The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-11-18
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (16,884 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Community and Public Safety Committee met on Tuesday, November 18, 2025. After roll call and a statement of public conduct, the committee heard a presentation on the United States v. City of Portland settlement agreement, including background on its origins, subsequent amendments, compliance categories, and the current bifurcated monitoring structure involving an independent monitor and the Department of Justice. The presentation also addressed recent DOJ document requests related to allegations of viewpoint discrimination and two complaints filed with DOJ, along with mention of an upcoming hearing in January. Discussion touched on the death of Damon Lamar Johnson, internal affairs review processes, community-based mental health provisions, and questions about compliance timelines. Public testimony followed on the settlement agreement, covering topics including a labor dispute involving IPR employees, mental health-related use-of-force concerns, and broader concerns about police accountability. The committee then considered a mayoral report appointing and reappointing members to the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP), including presentations and statements from nominees, questions from councilors, and additional public testimony. A motion was made and seconded to refer the appointments to the full Council with a recommendation for confirmation; a vote occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The item is scheduled to go before full Council on December 3, and the committee's next meeting is set for December 9 at 2:30 p.m.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
0 Okay. Okay.
1 Good afternoon. I call the meeting of the community and public safety committee to order. It is Tuesday, November 18th at 2:30 p.m. Diana, will you please call the roll?
2 Good afternoon. Simmerman here.
3 Smith. Here.
4 Morillo.
5 Thank you. Here.
6 Canal here. Thanks. Diana. Christopher, will you please read the statement of contact conduct?
7 Welcome to the meeting of the community and public safety committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance. The committee agenda at ww.gov agenda slash community and public safety committee. Or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent, and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
8 Thank you christopher. Colleagues, today we have three items on our agenda. Will be. First, hearing a presentation from the city attorney's office, as well as the albina ministerial alliance coalition for justice and police reform, about the united states versus city of Portland Portland settlement agreement. We will then have a public hearing to take any testimony from community members regarding that presentation or anything else related to that settlement, and then we will pivot to an item proposed by the mayor, a report to appoint members to the Portland committee on community-engaged policing, and take a decision on whether or not to refer that on to the full council. We will start with the first item. Diana, will you please read.
9 Item number one? United states versus city of Portland settlement agreement updates.
10 Thank you. Colleagues. The city of Portland has been party to a settlement agreement with the federal department of justice related to constitutional and equitable policing since 2012, as part of councilor, Novick and I scheduling items as a tour of our public safety system in this committee, we scheduled today's presentation to give the committee in public a more information about the settlement agreement, including its current status. We've invited our city attorney and reverend leroy haynes from the albina ministerial alliance coalition to provide a presentation which is intended to provide an overview of that history, where things stand today. Later today, we'll also be hearing about the role of the Portland committee on community-engaged policing in overseeing the settlement agreement from a community perspective in advance of hearing and voting on item appointments to pccep later in our agenda, and just as a as an entry point to this, in 2010, the albina ministerial alliance requested a federal civil rights investigation into the Portland police bureau following the killing of aaron campbell by a Portland police officer, which was a key impetus for the settlement agreement we still have today, to which the ama has enhanced amicus status. We're honored to have reverend leroy haynes from the ama with us here today to share about this history. I believe he's online, and we'll also hear a presentation from chief deputy city attorney heidi brown. Reverend haynes, whenever you're ready.
11 I'm thankful to be here today. To the distinguished members of the Portland city council and commissioner on public safety. My name is reverend doctor leroy haynes, junior chairperson of the Elana ministerial alliance coalition for justice and police reform. I'm thankful for having this moment in to give an overview of how we got to where we are now. I come before you today as chairperson of the ministerial alliance coalition for justice and police reform, a coalition that has consistently advocated for police reform, and the Portland police bureau, and in the criminal justice system for the last two decades, the Elana minister alliance coalition was formed out of 25 coalition partners. Some are nearly two decades ago, and the killing of an african American woman by the name of kendra james and may the 5th, 2003 over 5000 members of the Portland community of diverse faith ages race united together to call for justice. It was at this time that many community leaders, community organizations, labor, faith houses, and activists felt a need for a broad based grassroots coalition to address the issue of police using excessive and deadly force against members of the Portland community. The ministerial alliance coalition focused on five major goals, which include a federal investigation by the justice department to include civil rights violation, as well as a federal audit of the patterns and practices of the Portland police bureau to the creation of an independent police citizen review board with the power to compel testimony. Three a full review of the bureau of excessive force and deadly force policies and training with diverse citizen participation for the purpose of making recommendations for changes in policy and training for to lobby state legislature to narrow the language of the state statute for deadly force used by police officers. And fifth, to establish a special prosecutor for all excessive and deadly force cases by the police. The abandoned ministerial alliance coalition was either to lead and advocate or supportive advocate in a variety of excessive forces. Cases are deadly force cases, such as jamal jihad. In 2004, james chelsea junior in 2006, a 12 year old girl beanbag shooting at TriMet 2009, and aaron campbell in 2010 and keaton otis in 2010. It was following the killing of an unarmed african American male in distress of the death of his brother, that aaron campbell was killed by Portland police sniper named frank hauer. On January 29th, 2010, that mass demonstrations broke off in different communities throughout the city of Portland that both the obama ministerial alliance coalition and city council members at that time, including mayor sam adams, called for a federal investigation of the aaron campbell case, but they abandoned the ministry. Alliance coalition took it a step further because federal investigations of shootings were very common. The ama sent a request to the department of justice with the endorsement of the two Oregon congressional senators, asking for a federal audit of the Portland police bureau. Patterns and practices in the use of excessive and deadly force against communities of color and citizens of the city of Portland. Later, mayor sam adams at that time, and commissioner Dan saltzman endorsed a call for an audit of the police bureau. In spring of 2011, the department of justice came back with a report on the campbell case, stating that it found no wrongdoing by Portland police officer. However, on June the 8th and 2011, the department of justice announced it would conduct audit of patterns and practices of the Portland police bureau. During the summer of 2011, the department of justice started interviews community members as well as Portland police bureau, community organizations, lawyers, city officials. On September the 13th, 2012, the department of justice issued a letter of findings saying patterns and practices of excessive force used against people with mental illness are perceived to be mentally ill. In November of 2012, the city council passed an amended settlement agreement. In January 2013, judge michael simon allowed the Portland police association, the ppa, to be a party of the lawsuit, followed by the department of justice, and created a new legal precedence by giving the abandoned ministry alliance coalition enhanced amicus status, which allowed the coalition as a community organization to be a limited party in the mediation of the settlement agreement. In July 2013, the city council Portland accepted the abandoned ministerial alliance coalition collaborative agreement. Outline. The coalition participation in the implementation and the settlement agreement. In February of 2014, judge simon conducted a fairness hearing where over 70 persons testified from all walks of life. In August of 2014, judge michael simon entered the settlement agreement into record and called for periodic annual hearings and October of 2014, the city council announced its intention to appeal the periodic annual hearing. And so we have today, in our present mode, the settlement agreement with two new major items to that one, the passage and the referendum by the members of this great city to create a police oversight board for accountability. And two, we have moved to the monitoring system that now those two key items represent one of the greatest historical. Elements of reforming the Portland police bureau in the modern age. And so it is not a panacea. It will not correct all of the issues and the problems with police abuse, the misuse of deadly force. But we believe that it is major transformation in the bureau and will continue to be a major transformation for reforming the Portland police bureau. Thank you very much.
