening in daily operations. The charter explicitly states that the mayor “gives direction” to the city administrator and has the authority to dismiss them at will.

The overlapping responsibilities of the mayor and the city administrator extend beyond personnel decisions. For instance, the mayor is responsible for executing and administering the city code, which includes all laws, regulations, and ordinances adopted by the council. At the same time, the charter grants the city administrator authority to execute and enforce these laws. A strict reading of the charter might suggest that the mayor and administrator have parallel powers. However, given the mayor’s oversight role, a more likely interpretation is that this structure positions the administrator as the mayor’s trusted advisor with the operational expertise to implement the mayor’s vision.

Portland’s charter is not unique in enshrining a city administrator position. The Model City Charter, a framework of recommendations published by the National Civic League, advises mayor-council governments to include a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) in their charters. Portland’s city administrator closely aligns with this role, providing specialized knowledge in public administration—expertise that mayors often lack.

No Ability to Block Legislation—but the Power to Introduce Policy

Like most executive mayors in large cities, Portland’s mayor is not a member of the city council and does not have general voting privileges. However, the mayor holds two powers that are uncommon for executive mayors: the ability to break a tie on the 12-member council and the authority to introduce legislation.

Most legislative bodies have an odd number of members to prevent deadlock. Portland’s city council has twelve members—three from each of four districts—making tie votes possible. In such cases, the charter grants the mayor the power to cast the tiebreaking vote.

Additionally, the charter gives the mayor the same authority as a councilor to introduce legislation. Both of these powers—the ability to break a tie and to introduce legislation—are legislative rather than executive. As a result, they are not typically granted to mayors in mayor-council systems, which are based on the principle of separation of powers.

Further setting Portland’s mayor apart from other major mayor-council cities, the mayor lacks the authority to veto city council legislation or exercise a line-item veto over budget decisions.

A study by Professor Kimberly Nelson at the University of North Carolina found that among mayor-council cities with populations between 500,000 and 800,000, only Washington, D.C., also denies its mayor veto authority.⁴

What Do the Experts Think?

Rose City Reform consulted Professor Nelson, an expert in classifying city governments, to determine whether Portland has adopted a strong or weak mayor-council system. She identified the structure outlined in the charter as “an executive mayor-council system—what some people may call a ‘strong’ mayor-council system.” She pointed to two key executive—or strong—powers: the authority to propose the budget and the mayor’s influence over key leadership decisions.

Nelson also noted that since the mayor has the power to appoint, supervise, and dismiss the administrator at will, the mayor effectively directs the administrator and holds significant influence over administrative decisions.

Rose City Reform also reached out to the National Civic League, which publishes the Model City Charter (MCC). A representative explained that the MCC reserves the term “weak” mayor-council system for governments where executive authority is significantly fragmented. Since Portland’s mayor oversees a centrally administered system, the addition of an administrator is not considered a weakening factor but rather a commitment to embedding professionalism in the mayor’s office.

No Veto, Less Conflict?

The debate over the mayor’s ability to block council legislation became a focal point during Portland’s charter review process, led by an independent commission. While the commission received substantial public testimony in support of a veto, most charter commissioners opposed the idea, believing it would concentrate too much power in the hands of a single individual.

Before the measure went to voters, then-Mayor Ted Wheeler and former council members Mingus Mapps, Carmen Rubio, and Dan Ryan advocated for granting the mayor veto authority, arguing it would provide an important check on council decisions. In a 2023 interview with Rose City Reform, then-Mayor Wheeler predicted that a veto proposal would appear on the ballot within a few years of the new charter taking effect—and that it would pass. He argued that without a veto, future mayors might slow-walk the implementation of policies that conflict with their agendas, and that failed policies would lead to finger-pointing between the mayor and council over who should be held accountable for unpopular decisions.

In contrast, Jim Svara, a scholar on mayoral leadership, suggests that the absence of a mayoral veto could actually reduce conflict at Portland City Hall. In an interview with Rose City Reform, Svara—a now-retired professor at Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs— argued that a mayor’s ability to block council decisions inherently creates conditions for conflict, leading mayors to rely on threats or punitive measures rather than fostering collaboration. His research on mayoral leadership in council-manager cities suggests that non-executive mayors can successfully use collaborative strategies to guide the council toward shared priorities—and that executive mayors may benefit from a similar approach.⁵

While the lack of veto power places Portland’s mayor shy of the strongest end of the strong-weak mayor continuum, the office is not without influence over legislation. In addition to having the power to introduce legislation, the mayor’s office carries significant visibility, allowing the mayor to shape public opinion through direct engagement with voters and the media. By using this platform effectively, the mayor can pressure the council, rally public support for or against policies, and influence the legislative process in ways that do not require formal veto power.

In a 2024 podcast interview with Rose City Reform, Mayor Keith Wilson—then a candidate for the office—echoed a similar sentiment.

“If you have collaboration, do your research, have good policies, and implement them well—you don’t need a veto,” Wilson said.

