The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-09-23
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (22,860 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 Portland City Council Community and Public Safety Committee met on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, with roll call confirming the body present. The session opened with a presentation on Oregon's Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), covering their legal purpose, application process, enforcement, firearm dispossession procedures, and statistics on usage across counties and states, followed by questions from committee members on evidentiary standards, order duration, notification practices, and petition patterns. The committee then turned to discussion of potential legislative responses to federal immigration enforcement activity in Portland, including a proposed ordinance to codify the city's sanctuary status into binding code, a detention facility impact fee, an unauthorized detention code provision, a data privacy resolution, and a broader "Protect Portland" resolution modeled on a similar Chicago initiative. Committee members raised questions and some concerns about enforcement mechanisms, potential legal or financial impacts, and possible unintended consequences of certain provisions. A public hearing followed, during which numerous individuals, including city employees, community organization representatives, and residents, testified in support of the proposed measures, several urging additional protections such as mask bans, license plate requirements, and legal aid funding. Votes, if any occurred, are recorded in the vote ledger. The meeting concluded with an announcement that the next committee meeting is scheduled for October 7.
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.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good afternoon everyone. I call the meeting of the community and public safety committee to order. It is Tuesday, September 23rd at 2:30 p.m. One quick note before we get into the roll call, the portion of the end of the agenda today is where all the public comment is. So you may hear us talking a little faster than normal as we move through. We're trying to make sure there's enough time for everyone to give public comment at the end here, and I welcome any assistance in that regard from everybody in this room. Rebecca, will you please call the roll.
1 Morillo here.
2 Novick here.
3 Zimmerman.
4 Here.
5 Smith here.
6 Canal here. And, christopher, will you please read the statement of 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 on the committee agenda at wwe. Agenda, 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. For public testimony on today's item, individuals may testify for two minutes. 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 are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent and virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
8 Thank you. We're going to pause for just a second. The transcript is not working. So just want to give everybody a chance to get that figured out. Sorry for the anticlimactic nature of that.
Procedural episode · turns 9–17
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
9 Sometimes.
10 We should be good to go.
11 Okay. Still not seeing it live up here, but I see it up there, so if that's good, then.
12 It's showing in the broadcast in youtube. Yeah, we have all.
13 All right. All right. At today's meeting we have three agenda items. First is an informational presentation on oregon's extreme risk protection orders, or irpos, commonly referred to as red flag laws. This presentation will cover the purpose, process, and implementation of irpos, including how they're used to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals deemed to pose a significant risk to themselves or to others. The second third items will be together. The second item is to discuss possible legislative responses to recent or ongoing federal immigration enforcement activity within the city. The discussion will will explore options to address community concerns, clarify local policies, and consider the city's role in relation to federal immigration authorities. It's primarily focused on legislation, so that is separate from some of the other activities the city could take. And I just want to stress that in terms of what the the sort of limitations are and also what the topic is going to discuss. And finally, the third item is to hear community input on those possible legislative responses to recent or ongoing federal immigration enforcement activity within the city. So just as a way of of prefacing that, we recognize this is an issue of significant interest to many members of our community and appreciate time and engagement of everyone involved as we continue this conversation. And we want to make sure that we have enough time to hear as many people as possible throughout this process, while also creating a space where all voices can be heard respectfully. So, to help ensure a productive and inclusive environment, I'm just going to ask once up front that we try to maintain the flow of things and the decorum so that no one voice overwhelms or silences another. You are free to use jazz hands throughout this. A non-verbal reactions are always welcome. Thumbs up or thumbs down. And that'll help us make sure that as many of our testifiers who signed up are able to as possible. We did say up front that we can only guarantee 20. I'd like to see if we can get through everyone since we're still within the 20s, I believe today. And in terms of how many signed up. So let's see if we can. With that, I'll pass it back to rebecca. Would you please read the first item.