12 Thank you, reverend haynes. I'll welcome up our deputy city attorney, heidi brown.
13 Thank you. Good afternoon. Councilors. My name is heidi brown. I'm with the city attorney's office. I use she her pronouns. I started providing legal advice to the city on the doj settlement agreement in 2019. And I've been advising and appearing in court on this matter since that time. I'm going to walk you through the settlement agreement up through today, and I'll get into a little more detail on some of the pieces. But I appreciate doctor haynes giving some of the background and walking you through an overview of the settlement agreement. The next. Thank you. The the first powerpoint slide is just what doctor haynes already testified or excuse me, shared with you. So you can just see it in writing. But I'm going to skip this page since he already covered this. And on the next slide, if we could skip the next one. Oh yes. So sorry. Nope. The one before. Apologies. So as as doctor haynes shared with you, all we entered into in the court accepted this in 2014. The original terms of the settlement agreement required certain things for the city to meet compliance and for the case to be dismissed, and that was that. There were numerous paragraphs in the settlement agreement, and we were required to be in substantial compliance with all paragraphs for one year. And substantial compliance simply means that any violations or mishaps are minor or occasional and not pervasive and frequent. And then secondly, after meeting substantial compliance for one year period on all paragraphs, we were then required to maintain that status of substantial compliance on all paragraphs for subsequent year, called a monitoring year, and at the conclusion of that, the parties would request a dismissal of the case. Thanks to the settlement agreement. Terms covered the following areas. The first two were sort of general provisions and definitions, but these and each one is referred to as a section. So section three was on use of force. There was there are several paragraphs underneath that. Under each of these substantive provisions, if you will. And in the use of force section, I wanted to note that, in particular, the doj's findings about the excessive use of force against persons who were either mentally ill or in a mental health crisis was predominantly around the use of tasers. And so the use of force section really did focus. You'll see quite a bit on tasers and use of taser and and limitations and and accounting for that. Section four is on training. Section five is on community based mental health services and really focuses on outside community organizations and how we could, you know, just the city seeking the support of those community organizations and providing services to people who are in need, particularly with mental health crises or suffering from a mental illness? The next section was on crisis intervention. Then we had a section on the Portland police bureau's employee information system, also known as is that system kind of big purpose and big picture and for purposes of the settlement agreement, looks to see if there are some incidents that are happening with individual officers that might suggest that an officer needs some intervention related to use of force. It serves other purposes. But for the settlement agreement, that's that was the main interest. Section eight is on officer accountability. And we'll talk a little bit more. I'll get back into section eight toward the end of the presentation. And the last section is on community engagement. And the Portland committee on community engaged policing, also known as pccep, which previously was under a different name and served a slightly different purpose, but now is set on the next slide. We have what doctor haynes already covered, where the Portland police association was accepted as a third party intervener. So they are actually a party to the case. And then there were two amici originally the albina ministerial alliance coalition for justice and police reform, also known as amac or amac, and they were given a status called enhanced amicus, which is a novel stance that they're given, but it is an amicus is a friend of the court. That status not actually a party to the case. And then the mental health alliance subsequently also requested amicus status, a friend of the court status, and they were granted that as well, although not with the enhanced status like FEMA like amac received. For monitoring of how is the city doing under the original terms of the settlement agreement, we had two bodies entities that were looking into our compliance. One was the compliance officer and community liaison, also referred to as the cocl, and they reported quarterly on our compliance with each substantive paragraph of the settlement agreement. And then we also had d.o.j. D.o.j. Served in a dual role at that time. They served both as a monitor and as a plaintiff for enforcement purposes. As the monitor, they periodically assess the city's compliance, and the first assessment they performed was in September of 2015, and then they did subsequent ones up until the most recent assessment done by the doj in their role as monitor was done in August of 2023, and that was the seventh one. So d.o.j. Did a total of seven compliance assessments. Then we moved to 2020. In 2020, early 2020 and February, the city was found in substantial compliance with all substantial with all the substantive paragraphs in the settlement agreement. And then we started our one year monitoring period a month later in in March, COVID happened. This had an impact on the requirements of the settlement agreement, followed by the murder of george floyd and the resulting almost six months of nightly protests and engagement with PPB. And then we also had devastating wildfires. All those three things impacted the city's compliance with the settlement agreement. And onto the next slide. As a result of that, the conclusion the department of justice in 2021 sent the city a letter of concern with noncompliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. And we entered into the informal and formal resolution process, wherein we went to mediation for an extensive period of time and then worked together to come up with amendments to the settlement agreement. And during that mediation process, there was involvement with the third party intervener and the amici. As a result of that, in 2022, we did bring amendments to the settlement agreement originally adopted and authorized by council and then brought to the court, and we added eight new paragraphs to the settlement agreement. The first one was, you know, a relatively easy fix, but there was a concern about capturing edits and completion dates and times and force reports and after action reviews. So that was established. Then we second one was that we had an outside agency that critically assessed the city's response to the 2020 protests, and they made recommendations to the city for changes to hopefully have better results in future protest situations, especially enduring ones. Third is that we had a we were we agreed to have a separate budget line item for overtime associated with PPB training. So you'll see that at times it has its own line item within overtime. Third, we were we hired a we agreed to hire a qualified civilian for PPB that has oversight at the training facility in in collaboration and working closely with the captain of training without either of them reporting to one another. Next, we agreed that ipr, the independent police review, would investigate police bureau lieutenants, captains, commanders and then everyone in the chief's office, the assistant chiefs, the deputy chief and the chief to look at during 2020 were there were were there was there training of our team members that did not comport that was allowed to happen, but did not comport with policy? Was the direction for use of force that were excessive or or not appropriate uses of force? Were there timely completions of force reports and after action reviews, and then were there a need for clarifications or corrections on the use of force? That investigation is continuing. Next, we agreed to a minor change on the annual report. We agreed to on the next slide. Thank you. To implement a body worn camera program, which as you all know, we do have, which is great. And the last thing we agreed to was to implement the oversight system. And there were two components to that. One was that we would propose a plan to help retain ipr employees through that transition to the oversight system. And then secondly, we agreed to adopt an oversight system by one, by a process that we kind of already started on at the point at which the the doj wanted to include this in the settlement agreement and by which the court finally entered it, which was that the police accountability commission, which had already been formed by this point in time, had 18 months to present proposals for changes to city code to implement the oversight system called for in our voter approved ballot measure. Then city council was to propose amendments to our code and to the accountability section. That was section eight of the settlement agreement, and that those would be within 60 days of the presentation from the police accountability commission. So we had a timeline on that. And then 21 days after doj approved the code and after the court and doj approved the amendments to the settlement agreement, we had to bring those code changes to council, which occurred in October of last year. Well, it occurred, sorry, in September of last year, but there was a 30 day period. So this took effect in October of last year. And then within 12 months of that date, the oversight system was to be staffed and operational, and ipr was going to stop taking new work and then complete any pending work that they had. And there was there's also a provision for good faith basis for an extension of timelines on that. Then in 2023, there was there were discussions happening in 21, 22 about maybe transitioning to an independent monitor. There were challenges between the city and doj as far as feeling like goalposts were moving, and there was an interest in maybe bifurcating doj's role. So as I said, doj had a dual role of being both a plaintiff and thus an enforcer of the settlement agreement, and secondly, a role as a monitor of the settlement agreement terms. And we decided to bifurcate the roles so that they're now only the plaintiff and have enforcement authority. And we agreed to hire an independent monitor to perform the monitoring work. And they also not only did they replace doj as a monitor, but also the compliance officer and community liaison. We then took the paragraphs and grouped them into what we call discrete sections. I don't know why we came up with that name, but that was the name we came up with. So paragraphs are now grouped together. There's a table that I had printed out for you, but it is in the powerpoint presentation. It's just a little bit small print to see. So I'll go over that with you. But it has the discrete sections. We then agreed also to something called self monitoring and partial termination. So where as I said previously, we had to be in substantial compliance with all paragraphs in this settlement agreement for one year before we'd go into a monitoring period monitored by doj and and retain that substantial compliance for another year before we would be eligible to move for dismissal. We agreed that we would come up with a new process wherein these discrete sections could be partially terminated as we made it to to substantial compliance for, again, a one year period. And then also we came up with instead of monitoring a monitoring year that was by some outside entity, we created a self monitoring period where the city would start adopting those practices ourselves. And look at how look at ensuring that we were following the terms on our own and had implemented systems that were durable and capable. So now under that process, we don't have to be in substantial compliance with all paragraphs before we're eligible for termination. Two the way it works now, as I said, it will go from monitoring to self monitoring, and then it's eligible for dismissal. And lastly, there was a recognition of successful completion of several paragraphs, approximately 40% of the of the settlement agreement was terminated based on a recognition of of successful completion and substantial compliance with those with those paragraphs and discrete sections. For at that point, it was a three year period of time that we were looking at to determine which paragraphs would get dismissed. And then subsequent to that last year, we did make those amendments to the accountability section to update it. So instead of referencing independent police review as part of the settlement agreement accountability process, now we've added in the oversight system and and accounted for their role in the in the accountability. Okay. And moving on to the next slide. So you have the discrete section table. Basically the table is set with four columns. And the first column shows the discrete sections. So you know what paragraphs are grouped together to. To be a discrete section. There can be as few as one paragraph in a discrete section or as many as seven. The second column shows you what was our status as of the point in time that the monitors appointment occurred, because we agreed that if d.o.j. Had found us in substantial compliance in their last review, or if the last two reports had found us in substantial compliance, that then with one monitor review, then that would be substantial compliance. So we were looking at where do we start out. The third column showed the status of each discrete section at the end of the monitors first report. So the monitor reported on July 1st of 2024 when they started their work through December 31st of 2024, we got that report in that was publicly released and filed in June. Toward the end of June of this year. We're now in the second monitoring review report, which covers the first half of 2025, and that's been released for public comment. But it could change. So until it's finalized, we won't know. But we did put the status as of that draft report. Just so you have a sense of what's going on. You'll see things that are Green. That's substantial compliance. Yellow means partial compliance, meaning we're not out of compliance. We're still working to get into substantial compliance, however. All right. And moving on to the next slide, I'm just going to kind of go through these slides. But this just gives you a sense. And what I wanted to share with you is you can sort of see that the grayed out areas are all areas that have been terminated on these slides. And you can see several paragraphs that have been in Green that have moved from monitoring to self monitoring. Some of them moved directly into self monitoring because upon the monitor's first report, we agreed that with some back with with the report by d.o.j. Or to local reports that that would automatically put it into self monitoring. So now we're potentially in our second self monitoring report. And for those that are agreeing then we we might be eligible for termination. So you can see on this first page where down below at the bottom two greens it says sm and then term eligible. In other words it is eligible for termination assuming the draft report on those sections doesn't change. So we can keep going through what you see on the next three slides is just more of the same, but it does show you at the end there are seven paragraphs with which the city is currently only in partial compliance, and six discrete sections on the rest, assuming nothing changes are in substantial compliance.