A Unique Combination: Proportional Representation and a Separately Elected Executive

This report would be remiss not to highlight Portland’s unique electoral system. Unlike most mayor-council governments in peer cities, Portland elects its city council members through proportional representation. In most cities, council members are either elected as sole representatives of their districts or in citywide elections. Portland’s system, however, elects three council members per district, allowing multiple voter groups within each district to secure representation. Proportional ranked choice voting, used for all council elections, allocates council seats based on the proportion of support each candidate receives. This system is designed to increase diversity of representation, allowing a broader range of interests to influence policymaking.

While proportional representation has historical precedent in more than twenty U.S. cities, those cities overwhelmingly operated under mayor-council systems where the mayor was selected from within the council. Often, the council member with the highest vote total would become mayor—a structure that reflected electoral support but did not create a separately elected executive.

This context is central to the ongoing debate over mayoral authority in Portland. Advocates of proportional representation argue that concentrating executive power in a single, citywide-elected mayor diminishes the influence of proportionally elected district representatives, undermining the system’s intent. This concern played a key role in Portland’s decision not to grant the mayor veto power over council decisions.

Whether Portland’s charter strikes the right balance between the mayor’s mandate and the polices advanced by the council remains an open question. These early years will be critical as Portland’s leaders navigate the new system, establish governing norms, and shape the working relationship between the mayor and the council. Decisions made during this period—along with public response to policy outcomes—will help determine whether the structure remains stable or undergoes further reform, such as efforts to introduce a mayoral veto with an option for a council override.

The City Administrator as a “Bridge” Between the Branches

As mentioned above, the mayor-council structure is based on the separation of powers, intending for the executive and legislative branches work together while also serving as checks on each other. The Model City Charter suggests that a chief administrative officer—or in Portland’s case, a city administrator—can function as a bridge between the two branches.

A 2019 study found that 52% of mayor-council cities with populations over 10,000 employed a CAO or a similar position.⁶ Portland follows the Model City Charter’s best practice recommendation by requiring council confirmation for the mayor’s appointment of the administrator. Similarly, the charter grants the council the authority to remove the administrator with a three-fourths vote—signaling that while the mayor directs the administrator’s work, the administrator is also accountable to the council.

During his confirmation hearing, Portland’s current city administrator, Michael Jordan, highlighted this dual responsibility:

“I’m unilaterally responsible to the mayor every day, every hour, every minute. And I’m responsible to a supermajority of you every day, every hour, every minute,” he told council members. “I view my job as being the person who has one foot firmly planted in policy and politics, and the other foot firmly planted in management and administration.”

However, the council’s removal process—requiring both cause and a supermajority—sets a much higher threshold than the mayor’s unilateral power to dismiss the administrator. As a result, the administrator has a strong institutional incentive to prioritize the mayor’s directives.

Additionally, if the council were to remove the administrator, the charter empowers the mayor to assume the administrator’s duties until a replacement is appointed. Given the potential disruption of such an action—with no guarantee of a shift in direction—council-initiated removal of the administrator would likely be reserved as a last resort in cases of a severe crisis of confidence.

A System In Flux

As of this writing, Portland’s 2025 charter is less than two months old. As a result, both city code and informal norms governing the mayor’s relationship with the council are still taking shape. This was evident during the council’s first meeting, when a tied vote for council president sparked debate over whether the mayor could break the deadlock. City Attorney Robert Taylor advised that the mayor’s tiebreaking authority applied only to non-emergency ordinances. A majority of council members accepted this interpretation, but three dissented—leaving open questions about when and how the mayor will be invited to cast votes in the future.

Such tensions will likely continue as the new government structure is tested in practice, establishing rules and norms around the nuts and bolts of governing. The charter provides only a skeletal framework for this relationship. Intangible factors—such as trust, communication, workplace culture, and interpersonal dynamics—will ultimately shape how elected officials work together.

For example, the much debated issue of law enforcement’s role in addressing public camping involves multiple authorities and relationships. On one hand, the council makes laws and sets policy. On the other, the mayor and city administrator have executive authority to enact and enforce the law and give specific instructions to city staff. Additionally, the mayor directly appoints and has the authority to remove the city attorney—who plays a key role in interpreting city ordinances and other applicable laws—as well as the police chief, whose leadership is equally critical on this issue. These intricacies highlight the importance of institutionalizing communication channels within City Hall.

In conclusion, while Portland’s mayor may meet the “strong” definition in terms of formal powers, effective leadership depends on the mayor’s ability to navigate a complex landscape of interests and secure buy-in for a comprehensive vision for the city—a task that can rarely be accomplished alone.

 ³Model City Charter—9th Edition: Appendix 1: Options for Mayor-Council Cities

⁴Interview with Kimberly Nelson, Professor at the School of Government at University of North Carolina, 2025

⁵Svara, J. (2008) The Facilitative Leader in City Hall: Reexamining the Scope and Contributions. ASPA Series in Public Administration and Public Policy

⁶Kimberly Nelson and James H. Svara, “Form of Government Still Matters: Fostering Innovation in U.S. Municipal Governments.” American Review of Public Administration