14 Item one. Oregon's extreme risk protection orders. Red flag laws.
15 Thank you. And I'll pass it to co chair Novick to speak to this.
16 Thank you, mr. Chairman. We're going to be hearing today from four folks, sergeant josh silverman of the Portland police bureau, who'll be talking about how the police bureau is set up to handle irpos. Sergeant john pemberton of the Multnomah county sheriff's office to talk about that office's role in serving, executing irpos. And then we'll be hearing from two out of town experts, jake chandler from deschutes county. We'll talk about how deschutes county became a leader in the use of rpos and chelsea parsons from every town to talk about national statistics and what other states have done. So I'd actually like all four of you to come up now and grab a spot. And josh, take it away.
17 All right. We'll see.
18 If we'll get the slide up and going. I know we're real short on time, so I'll just do introductions real fast. My name is josh silverman. I'm a sergeant with the behavioral health unit. I've been with the bureau since 2009, so I guess that makes it 16 years. 2012 through 15, I was the behavioral health unit as an officer. Did some other things I promoted and then in since 2022 have been the sergeant at the behavioral health unit. And most of my career has been sort of at the intersection of mental health and law enforcement.
19 Do you want to take it?
20 Sweet. All right.
21 Arrow key.
22 All right, so I've been told I have eight minutes. I've already used two. So this is normally like a 25 minute presentation. The idea was just to go through. Let's see. The idea is just to go through. This is taken from a portion of presentation I give community health workers to give a sense of what are irpos. And then kind of how can we work together. So for the next six minutes, this is what your life is going to look like. We're going to talk about what is an erpo. When is it a good idea? How does PPB and Multnomah county sheriff's office handle erpo and what are the next steps? So what is an erpo? So as commissioner Novak mentioned beforehand, this is oregon's version of a red flag law. It's a court order that prohibits a person from possessing deadly weapons, such as firearms, for one year when they present a risk of suicide or causing physical injury to another person in the near future. And the reason I break this down into these three sections here is to oftentimes when I'm talking to community health workers, this is contrasted with the legal criteria for civil commitment, which is a very, very high bar. And that's a discussion that's had we're having at the state level right now. And house bill 2000 2005 discusses that. You can fact check me on that. So what is the level for civil commitment? What I point out for health workers is that this is actually a lower bar here. So when we're talking about taking somebody in involuntarily committing somebody, that should be a pretty high bar for us just taking their firearms for one year. Maybe it should be a slightly lower bar. And that's what we're looking at here. So here's some examples of good candidates. A person who has threatened or attempted suicide with a firearm. Person who has made threats to acquire a firearm to harm others, a person who owns firearms and has made credible threats to harm an individual or group. So we have a significant safety risk and a firearms nexus or deadly weapons nexus who can apply for an erpo. So this is pretty similar to other protection orders like restraining orders or stalking orders, with the exception of law enforcement. So we have family member, household member, intimate partner. But also importantly, and this is what's cool about the law is that law enforcement can apply for it as well. Meaning we can be the bad guy. So if you can imagine a situation where, let's say mom is living with adult son who has significant mental health issues, maybe some suicidality, and has the gun in the home, we can be the one who petitions for the firearm to be removed, making it easier so mom doesn't have to be the bad guy in that case. Does that make sense? We get this question all the time. What about a doctor social worker neighbor? So no, they can't. And in fact, other states do allow for certain healthcare workers to apply for irpos in our state. They cannot. So what happens functionally is that the health care worker will talk to me. I'll re-interview the witnesses or re-interview people, and then I'll or one of my officers will go ahead and apply for the erpo on their behalf. So I want to give a sense of what is the administrative burden. So how do you complete an irpa? Well, you google erpo Oregon and the first thing you'll get is this website. You find the pdf there at the bottom. You fill it out. Yes, you have to print it out. You'll maybe attach a word document and write your little essay, and then you'll take it to the courthouse between eight and noon. And then the judge will call you around 130 and ask you, they'll swear you in over the phone, and you'll raise your hand and go through and talk through maybe a few facts, and then they'll let you know whether it was granted or denied. So it's not a huge administrative burden, but what I would say is that does kill the whole shift for an officer. So in the past you have you go to the call, you apply for this, you have to show up in person, drop off the paperwork, you have to be available for the phone call. So that's been a bit of a problem. And I'm going to talk a little bit later about how we're trying to streamline things. So your erpo is granted what happens next? So members of