14 Before you go on, I think there's a question on the table itself. So councilor.
15 Yeah. Please.
16 Yes.
17 Thank you. Heidi, I'm going back to one of the Green sections on the table that identifies behavioral health as something that's going to be removed. And I think you saw last week there was a grand jury for. Damon lamar johnson. And his cause of death was prone restraint, cardiac arrest. And he he was experiencing a mental health breakdown. So. I'm trying to figure out if that's going to be terminated. Was this particular case included in the observation of termination for that particular table piece? Because it seems to me that that is another example of where it was known that he was having a mental health breakdown, and we did not have any services in addition to law enforcement who were there that could have talked him away from the window and into services. I reviewed the the video several times, and there were several opportunities for us to have him engage with other folks other than law enforcement. And I think that that is where we we were left with someone who was whose heart was not not beating when he was put into the ambulance. And that was as a direct contact with law enforcement.
18 Councilor I believe that that mr. Johnson's death occurred after the end of June. And so that would be would not be in this reporting period, as I recall. Okay. If it wasn't even so, it needs to go through the review process. So I know it is still in. There's an extensive deadly force review process that occurs and that is still ongoing now. So there's internal affairs does, you know, an extensive review. Detectives have completed their review for purposes of criminal charges against the officers involved, but there.
19 Were no criminal charges.
20 Right. So there's no although there's no criminal charges. That's a different standard than our policy. And whether our policy was were followed appropriately. So the question of whether our policies were followed will be assessed by internal affairs, or is in the process of being assessed by internal affairs. And also there is a review by the training facility to determine whether they followed training. So that process councilor is ongoing now.
21 Okay. I just didn't. Know okay. I didn't know where we were if that would have some sort of impact on what we're doing in this process.
22 It it will not. But is intervention section of the settlement agreement, which is I believe section six is different than the community based mental health organizations. So the community based mental health organizations, which are paragraphs 88 through 90 and which are the ones that you're talking about, are potentially eligible for termination. I would note that technically, under the under the manner in which we were analyzing, we had been in substantial compliance in that section for years. And the reason is because everybody other than the mental health alliance agreed. And judge simon agreed that that section did not put an obligation on the city, but instead was the city encouraging our community care organizations within the Portland community to support our community members experiencing either a mental health crisis or having a mental illness? And so so that section going away doesn't change that. The city hopefully will continue to work closely with our community care organizations and the county to best serve our community members so that those particular paragraphs should not impact the city and the city's ability. The crisis intervention might be more the section that you'd be looking at, and then the accountability section of whether or not the way the officers responded and addressed it will be analyzed through that internal affairs process that I told you about. Last thing I'll.
23 Say compliance. Whether or not our officers were in compliance or not, compliance.
24 With our policy with ppv policies. Yes. And then when the new oversight system is up and taking cases, they will all deadly force cases and all use of force cases will go to that oversight system. And so they'll do the analysis that is currently going on by internal affairs. They will receive feedback from training, but they will be the ones doing that investigation. And then determination of whether whether the conduct was in or out of policy.
25 So internal affairs will not be doing after this new policy. Internal affairs will not be doing any investigations at all.
26 They will be doing investigations. Councilor there's a number of types of misconduct that are outside the purview of the oversight system. As it stands right now. However, given the charter language says that as the oversight board deems fit, they can take different types of misconduct cases. We just put in code that they would just come to council to add in whatever other kind of misconduct allegation they want to add, okay, so that we know where cases are going.
27 Okay. Excellent. Thank you for that explanation.
28 Thank you heidi,
29 If feel free to finish off your slides and then they'll probably be more questions.
30 Just a couple more slides I just I just do one on the next slide please. I do want to get you up to date though, on a couple of recent events related to the department of justice. First of all, on October 3rd of 2025, doj sent to the city an extensive document request, and they alleged that the city, a concern that the city was engaged and PPB were engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Nothing about excessive force. I do want to note to the three of you that this is four of you. Sorry. Councilor Morillo. That that there's nothing about excessive force, which is what this case was about, was related to pattern and practice and allegations of a pattern of practice of excessive force against persons who are either in mental health crisis or having a mental illness. They requested information related to three things the arrest of nick sautter, the non arrest of anybody related to the davies, the katie davis court incident and that similar protest, the same protest. And then they're also asking for information about the city zoning enforcement related to the ice facility. On October 6th, the the city attorney's office sent a response to the doj asking first if doj cares about the constitution, asking about the excessive and unjustified use of force by the federal government against peaceful protesters in Portland, raising a concern about whether the federal government was engaging in viewpoint discrimination by targeting demonstrators based on their speech that the federal government disliked and favoring speech they liked, and the city's response. We said that we do not recognize the united states authority to access these records. Under the settlement agreement between the united states and the city, and we therefore are treating that request as document records request under Oregon public records laws. Since then. We then received a second and more extensive document request on October 29th, to which we responded similarly, and we summarized our response as follows. The city does not accept this attempt by the federal government to manipulate and exploit the agreement, and finds these actions unconscionable, and we will not give you access to our documents for this purpose. We are once again treating it as a public records request. The department of justice has expressed its concern with that approach, arguing that they get full access to all of our records for they're alleging any reason. And I would note that the city and the mac and the mha are standing in solidarity against this enforcement action. The very last thing I wanted to make you aware of is this. There have been two complaints filed recently with the department of justice alleging similarly practice at the city and with PPB of viewpoint discrimination. The first complaint was filed by the American first league a, a organization founded by stephen miller. And it's it's a 3 or 4 page complaint. The second complaint was filed by the attorney for mr. Sauder, who who is a law firm, also represents and has represented joey gibson. They filed a 22 page complaint alleging conduct going back to 2017 and stating that there was a practice and pattern of viewpoint discrimination against conservative and right wing viewpoints. So those are I did want you to be aware of what we're currently dealing with right now. Our next hearing on the doj settlement agreement is on January 6th, and I'm happy to provide further information after that and answer any questions you have.
31 Thank you so much, heidi. So I think what I'm going to do here is first start by by opening this up for questions. I do want to note for full transparency that this presentation referenced a part of my work with the police accountability commission on slide nine, just for transparency here, but I would like to open this up for questions and answers on any part of this or anything related to the settlement agreement. And I'll just mention that heidi, please feel free to phone a friend. I know there's a lot of people in this room who you may want to ask if there's any part they want to speak to. But colleagues, if you would just like to raise your hand in zoom, if you have a question, we'll start with that and then we'll move on to discussion afterwards. Counselor Smith, is that a legacy hand?
32 Yes.
33 Okay. Counselor Zimmerman.
34 Heidi, thanks. So I have a tough time with these reports because I feel like I just listened to how to do a process, and I don't really know what is changing in practice. That's one of my frustrations, frankly, with how long this has gone, given the cases that were cited for the reason we got into this, I don't I'm not fully understanding why the things that were listed in 2020 became almost like reset points. It seemed like the way they were presented, because I didn't see any mentally ill use of force cases like we we've stopped being in alignment with what the work has, where the work had started with. So. How do I, as a person elected to represent the community some 20 years after mr. Chassis? Understand what is changing versus what appears to be a process of a process that has gone through the d.o.j. Flavor of the week for four administrations, and they all have put their own stamp on it. While we have maintained and stayed here, and now we have an apparatus around this thing. But I have yet to hear one explanation for like what's different? So I guess I'm looking for how when are we going to wrap this thing up? Because I don't think I don't believe in in projects that are lifelong projects that need this kind of attention. So when are we going to wrap it up and what can we talk about that is different today than it was in 2004?
