PORTLAND, Ore. — Despite public pushback, Portland City Council unanimously approved a revised measure Wednesday aimed at both investigating and punishing police officers accused of misconduct. The final product will be sent to the Department of Justice for review before taking effect.
It originated from a ballot measure that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2020. This September, after two months of research, the city-appointed Police Accountability Commission (PAC) submitted a final proposal for what the police accountability body should be like, including that the board shouldn't contain any police officers or anyone with a relation to law enforcement. The board would have the authority to investigate and discipline officers accused of misconduct.
The Portland City Council then made changes. However, much of the 66 public commenters Wednesday — many members of PAC — overwhelmingly objected to the revisions, calling the overall proposal a "big step backwards."
The objectors said that the city council largely ignored two years of community suggestions and research. The updated version, they continued, widely deviates from what Portlanders voted on.
"You asked us to do this work, and you took our report and scribbled on it," said Lavisa Lloyd, former PAC member. "There is simply no good reason to rush a vote or report or an amendment process that is this important. ... Throwing out the work of the PAC at this point is like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime."
Many said the updated version was rushed to meet the Department of Justice deadline, so the majority of commenters requested that the city council delay the vote to accommodate further public feedback.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Portland accuses DOJ of moving cops accountability goalposts
A few who expressed approval for the updated version praised the city council's efforts, arguing that the proposal itself had an anti-police bias and the revisions proposed by PAC would hinder the police.
"Based on the revisions, the current draft is more prompt, fair and impartial," argued resident Brian Owendoff. "While not perfect, is it better. Let's not let perfect get in the way of better."
After the vote, council members praised it as a win for police accountability. Wheeler said that the city will set up an email account for community members to share their thoughts with the city council's and district attorney's offices.
"I want to be very clear: I support the resolution as amended today," he said Wednesday. "But if legal counsel comes back to this council, I will assure everyone that I will keep an open mind."
The ballot measure
The original ballot measure was introduced by former Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, a longtime police reform advocate. It aims to amend the city charter and enact a new police oversight system. The Independent Police Review, run via the city auditor’s office, currently oversees and investigates police conduct.
The new accountability system would investigate cases involving police, including excessive use of force; deaths in custody; civil liberties violations; and police actions toward protected classes, meaning discrimination based on race, gender or disability.
Under the new oversight system, the new body would have the final say on discipline for officers. Right now, the Independent Police Review can only make discipline recommendations to the police bureau.
The new body would also be able to directly impact the bureau’s policies and directives. The city would have to adequately fund the board to conduct their investigations, and the new body would get expanded investigatory powers, including better access to evidence and the ability to compel people to testify.
The powers of the 21-member board — reduced from 33 members, as recommended by PAC — would include investigating, issuing subpoenas, compelling documents and issuing discipline and potential termination, said Heidi Brown, one of the chief deputies from the city's attorney's office. City employees must participate in the process or face discipline, and an officer who uses deadly force must give a written statement in 48 hours.
Brown also emphasized the need for independent judgment and flexibility for the board to carry out their duties.
A separate nomination committee for the oversight board would recommend candidates to the city council for appointment. Then, the oversight committee candidates will be appointed by another community-led committee. The city council said that the oversight committee will include representation from diverse communities and those who have experienced systemic racism, mental illness, addiction and more.
"Community voices have been moved to the forefront," said Jackson Paul, policy manager for public safety.
But many who publicly testified thought otherwise, some raising issues of the requirement of a police ride-along to be on the board, arguing that it would cause trauma to those who have suffered police violence. Others also expressed disappointment at the idea of police being able to serve on the nominating committee. More members objected to the proposed stipulations, such as asking potential oversight committee members if they hold reservations towards police.
"It feels like you simply don't care," Charlie Michelle Wesley, a former PAC commissioner, told city council members. "This decision is life and death for us."
Public feedback can be emailed to DOJ-comments@portlandoregon.gov over the next 30 days.