Multnomah county sheriff's office gun dispossession unit will go ahead and serve the paperwork. They'll educate the respondent on their responsibilities and what to do with their guns, and they'll coordinate the safekeeping of the firearms, either by taking the firearms themselves or by arranging for them to be taken to a qualified third party. And sergeant pemberton here will discuss that process in a little bit. Yes, you have the right to contest this. You have you have a hearing typically 21 days out after contesting the erpo. So what happens if you violate the erpo? Well, what I tell folks is depending on the situation, you're either going to call 911 or the non-emergency line and we'll deal with it depending on how severe the emergency is. It is a crime to possess firearms when subjected to an erpo. It's a class a misdemeanor, and we can arrest and apply for a search warrant if that makes sense. So there's some teeth to this. So let's talk about why we're trying to increase efforts or how we're trying to increase efforts in use of this law, because I do think it's a fairly underutilized law. So the problem initially was that patrol was pretty unfamiliar with the process. It's not a thing we see pretty regularly. And then as I mentioned beforehand, we don't have the time or resources to go through the whole day, just our entire shift to go through one erpo. So instead, what we've done is we have now my behavioral health unit officers, they're the ones who are applying for erpo on behalf of the patrol officers. So what that means is they email us, they say, hey, I just responded to this call last night. It was pretty dangerous. This guy has a gun. Please do something and then we will go through the reports, ask some follow up questions, fill out the paperwork and apply for the purpose on behalf of the patrol officer so the patrol officer can still continue to do their patrol duties. We put out a training in may of 2025. That's a screenshot of the training. And so we're starting to see an uptick in erpo. But us being able to process them is only one part of the effort to increase our use of irpos. The other piece is that we now need the community to be asking for us to do these irpos. So in the past, the problem would be if somebody even knew what an erpo was and asked random patrol officer hey, could this could my could I get an erpo? They really didn't know. Honestly, what erpo are. It's something we see so rarely. We were seeing probably 10 to 20 in Multnomah county in any given year. So now we know how to handle these irpos. Now we need health care workers, family members to be asking us to do these irpos. So I'm giving out trainings, talking to civil commitment investigators, talking to respond, talking to Portland street response. And it's there's a lot of nuance to this. Like a lot of times we're talking about people in protected health situations, learning about dangerousness and organizations having to figure out when can they contact law enforcement, what is their threshold. And so it is spurring a lot of conversations that are really, really helpful. But these are also conversations that other states have had, other counties have had. And it's totally doable. Creating an information sheet okay. This is the email address I want to put on blast here. This is a request that police that Portland Oregon.gov. So that's not just for members of PPB to contact, but also for members of the public to contact. And it's not just a mechanical like, please sign me up for an erpo. It has either me or one of my officers calling them back to discuss because it makes sense. Should we apply for it? Should you apply for it? And we'll have that discussion. These are some of the stats here. So you can see it's usually between 15 and 20 a year. This year we've doubled it. So from January to June we're at 20. So we're on pace to double. But admittedly a pretty small number. So pretty easy to double a small number. I'd like to see that number get quite a bit higher though. That is the email again. And I think I got us kind of close to eight.
23 Minutes.
24 So all right.
25 I'm sorry.
26 Good afternoon everyone. My name is john pemberton. I'm a sergeant with the Multnomah county sheriff's office, and I'm the sergeant of the gun disposition unit. Like sergeant silverman mentioned, our goal is to go out and serve their boat and to gain compliance with the individual, to dispossess them of their firearms. We find pretty high success in doing this. And there's several reasons why starting with just collaboration with the behavioral health unit, our unit works very closely with them. When there's an erpo, and usually most times they go with us. Which leads to my another point is they already have a rapport with a lot of these folks because they're already working with them. So it goes a long ways to already have that connection with somebody. And we just come in and explain what we're doing and they're they're at ease because they're familiar with the officers communications. Another thing is we take the time to talk with the folks. We're a specialty unit, so we're not called, don't have a call driven. We don't we're not tied to the radio. So we have the time to talk to folks, no matter how long it takes to to be successful. So that helps then goes a long ways. Another thing is, just having the right folks in the units goes a long ways as well. Being empathetic, being patient, you know, thoughtfulness, just those those traits go a long ways. And, you know, the success in the disposition of the firearm. So they didn't see it had that much time. So pretty much sums it up.