35 Okay. Can I start with the second question first, or do you want me to do the.
36 First wherever you want?
37 Okay. Thank you. So what on what has changed? You know, the police bureau is in a good position to answer those questions more fully. But I can tell you some things about it, which is one, when we when we went into the settlement agreement, we didn't have a specific crisis intervention training, and we certainly didn't have an enhanced crisis intervention training. And so that is one significant change. Now, whether it always works, you know, I can't answer that question, but does it help equip our officers with other tools to respond to somebody in a mental health crisis and who's who's experiencing a mental illness? Yeah, I think it certainly does. And and so that I think is is really a good thing that has come out of this. I would also note that, as you saw, it was the use of tasers that were were the the most concerning thing to d.o.j. At the time that they made findings on a pattern of practice and the use of tasers, particularly in people in a mental health crisis who are who are mentally ill has significantly decreased. And so we have seen significant changes in some of the areas that were of most concern to the department of justice. You know, when will this lead to? I think, you know, our position in our office has been advocating for the court to return control over the police bureau, to the city council, and to the mayor, and to the police bureau, to the police chief. That is with the understanding that we have a council and a mayor who bring a lot of concern for excessive use of force. We have a bureau that's taken a lot of steps to incorporate policy changes, etc. And to review force cases with a different eye than with reviewed in the past. As of, you know, 14 years ago, when they first in 2011 were first invited here. So there have been, I think, significant changes and and that's been our position is to return the control over to, to you all and to the mayor. And, and I think as you can see too, with all the grayed out areas in this that we have been able to reach substantial compliance on numerous sections of the settlement agreement. And so I do think that's significant for you to, to to see what's changed. Well, clearly, enough has changed that we've been able to terminate numerous paragraphs. And then and so I think that when I was sharing, we've got seven paragraphs, six discrete sections left that are not yet in substantial compliance. We're going to have to get into substantial compliance, remain in on those seven paragraph six sections for one year, then have one year of self monitoring. So we're looking at at least two years out councilor Before we would be eligible.
38 Unless why does the 2020 actions, how is it related to the mental health interactions that were the igniting issue? Where does am I unaware of like something related to the to the demonstration issues that were happening in the use of force? Was it against mentally ill people? Is that why it's in the report, or is it just a new thing that we've added on? Is this a doj settlement that just continues to get new layers, or is it related to the beginning topic?
39 There were not there were not a lot of allegations of use of excessive force resulting from the protests specific to people in a mental health crisis or who were mentally ill. I think that given the. The experience of 2020 and trying to find a way to heal the city, that council agreed that it was appropriate to amend the settlement agreement and add these additional requirements.
40 So this was the city council, not judge simon or not the doj. At the federal level. It was the city council who added those.
41 Well, doj filed a notice with us that they were they believed we were in breach of the settlement agreement. There were certain terms, for example, force reporting during that six month period of time was not timely. Officers were doing long shifts, and sometimes we're not getting the reports filled out timely. It is a requirement under the settlement agreement. Secondly.
42 I get that.
43 Yeah. And the after action review process similarly that got delayed sometimes by a couple months, particularly at the beginning, until some other processes were stood up. Training got impacted because of COVID and then and all the overtime budget was getting used up due to the protests, hence the separate line item. So there were things that happened councilor That were violations of the settlement agreement and that would have given a argument for judge simon to decide maybe some other equitable remedies. I think the city felt like the best approach to it was to find a way, like I said, to heal from that experience and find a reasonable way to move forward.
44 Okay. One of the things that has been conveyed to me at different times is that we end up spending a lot of time every time there's a new presidential administration, a new focus that d.o.j. Or simply they put a new guy on the team and that we have to now interpret their personal baggage that they bring to the work in a way that becomes like a two steps forward, one step back. And that's been this on and off. And and I'm trying to understand the implications of that. And, you know, having gone now through we're in the fourth administration, if you will. I'm wondering like what does this look like if, you know, in the next like if we're a couple more years away and then or if they decide to assign a new federal, I don't even know what the right term is. But employee to this, would we be in a case of we're now moving goalposts or we're reinterpreting what means? What I have written down here is like, who actually decides what substantial compliance is? You mentioned a few things, but I want to know who decides that and how do we do that? And I think it's relative to the doj personnel who are involved because we're all still here. They're the rotating factor, as best I can tell.
45 Well, councilor, we did one of the benefits to our amendments in 2023 were to create two separate bifurcate that role of doj. So now they're the plaintiff only and they enforce the settlement agreement. So they have enforcement authority but they don't have monitoring authority. They get to oversee the monitor. And if they feel that the monitor's not doing a sufficient job and therefore.
46 They hire him, though.
47 It was a joint, it was a joint effort between the city and doj. City hired him. The city is responsible for paying for their services. There's there's a team. But and then there have been some different interpretations of the settlement agreement by the monitor that have been a little challenging at times for us because we have over ten years of of getting used to one interpretation. So we're trying to get on the same page with the monitor and figure out where they're when they see something differently, ideally finding out about it early enough so that we can address and make changes and get into substantial compliance. But it's been a process of adjusting to the monitor. But it is good that in answer to your question, d.o.j. Is no longer in that role of monitor. So to the extent there's changes in administration that will not impact the monitoring, what it could impact is if we want to move for partial termination, we can still make that motion. If doj doesn't agree and judge simon can still consider that, but it makes it a little nicer if we're all on the same page with that. And then lastly is that we're now we're dealing with some potential enforcement actions with their allegation that we're not providing them documents that they think they have access to under the settlement agreement, and we think is not relevant to the settlement agreement and therefore is not a reasonable request, which is what's required.
48 Part of why I'd like to get this thing put to bed, because it seems like they were now using excuses from other areas of an administration's bone to pick, but we have this opening that they can use to exploit that is very troubling to me. Thank you. This is, I think, a it's an important part of our community. It's also really hard to track when we're talking about processes instead of like, I understand, like the difference between crisis intervention and not. And those times that we've all lived here and what we've seen be incorporated that's easier to track than some of these other. And then I have a somewhat, I think, a question for both the chair and I understand that there was some sort of hearing earlier in the year that you councilor Kanal testified at. I have heard only in the rumor mill that that occurred. But I'd like to understand our role here. What was the testimony? What was the hearing? Are we, as a committee, sending you to testify on our behalf? Because that's not something I think I've been tracking as is. And so I'd like to be on the same page. Are we sending you out with a city council's emissary message, or was this you swimming in a Lane that that you used to be in as an employee? And now we're over here? I need to understand what occurred, because all I've heard is that something occurred, and I can't tell yet if it was appropriate or inappropriate or what the point was. So I'd like to understand that since we're here now to understand the doj settlement and our role here.
49 Would you like to go first.
50 On that or do you want me?
51 I could just say that under the old form of government, the mayor would come and then sometimes was had had had opened the door for other commissioners to attend. And so we, we would have a rotation. Commissioner hardesty came a couple different times, and then other commissioners also were interested in attending. Commissioner rubio attended once, etc. So there was that process since the change of form of government then that that changes how that all looks. I will defer to councilor Canal on on coming to the hearing, but I would note that he he did not testify as part of the city and on behalf of the city. Okay, so I see that as a different a different position to present. And I thought he he made that pretty clear that he was not testifying on behalf of city council.
52 Okay.
53 And I'll also note, you know, that I wasn't testifying on behalf of the committee either. I think in fact, I if I recall correctly, the January 1st occurred before we even had committees. We've had.
54 The topic. If I if I could the point of the hearing.
55 I find it. So there's there's status conferences and there's fairness hearings. I will also say that part of the issue to compare that makes it difficult to compare is that there are fewer hearings now than there used to be. I think that's a fair assessment. But if you.
56 Can speak to only be once a year, actually. And then and that was one of the appeal issues that occurred that doctor haynes referenced. And then and then as we were switching over to this new process of a monitor, etc. We we changed it. So it's going to be it's twice a year now, and there was a period of time where we were going a little more regularly because we had amendments and things going on.
57 This was in your personal capacity, it sounds like.
58 Yeah, I signed up just as I did in the previous committee, signed up for the through the normal process. Everyone else does.
59 Okay. Thanks. I'm going to ask one last question, but I just want to appreciate doctor haynes, the the introduction to this topic. I, I very much valued the run through of that. So thank you, sir. And heidi, my last question is for things like the behavioral health unit, community based mental health services. As a longtime veteran of Multnomah county, knowing where these things actually live and are part of the county's workload. And yet we don't do any of this. Why is it in a d.o.j. Settlement for a thing we don't control?
60 So the behavioral health unit is a unit within PPB. And and.
61 It's I guess I'm meeting mostly the community health, community based mental health services. We don't fund that at all. Have no authority over it. The mental health authority is the county. I understood the behavioral health unit as a PPB unit. Why are we being accounted for? The cbm.
62 Well, that is one section that started directly in self-monitoring. It was a section that the mental health alliance was interested in retaining in during the monitor's period. We've been found in substantial compliance on that for many, many years now. And now are eligible potentially for termination, because we don't have any authority over our our community organizations. So it's really just us encouraging them to partner with us and collaborate with us, but we really don't have the authority to order them to provide services or more services or, or better services or anything like that, to the extent that those organizations aren't, are not meeting their needs. So I think it's just all of us trying to work together, but it was not ever something judge simon agreed early on in the case that that wasn't an obligation that the city could meet.
63 Okay, so I thought that was my last question, but I have one more count chair. So since I happen to know something about Multnomah county, I was able to zero in on that one. But if I was an expert on all of these, would I zero in on multiple things that are actually not the city's purview that fall into this similar category, or is that a one off?
64 That's a one off. Those are paragraphs 88 through 90. That is that discrete section that will likely be up for termination. So other than that the obligations are on mostly on PPB and then some on boec.
65 Thank you. That's all chair.
66 Thank you.
67 Thank you councilor I'll ask just one question. And then we do have some folks signed up to testify. So I want to make sure we have time for them. How do you walk through the change from the department of justice as a monitor to the independent monitoring team? And we hired a court appointed independent monitor as part of that process, who started with the second half of 2024. The contract for the cocl, the cocl went through the end of June, if I recall correctly. And because of the lag in reporting, we had a final report from the cocl about January through March, and then the new monitoring team started on July 1st, and their first report was about July 1st through December 31st. So it's a two part question. Can you speak to how the monitoring who monitored April through June 2024.
68 The city and doj agreed that there might be a point of time that was not going to be monitored and reported on, so I wouldn't say it was not monitored because the cocl remained involved up through the end of their contract at the end of June of 2024. So it's it's not as if they weren't going to training and coming in and participating in police review board meetings related to force, similar to doj also was doing that through the end of that period of time. So there was oversight involved. But we just agreed that there had to be a cut off point. And rather than continue koko's contract and extend it and pay them more money, we agreed with doj at the time that we amended it to allow for the monitor, that there could be a point in time where there wouldn't be a formal report, but my understanding is that the cocl gave the information and worked closely. We had a 30 day overlap between the and the independent monitor, and during that period of time, the plan was that the koko would meet as needed by the independent monitor to share information generally about how they did their work, but also about that prior period of time when they were when when the transition was happening.
69 So I don't mean to compare 2024 to 2020, but the Portland state university protests were did occur in that window of time, and PPB was involved in the response to that. I've not seen any written documentation through the settlement agreement process that relate that that documents that in any way. I know it's been discussed at pccep and a couple other venues by members of the public coming to testify as well as, I imagine, some of the volunteers. But can you speak to either now or feel free to tell me you'll follow up later about how that process covered those protests and the Portland police response to that.
70 So two thoughts about this. One is that to the extent that there were complaints of excessive use of excessive force in violation of PPB policy, those complaints would have been made in may. Correct. And so then they would go through that process of review. And and I have not seen one get through that quickly of an internal affairs investigation process such that it wouldn't be a police review board happening between July 1st and December 31st, or potentially later, depending on if the officers weren't available, etc. So first of all, it is likely.
71 To clarify because I think this relates to councilor Smith's question earlier, we would see it where the internal administrative accountability process, when that completes that period of time in which it completes the reporting on, that would cover it, in other words, if. Right. So we if there was a complaint about an event that occurred in April 2024 and the administrative investigation concluded in, let's say, April 2025, we would see that in the report for April 2025, which is January through June. Correct. And I think that relates to to david lamar johnson as well, although I will note that was June 27th.
72 By the way. It's still.
73 Yes, but that's that's only just started just before. So even though it started just before this reporting period, it still will be in there. It is subsequently. So it's and get reviewed.
74 All right. Well thank you. We might call you back up if there's anything later but thank you.
75 Yeah.
76 The only other thing I wanted to say sorry I had said I had two points, which is that, you know, there was an independent critical assessment of 2020 that was quite extensive. You know, about 78 pages. There is an opportunity of council wants to I mean, we had to pay for that one and we would have to pay for somebody else. If you wanted to look at the 20, the 2024 protest event at PSU, that's something council could determine. So I think that's in your hands to. All right.
77 Thank you.
78 Thank you heidi. So we're going to move on to taking public testimony. Diana, could you please read the next item.
79 Item number two, united states versus city of Portland settlement agreement updates. Public comment I have two people signed up for this.
80 Okay, I thought we had.
81 I apologize, I have three people signed up. I did my math wrong.
82 No problem. Can you call everyone up together?
83 Correct. Let's see. We've got brian nauendorf, jason renowned and edith gillis.
84 Thank you all for being here. And please feel free to start whenever you're ready.
85 Great. Brian orndorf, district four resident and business owner. I'm here today to speak about the labor dispute between afscme local 189 independent police review employees and the city of Portland, specifically the deeply concerning lack of transparency and accountability to the city's approach to this contract. Ipr employees are among the most experienced police oversight professionals in Oregon. They investigate police misconduct, respond to community concerns, and update uphold the integrity of our accountability systems. And yet, as Portland transitions to a new office of community based police accountability, these workers, the very people that make oversight possible, have been left in limbo for months. Fema has asked for one fundamental assurance that the people who have dedicated their careers to police accountability will not be disregarded in the transition. They've asked for clear, binding language that protects the jobs or provides a fair pathway into new oversight structure. What they have received instead is delay, opacity and shifting explanations. The city claims that the charter prevents job protections, yet the union has repeatedly asked for clarifications, legal analysis or alternate solutions, and have been met with vague answers or no answers at all. That is not transparency. That is not good faith bargaining. Meanwhile, ipr employees are being asked to reapply for their jobs with no guarantees of placement. That is not good faith bargaining. These are public servants who have been spent years defending the public's right to know the truth. And yet, when they are asked for basic honesty and a clear path forward, they are told to simply trust the very system that they're helping to reform. This is more than a labor dispute is a test of portland's values. You cannot build a stronger, community centered accountability system by destabilizing the people who have upheld accountability for decades. You cannot claim to support transparency while refusing to provide it to your own workers. Today, I'm asking this committee to intervene publicly and unequivocally support a contract that provides meaningful job protections, preserves institutional expertise, and ensures transparency throughout the transition, and hold the city's bargaining team accountable to the values Portland claims to uphold. It should not have taken six months post contract expiration and a strike for labor negotiations to be fairly honored. When we talk about building public trust in government and in police oversight, it starts here with whether we treat our own accountability workers fairly, honesty and with respect. Thank you.
86 Thank you. Jason.
87 Hi, I'm jason renaud, I'm with the mental health alliance today. And I think this is going to be about four minutes. If you have some grace, the mental health association of Portland focused on the lethal use of force by the Portland police bureau against people with mental illness. In 2006 with the brutal killing of james chassis. And I'll note that regardless of dozens of public marches and demonstrations, hundreds of local and national news articles, a deeply flawed self investigation by the Portland police bureau, excuse me, by Portland police chief at the time, and the largest settlement against the police bureau of its time, and the findings of the doj that the Portland police bureau has a pattern and practice of harming people with mental illness. This council and prior mayors have not brought any accountability to the officers who killed james chassis, because the findings of the doj investigation, those findings are completely relevant today, although damon lamar johnson, a man with schizophrenia exactly like james chassis, was killed by Portland police officers in June, the Multnomah county district attorney has seems to have no ability to hold the officers accountable. The Oregon department of justice will not take action. The Oregon department of public safety standards and training, which certifies and certifies officers, will take no action. There are no plans to investigate what happened to damon lamar johnson by Multnomah county, even though he was a person with schizophrenia and supposedly in public care, and the police review board might know something eventually, but we'll never know what that is. The independent police review, for some reason, does not review in-custody killings, and the future accountability board is in the future, and its capacity is untested. So the only venue for accountability is the civil court. There was no weapon. There was no crime. There was no threat of violence. There was just an innocent man with a medical crisis. The sort of crisis project respond has managed every day and every night for the past 30 years without killing anyone. So the settlement agreement has not finished its work. I understand the lawyers on both sides are peeved. There's an ongoing and amateurish attempt to weaponize the agreement to serve the political fantasies of the white house, but the work of the agreement to reduce lethal force against people with mental illness by police, if that's the work of the agreement, maybe it's not. That is unfinished. In 2012, the mental health association Portland joined with disability rights Oregon and the Oregon justice resource center, along with dozens of unaffiliated advocates and activists, to create the mental health alliance to inform the court about the impact of lethal force against people with mental illness. That has meant literally thousands of meetings, public and private court hearings, mediation briefings, tens of thousands of hours spent by skilled and knowledgeable volunteers, often assisted by our allies at the albina ministerial alliance, coalition for justice and police reform and other experts, both local and national. As friends of the court, there's really been no difference between enhanced amicus amicus to find a path to justice, to impress on the PPB, that mercy and compassion are fundamental tools of policing. It hasn't really worked. Mercy and compassion have not become values of our police bureau. And damon johnson is all the evidence that understand that the courts in the world, all the courts in the world won't make that change needed. The solution has always been two parts one, to reduce lethal force, cities, counties and states need to hold officers accountable. That's underway. Not happening yet. Second, to reduce use of force, cities, counties and states need to provide an adequate alternative response. A non-police response for people with mental illness and crisis who have not committed a crime and posed no threat. James chassis was posted in 2006. Damon johnson was not a person in 2025. Skip to the last paragraph. The mental health alliance will stand with the city on a motion against the motion to enforce the doj's weaponization of the settlement agreement. We might also oppose a motion to vacate this agreement by the city. We suggest you build your accountability board. You build your alternative response team. You stop 911 from sending police to medical emergencies and let the court monitor do its work. We're on the downhill slope. We're on our way to the end of this. Thanks.