27 Okay.
28 I guess it's my turn. My name is jake chandler. I started my police career with the las vegas metropolitan police department in 2007. I lateral to the bend police department in 2015, and in 2021, I was hired by the deschutes county district attorney's office, where I work as the da investigator. First, I think it's important to note why I initially got started in deschutes county. In 2018. I was assigned to the mental health team with bend police department, and while I was on that team, bend pd and deschutes county sheriff's department both had murders within a couple months of each other. Both of these murders were mental health related, and both people were known to law enforcement due to their mental health decline. Both of these murders were very shocking to our community, the families involved and the officers responded to the scenes. At the time, it was very uncommon for two people to be killed in deschutes county just a few months from each other. After these murders happened, I began looking to see if there was any way to prevent something like this from happening in the future. I stumbled upon while searching through the internet and found that irpa law was recently passed in Oregon. After some research, I was able to see that the redmond police department was the only central Oregon agency to apply for an erpo at the time that erpo was declined by the courts. I'm not sure why that was because I was on the mental health team during this time. I was looped in with most of the higher risk individuals at that. Mpd and other deschutes county agencies were in contact with. I recognize that irpa has had the potential to save lives. This included preventing people from killing themselves as well as killing other people in our community. Shortly after coming across the law and researching it, I came into contact with a person that was in a mental health crisis and had desires to kill themselves and an officer. At the time of police contact. They got into a car crash and had a deadly weapon in their possession. I believe this was the first erpo that I filed. It went surprisingly well after this first erpo I worked with my team to gain more experience with the appeal process. We then began contacting patrol officers and asking them, asking them to forward cases that they had involved that involved a suicidal or homicidal person. We would then review those cases to determine if any of them would be appropriate for our team. Guideline in what I still teach is simple, which is is the person suicidal and or homicidal and without an erpo do I feel that they will attempt to kill themselves or someone else with a firearm or deadly weapon? If the answer is yes, our team would apply for an erpo. Although our team were the experts in the county in filing our opposed, it was important that for all officers in deschutes county to know about erpo and the proper way to apply for them with the courts. Due to this, I created a training and began teaching to law enforcement officers in the county. I still do this currently and get contacted frequently with questions and ideas for applications. Having a subject matter expert like the people who spoke before me is crucial for these to be successful. I have spoken to many people about erpo and why they are successful in deschutes county. I have also heard of other agencies throughout the country and their successes with oppose. What I have found is that it often takes one officer to recognize a need in the life saving potential for relating to purpose and educate other officers in their agency, which Portland police has with sergeant silverman. Over the last seven years. Since I started working on purpose, I've had many contacts with people that have filed appeals on several people that I filed, and upon later told me that the erpo saved their life. I want to share one case early on, where I filed an appeal on a person who is struggling with suicidal and homicidal ideations. Due to my role with mpd at the time, I had frequent contact with this person. During my contacts with them, they would tell me when they were doing well. They would also tell me when they were struggling. One day this person called telling me they were scared because they had come up with a plan to kill themselves. This person told me that they wanted to shoot themselves to end their life, but was worried that they would not be able to actually pull the trigger to complete suicide. Because of this, they shared with me their new plan. This person was very aware that police are capable of killing people. This person also had frequent contact with the police, and was aware that it was common for two officers to respond to their location during their previous contacts. The person told me that they were planning to purchase a firearm, then called for assistance at the hotel they were staying at. Once officers arrived, the person would exit their hotel room and start firing at the officers. The person had no intent to harm an officer, but also knew that if they didn't fire at the officers, they would not respond with deadly force. This person also told me in preparation of their plan, they called in a welfare check on themselves to see what officers do. When they arrived, I was able to confirm that there was a welfare check where the officer responded to that location. This case was very concerning to me for multiple reasons. I know that suicide by cop is very effective. I also was worried that this person would end up killing a police officer or someone else in this, in this suicide attempt. Thankfully, this person contacted me and was very scared that they came up with this plan knowing it would be successful because this person was afraid of the plan they had. I actually had them testify to the courts as well. An appeal was granted in this case. Thankfully. I would just like to finish by saying this. I know that save lives. Thank you for your time.