88 Thank you. Go ahead. Edith.
89 Hello. My name is edith gillis, and I'm speaking to you as someone who has suffered a lot of violence, stopping my heart and lungs several times by Portland police. Never was I in a mental health crisis. Never was I homeless, never was I black, never was I violent or threatening to break any laws. I'm also a member of the pacific northwest family circle, and Sunday we had a gathering at a park that's being developed, honoring some of the hundreds of people who were killed in Oregon by law enforcement. I have also been a foster parent, and I've been volunteering out on the streets helping folks that are unhoused due to public policy that is inhumane and uneconomical. I am hearing from folks that there are hundreds, not exaggerating hundreds of people who have been killed by Portland police bureau in the last 20, 25 years. Most of those are people who are sex workers, who are trafficked rape victims, or are unhoused, or are immigrants or combination, and their lives are not valued. Their lives are not their deaths are not reported. And if anything happens, they're called suspects as if they are the criminals. I have been a street medic at different protests for 43 years in Portland. De-escalating, protecting people, providing first aid from crimes committed by police and by the white terrorists fascists that the police protect and assist. There is very different enforcement according to their perception of category of people who are marginalized and by political beliefs. I am. Often providing comfort to folks who are victims of police brutality, who dare not speak up because their children or their elderly, or their handicapped partner will be killed or worse, by the police. It's much bigger problem than you seem to be aware of. I could list a whole lot of names, but I would go over the time if the intention of the doj settlement is to have you stop having police have complete immunity to terrorize folks and wasting our tax dollars and preventing us from having our money spent on what does prevent crime and does protect public and does uphold public. Then you need to pursue more than just is this in the gray zone? Or is this supposedly settled because I don't see anything that's near adequate.
90 Thank you to all three of our testifiers. Just to close this item up on the settlement agreement. I'm I'm very aware that we're hearing about some heavy topics today related to patterns and practices, and I'm I'm sure that we'll be talking about this again. I think this is the introduction to the item. And as the settlement agreement continues and as the the. As policing continues to, to evolve in the city of Portland, I'm sure that this committee will be a place where we talk about these items on a regular basis. Thank you. And with that, we'll move into the next item. Diana, will you please read it?
91 Item three appoint and reappoint members of the Portland committee on community-engaged policing.
92 Thank you. Colleagues today will be considering whether to refer to the full council, a report which will confirm the mayoral appointments of six people to the Portland committee on community engaged policing and reappoint two current members. This presentation will be led by dory grabinski, program manager for pccep. I also want to just preemptively welcome all the nominees, many of whom are here today in person or online. Yeah, take it away.
93 Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is dory grabinski and I'm the program manager for the Portland committee on community-engaged policing, also known as pccep. So I want to start by thanking doctor haines and heidi for a perfect presentation to us up today. As pccep was originally established by the settlement agreement. And I also want to thank each of the councilors for taking time to meet with us this fall individually and talk about this program and what we hope to reflect in our membership. So with that said, we are here today to request the appointment of six new pccep members as well as the reappointments of two ongoing members. So we'll begin with a quick refresher on what pccep is and does. I'll try to go fast here. So doctor haines explained the precipitating incidents of the settlement agreement. And that is also where the story begins for pccep, because of the history of community organizing that resulted in the settlement, peace was created as one of the remedies under that agreement to institutionalize that voice and make sure the community is always part of shaping our city's public safety systems. And pccep stands in a long continuum of community work towards equitable and constitutional policing, reflecting a powerful commitment by the city to uphold the changes it pledged to make. And next slide. So we also like to emphasize that this program serves a unique function in our city landscape. Pccep is the only platform devoted to engagement between community PPB and city leadership that is administratively independent from the PPB. This program works in two major lanes policy recommendations and community engagement. And of course, those lanes overlap and inform one another. This is very distinct from the cbpa, the community board for police accountability, which focuses more narrowly on administrative discipline and misconduct complaints. And next slide. So as I said moments ago, work falls under two umbrellas. Formal policy recommendations to the chief and the mayor and facilitating engagement between the public, PPB and city leadership to share information and build trust. You can see some examples of these types of work on this slide. And as a follow on to the conversation with heidi, part of sepp's work over the years has included helping parse settlement agreement developments to the public and assessing how those remedies have been progressing within PPB. And next slide. So getting into the nuts and bolts, pccep is a committee of 13 members who serve two year appointments. We have reserved seats for youth and give special consideration to those with lived experience of mental illness or addiction. And next slide. These are the very basics of how recruitment works for the committee. And as you know, these are mayoral selections that must be confirmed by council. And you'll note that we did review 60 applications this cycle. Next slide. All right on to the fun part. So we have with us today our candidates up for committee approval. They are a talented slate of community members with diverse backgrounds, skills and perspectives. And I'm excited for you to hear from them directly. And then let's just jump ahead to slides really quick. Also, for your reference, these one more. One more. Yeah. Oh sorry. This slide with the reappointments. Sorry about that. So yeah for your reference these are the members who are up for reappointment as well who are continuing or hoping to continue their service. So at this time I will invite our first up group of appointees to join me on the dais. And we are also going to begin with a video recording from our one appointee who was unable to attend in person or virtually due to work conflicts. So we will go ahead and play her video.
94 Hello, my name is vanessa perry. Hello. Hello, my name is vanessa perry. I use she her pronouns. My apologies for not being able to join you synchronously. I am in the physician assistant program at OHSU which is what brought me to Portland. My background is that of a licensed therapist, and I also taught in a graduate program in clinical mental health at the university of arizona for the last nine years. So my background is firmly embedded in mental health. But I come from a really strong dei lens, being from a latina and also just understanding different systems of inequity and how they impact folks when they when they meet with mental health. So that's why this committee is really important to me, because I think that it's a way to improve the quality of life and the experience of being a community member in Portland for people with mental health diagnoses and community engaged, policing is really an important way, is a vital way for us to make sure that we can ensure the safety of these folks that are often vulnerable and marginalized. Thank you so much for your consideration.
95 All right. And our remaining five candidates are here with us in person today, and we will just go down the line. So go ahead, andrew.
96 Hello, everyone. Thank you very much. I am a Portland resident, district two. Professionally. I have a background in data analytics and cloud computing. Personally, I'm also a board member of the board of directors for a national nonprofit called treble and co, in which we provide training, skills and tools to those at most risk by the system. We consider it for both political and environmental risk to drive community engagement using data and technology. Personally, I have been both at as a position of somebody who's been unhomed for multiple years and faced intervention by professional staff of the cities that I live in for mental health. So my goal here is to provide a view on data and analytics in the voice of lived experience as best I can. And that's why I'm here. Yeah.
97 And can you say your name for the record just.
98 Before you. Yeah. Andrew. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thanks.
99 Hi, I'm caitlyn davidson. I was born in Portland. I live in Portland. I went to david douglas school district. My students go to centennial. I I'm a school bus driver. I work in the schools. I see lots of down low struggles. You know, I see it at the street level. And I have a child that has or is autistic, and I have a non-binary child, and I just have a lot of concerns for the future for them. With the current history that I see, especially after being here today and really getting to see some of that nitty gritty details.
100 You know, knowing there's a pattern and seeing the specific examples really can change things for you. I just am here because I feel like I need to do something. Things need to change. Things need to, you know, move in a better direction. And instead of sitting at my house and yelling at the tv about how these things need to change, I'm here to actually be a part of it and try and make that happen.
101 Hello, my name is soraya vasquez potter. I am the reimagining justice and cully project coordinator with the native American youth and family center. I have a background in criminal justice and tech project management. I also have a child on the autism spectrum and several family members with mental health and addiction issues who have also experienced homelessness. I feel responsible to use my voice to advocate for people that can't for themselves and. And hope to do that for everybody. Excuse me? Everybody in the bipoc community, as well as marginalized communities as well. Thanks.
102 And if our remaining two appointees would join me at the dais. Thank you.
103 Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Zimmerman, councilor Smith and councilor Carl canal. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. My name is pastor robin weisner, 30 year, 30 years in the city of Portland. Resident been civic, involved for 30 years in the city of Portland. Pretty much. I can say that out of the 30 years that I've been involved here, the intent was so that my son, when he was born, would have a place as a young african American man, to feel safe and live in a city that we moved to, where he was birthed at and have the equal rights be free to live, have fun and grow up, play basketball, and also have an area where that he could trust the community that would receive him the way he is. My 30 years involvement, I got involved many years ago working through many different engagements, but I was previously appointed on pccep previously was also part appointed to the independent review, which as a volunteer had the balance where I would be equal and where I felt that all of the years that I worked, where I might have better focus of working accountability. And so now I'm back. The reason again is based upon the worries that you've heard from my mentor and friend, doctor leroy haynes. I do not want to forget the great work of bishop a.a. Wells, bishop. Our pastor hardy, as well as doctor allen bethel, as well as pastor roy tait. And there's many other shoulders that I stand on, and the work that we have really came to this place of what got us here. I feel that with the responsibility of those who have fought so hard and passed on, I should continue with great responsibilities to help continue the work that they do for accountability. Thank you.
104 Good afternoon. My name is fasika. I am a junior studying public and urban affairs at Portland state university on a pre-law track. Growing up in America, I've witnessed how trust has eroded over time when it comes to policing. And while I was a student at occidental college in los angeles, I firsthand had interactions with lapd officers. And I've also studied the history of policing and what grassroots organizations are particularly doing to implement better policies. As a volunteer, I hope to help what I've I hope to use what I've learned to provide suggestion that ensures oversight is transparent, accountable, and genuinely impactful. Most importantly, I want to bring forward perspectives that are often discussed, but not always represented, which is those of young people, immigrants, and communities from people of color. Ultimately, in my involvement, I'm looking forward to working with those I can look up to and learn from. With a shared goal of helping move Portland to a better and more broader holistic vision of public safety, one that recognizes the role of housing, mental health and community support alongside law enforcement. Thank you.
105 I would like to add one thing for the record. Also for transparency. I am a steering committee of the albina as well.
106 And that concludes our presentation. If you have any questions for our candidates, we can bring everybody back up or questions for us.
107 Thank you. So in a moment we'll start talking about the potential actions we could take, which include referral to the full council. But first, if any colleagues on the committee would like to ask any questions, we'll start with questions and we'll move into discussion. Councilor Zimmerman.
108 I'm just first off, how many applicants did we have for these positions?
109 60 applications this round.
110 That's a wonderful turnout. And then it looks like pccep staff did some screening. And then so if you could please give me an idea for what screening or vetting or what lens you all used for, then it looks like. So the mayor selected these folks. Was that an interview with the mayor, the mayor's team, or did he take your recommendation? As of the six, I'm curious about this process.
111 Yeah, absolutely. So the mayor's office, the mayor's liaison, christopher taft, does participate in our final round interviews. And then he briefed the mayor on the results, and they made selections based on that.
112 Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.
113 Thank you. Councilor.
114 Councilor Smith.
115 Thank you. Good afternoon.
116 Good afternoon.
117 I appreciate you all taking this opportunity to use your discretionary time to work on an issue that is very important to our community. And I'll start with you, pastor weisner, what is the the one thing that drew you to wanting to serve as a public servant on, on this particular issue?
118 Thank you very much, commissioner Smith and good friend of mine who understood from the very beginning the concerns that was happening and that was plaguing community, which was the death that we were seeing by law enforcement. What got me there, kendra james. And if you don't mind me stating up front that this part is still a little trauma to me, where that I'm emotional a little bit about it, but standing at her casket, talking to her father and then at that time, being a volunteer of the crisis response team to have to deliver an the type of news that was given to the father, where that there was some challenges that she was dealing with in her life, but they expected death to come in one way. But when the finding of that it was done by a Portland police officer, it was tragedy. And therefore I felt at that point in time, as I promised, that I would be engaged just for her rights and justice to be served.
119 Thank you. I think we'll go to the to the left of you and you talk just a little bit. I'm going to give you the same question. What singular thing? I think I remember you saying something about your, your, your children were reason why you wanted to. Was there any single event that that caused you to want to be on this particular committee at this particular time?
120 I'm going to try to keep it together. My son elopes from school. So what that means is he he runs, he leaves, he gets off the property and he is physical and. I just have this fear of when he. Sorry. When he elopes and they can't find him and they have to call the police. And he's being violent because he has no other way. What's going to happen to him? But I also recognize my dad was a sheriff of Clackamas county and my very best friend. Her dad was a deputy in in Clackamas county prison and or jail. And, you know, I recognize that most of the people that are in that service are in that service for good reasons. But, you know, you you almost can't go a day without hearing things. And it's just terrifying. And I, I want to know that my children are going to be safe. And I want to know that my friend who's in a mental health crisis is going to make it out. And I want to know, you know, that that what we're trying to put in place is also fair to the people that we're putting in place to, to follow those rules for I want to make sure that it's achievable goals, and I want to make sure that they're going to make a difference and they're going to actually keep people safe, because that's really what the goal should be in my opinion.
121 Thank you. Could you introduce yourself?
122 Yeah, my name is fasika. And just answering your question.
123 Yes. Just answered the same question.
124 Why?
125 What motivates me to apply for this role specifically was, well, growing up here in America, literally every time, every news is something associated with like. But when it comes to policing death, wrongful death is happening. And just seeing how polices are respond in a way that is not always or that doesn't seem right. And then also like when I was in high school, I took courses in public safety. And then in that course we learned about how police are trained and that the way what I've learned from that is what first made me think, okay, like there's a kind of make sense where the system is going wrong. And it was because the way the polices were being trained, it wasn't really in a way. Well, from what I've thought at the time, at least, it was wasn't. I feel like it could be better. And then while I was in school at occidental college, I kind of have touched on it earlier as well. We would have in our class at la, police officers would come to our class and teach or talk about how they try to build trust within the community, build trust within their communities, and then also they would be representatives from grassroot organizations who would also come and have this conversation with us, which kind of further my interest when it comes to public safety. And I also like just as a young person, I aspired to go to get into a law field later on down my path. And then I'm interested in this human rights law and just getting involved in something I care about, which is public safety in my own city, is what makes me want to apply to this for this role.
126 Thank you for wanting to serve, and I'll ask the same question down the line.
127 Hi, farai vasquez potter. I don't believe that anybody should have to be afraid for a biological or cognitive disability. I also grew up advocating for my mom, who was disabled. And saw her fight for herself and advocate for herself. With police not being believed because of her disability. I also had a brother that was. An addict and died homeless, who went through murder charges that were completely unfounded due to his addiction. And I don't want people to feel like they can't live their lives without fear. And. Obviously it's very important to me and I think that, you know, Portland and is is in such a really great position to be able to change things. And that's why I'm here. I want to be a part of that change.
128 Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing that story about your family. Next.
129 Same question.
130 Same question. And introduce yourself.
131 Andrew hop, I think I was looking for an opportunity to get involved, to be honest, out of an immense shame for what's happening in the country that I love. So I started looking for opportunities. I found this one as one that I fit in kind of an intersection of both advantage and disadvantage. I've been in a position where I've struggled with mental health, I've been homeless, where the site and experience of a police officer causes immense anxiety and fear, but also because of the way that I presented the world. Now it doesn't, and I think I want to be able to provide a voice and data to that lived experience as best as I can, and that's why I applied.
132 Thank you so much for sharing, commissioner.
133 I heard the latter part of your question I didn't address at this time, and I'm sorry I didn't. Yes, especially at this time. My knowledge base of understanding police directives, understanding the studies of what it is that's in accountability. Those years bring me back to making sure that as part of this committee, that I have that type of knowledge to help move forward in the reading through and helping to bring out the information that we as a committee will work together toward and understanding what piece that was formed for for the settlement.
134 Thank you, pastor, for bringing that experience to this board, I appreciate it.
135 Thank you. Councilor. So at this time, it looks like there's no one else in the queue for questions. So we will need a motion in order to continue this. And we'd be looking for and I would entertain a motion to move the to refer the appointments and reappointments of members to the community. Portland committee on community engaged. Sorry.
136 Apologies. We have two people signed up for testimony.
137 My my apologies. Could our appointees just. Are any of them? I think there are someone here in person. So we'll we'll start with that. Can you please call up our first?
138 Sure. First we have mark poris. He's online and next we have edith gillis. Mark, you can unmute and begin your testimony.
139 Hi. Can you hear me?
140 You're all good.
141 Great. Good afternoon. Co-chair canal and councilors Morillo Smith and Zimmerman. My name is mark poris. I use he him pronouns and I'm with the group Portland copwatch. Thank you so much to the appointees for showing up today. That was that was very powerful. We're glad to see that the city is getting the Portland committee on community-engaged policing back up to its full strength of 13 members for the first time in a while. We have no objection to any of the five new members, the return of pastor weisner or the reconfirmation of kip silverman and tia palafox. And we're grateful for the service of the members who've completed their terms. We're also grateful for the inclusion of the appointment departure list, which includes the full board membership along with the date of each community members appointment and their term ending date. Some of the statements in the appointees bios and and statements of of intent stood out, caitlyn davidson wrote. When governmental bodies share only parts of a story, the community eventually finds out what was hidden and trust is broken. Andrew hoppe wrote that his goal is to help strengthen the connection between community experience and institutional decision making. Freya vasquez potter is committed to working objectively and respectfully through conflicts, contributing to an atmosphere of inclusivity and transparency in our public systems, and advocating for equitable policing practices. Doctor vanessa perry wrote that systems, whether educational, medical, or law enforcement, must earn and sustain the trust of the people they serve, and youth appointee wants to help move Portland toward a broader and more holistic vision of public safety, one that recognizes the role of housing, mental health and community support alongside law enforcement. And we wonder how the relationship between police and the community they serve might change if the bureau posted bios and statements of intent for each of pb's sworn officers, biographies of chief day, deputy chief jovic and the three assistant chiefs are on the city's website, but they don't interact daily with members of the public. We've seen the harms caused by masked, unidentifiable, unidentifiable federal agents and how it's nearly impossible to hold them accountable when they abuse their power. Local law enforcement should strive to be the exact opposite of that. Why shouldn't the public know more about, or really anything about the folks who are sworn to serve and protect? One requirement for applying to PPB is to submit a personal history statement. Perhaps the transparency displayed by pccep during this process can be an inspiration for the bureau to begin opening up to pccep is an important, if not the most important, avenue for community members to provide feedback on how they want or don't want to be policed. Our perception now is that the city and the us doj are ready to be done with the settlement agreement. We support codifying pccep to ensure that they can continue working towards their mission of achieving equitable policing, which exceeds constitutional requirements and meaningful community engagement with and trust in PPB. Two recent pccep efforts that we appreciate were the listening session on the death in custody of damon lamar johnson and recommendation to leave pb's exculpatory evidence directive alone. We appreciate the participation of the metropolitan public defenders who educated the community on why it is necessary for the state, including PPB, to turn over all exculpatory evidence to people accused of crimes. It is disappointing that the Multnomah county district attorney chose not to accept invitations to explain his reasoning behind wanting to receive less information about potential impeachment information regarding Portland police officers, and we hope pccep will continue to work on this issue. Thank you.
142 Thank you. Mark.
143 Edith.
144 Hello. My name is edith gillis, and I know of absolutely no reason to disapprove of or disagree with, or defund any of the applicants or the program. I am a strong advocate that we have a lot more involved with our police oversight, that we have more than even was recommended by the board on what we should have. I'm also a strong advocate that we have more about police insurance, that they have to pay their own. Liability that is not funded by the city taxpayers, and that we have an independent medical examiner that we have, as with every injury or death, within three weeks of involvement with the police officer, that we give crime victim services from the city of Portland and that come from the police budget, I have a lot more suggestions on what we can do in letting folks know about the violence. In fact, wanting posted the types of weapons, the wounds, the treatment and what they look like from different angles so that we can identify that and recognize it and provide care for the victims of police crimes. I want to thank these folks that are being so courageous and caring and principled to apply for this. It's hard. You'll be under attack. You'll be discouraged. But don't give up. And let's make sure that we do a lot more than this from now on. Thank you.
145 Thank you. Edith.
146 Okay, we'll now return to discussion again. I was starting to say we we would need. And I'll entertain a motion to refer this item with the appointments and reappointments of members of the Portland committee on community engaged policing to the full council, with a recommendation that they be confirmed. Is there such a motion?
147 So moved.
148 There's a motion from councilor Smith. Is there a second.
149 Second from councilor Morillo? Is there any discussion at this time? I'm going to say it's a legacy hand here. Oh, go for it, counselor Zimmerman.
150 Thanks. I just want to remind folks it's the Portland committee on community-engaged policing, and I think that's an important part of the mission. There's been some interesting testimony today, and there are a number of police oversight, police accountabilities, independent police reviews, etcetera. But I am looking to these nominees for really living into the role of community engaged policing. I think it's a little troubling that there were testimony today that that, you know, referred to officers as terrorists or that referred to. Or I guess, decided that they're not really city employees. So don't let that sway in terms of your experiences. I was compelled by the stories that were shared today, and we're counting on you to bring. You, your family, the people you work with, your neighborhoods, experience to this about community engaged policing. And I value what community engaged policing can be in a community. I don't think it starts with some of the things that were said today, not by any of you, but I just. Portland becomes a microphone at times for for people. And now that you're going to be one of our appointed advisory boards, you'll sometimes hear from these microphones at times. And I think that you all are bringing what looks like a very positive reason for public service, and I really value that. And the discussions about either your own future, your children's future were very compelling. And so thank you for stepping up. Welcome to the the melting pot that is the city of Portland city hall. And all things come up here. But it's okay to when when something irks you like maybe what I'm feeling, it's okay to push back on that and you're going to have some things that come up in. Maybe what I'm saying is irking you right now, but nobody is asking you to drink any kool-aid. When you serve on a board. We are asking you to bring your whole self to that board and serve with your whole self, and serve in a manner that you find to be the most honorable way in which you can serve. And so, for those of you that are being reappointed, thank you. I see some members who are also currently members on the board who are here to support the new members. So I just want to give you that perspective from where I'm at and why I'll be supporting everybody's nomination. Thanks a lot.
151 Thank you. Counselor. Is there.
152 Any other discussion next in the queue? So first let me say thank you to those who have served that the vacancies created because you left. But we appreciate the service that you've put in. Thank you to to kip and tia for signing up again. And thank you to all of you for being willing to to rejoin it, as well as to the folks who applied and perhaps are not in this group, but maybe in a future appointment down the line. I have the personal experience of working with with pccep at a at a sort of arm's length distance. Previously in my my role at the community safety division, which later became the dca for public safety, that office, and I've seen a lot of different folks come in and really do well when they are taking a lot of the same advice that I think councilor Zimmerman just gave about being open minded, being willing to hear out multiple sides of an issue. It's not usually two is. What I've found is that there's usually more than two sides on an issue, and being not only a conduit, but also a person who can assess and listen to that little voice that's that's telling you something as you're hearing it from a city staffer, whether it's a police officer or an elected leader, as well as from community members who may come and testify. One of the really great things about pccep is how many people come and testify. They're relative to some of the other groups around the city. I also wanted to quickly appreciate the other folks who do work for pccep, but are not members. We obviously heard from from the program manager, dory grabinski. I know we have city attorney sarah ames, director of enterprise services elizabeth perez, and I don't actually remember your title, liz, but liz taylor, who is, I believe, program assistant coordinator. Program coordinator. Good. Great. So, yeah, there's a lot of folks who do a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that this. Entire system keeps going, and I'll just put in a plug to be kind to them, even if you are frustrated with with them at times, which is normal. I will be voting yes on this both here and at the full council. I appreciate the work done to build a diverse pccep in terms of diversity of thought, as well as all of the other ways we look at diversity around the city. And I appreciate that both in the current members and those that will be appointed if this should pass, and I hope it does. Seeing no one else in the queue, we have a motion. It has been seconded. Will diana, will you please call the roll and a vote? Yes. Is to refer this to the full council.
153 Zimmerman I.
154 Smith I.
155 Morillo thank you all for your service.
156 I canal.
157 Thank you.
158 I that sorry with four eyes the motion passes.
159 So this will be sent on to the full council. We are not sure yet when it will be heard, but I'm sure we will be getting that to you via the staff as soon as possible. 3rd December third. There we go. Yeah. Thank you for the signal back there. December 3rd, which is a 9:30 a.m. Council meeting. So that's a Wednesday as well. All right. Our next meeting of the community and public safety committee is Tuesday, December 9th at 2:30 p.m. We are expecting we don't know the agenda yet, but we are expecting several pieces of legislation that may relate to a bunch of different topics. So please keep your keep your eyes open for that. And with that, this meeting of the community and public safety committee is adjourned. Thank you.