29 Great.
30 Good afternoon. My name is chelsea parsons. I'm the senior director of implementation at everytown for gun safety, which is a gun violence prevention, policy and advocacy organization. And so I'm just going to round us out by giving a little bit of a national perspective and then sharing some statistics about use of extremist protection orders across the state of Oregon, and just to level set and to kind of pick up where jake left off. You know, the reason that it's so important, the reason that we're talking about this today is because extreme risk protection orders are a really important tool for prevention. This law and this protection order allows us to be preventative, allows us to respond to warning signs, as opposed to only being able to react after a tragedy has occurred. And so it's a really important tool for that reason. I have a lot of research that if you're interested, I can share later. But we have a growing body of research that is showing that extreme risk protection orders are really effective, particularly when it comes to preventing firearm related suicides. And so we have some studies here that are showing that impact at preventing suicide. 21 states in Washington, d.c. Have now enacted extreme risk protection order laws. Oregon was among the first states to do so in 2018. Many states did so as a response to the shooting in parkland, florida in 2018. I have some data here showing use of the extreme risk protection orders across states. The best way to compare states is really to look at the rate of use. So that's the last column here to the right, looking at the number of petitions filed per 100,000 population. And what you'll see here is a really big variation in the use of this law from state to state. You'll see states like connecticut, florida, new york have a fairly high rate of use of this law, while other states have a much lower rate. And what we see is a variation not only from state to state, but also from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within states as well. So that's what this data here is showing. This is data we received from the state court administration just for 2024. And what you're showing here again, if you look at the rate, is that the rate of use in Multnomah county is significantly lower than in most of the rest of the state, particularly when you look at the other higher population counties. You can see the rate in deschutes as a result of of a lot of jake's really good work there, but this is just a good way of just assessing the county's use of this tool as compared to other parts of the state. And really, what accounts for the disparity in in use of this law is efforts at implementation. And that's not just within Oregon, that's in other states as well. And so what we've learned by going to different jurisdictions that have used this tool much more frequently, some of the key things that are important for successful implementation of this law, ongoing training and support for law enforcement, and in particular, identifying a particular unit within the police department that will be the the home for the expertise is really crucial. And so I really applaud PPB for doing that here. And again, being able to train officers over and over and over again, new recruits as well as in ongoing annual training is really important. But it's not just on the on the pd. It's really, you know, every stakeholder in the community who works with individuals who may be in crisis. All of those frontline first responders. It's really important that they also understand the law, understand how to access it and when it may be appropriate for a person to be considered for an extreme risk protection order. And so crisis responders, behavioral health professionals, educators, all of those folks is really important that they understand the law as well. Public education and providing support for family members who may want to petition. And then I'll just go really quickly and councilman, let me know if you want me to stop. But just really quickly, looking at two jurisdictions in florida that have had really successful use of this tool, looking first at broward county. So broward county is the county where parkland is located. So what you see here is right from the day one of this law going into effect, you see broward county using it quite, quite a significant rate. And I think that really is a reaction to what happened in that community there. But again, in broward county, they identified a unit within the fort lauderdale police department that was going to hold that expertise, lots of training, not only for new officers, but also for detectives, and then a really close collaboration with local social service providers and behavioral health professionals as well. I also pulled some information on palm beach county, because I think what palm beach county shows you is a jurisdiction that didn't use it particularly frequently at the beginning. And then as time went on, you see a significant jump in the use. And really what accounts for that is an is an increased effort at training for law enforcement. You had the palm beach county sheriff's office really decide to lean into this tool. They made a really big effort at training officers, again, housing that expertise in a particular unit. And as a result of that, as soon as officers learn more and understand the tool, I think they appreciate the fact that they do have now a prevention option that they can react to warning signs as opposed to kind of having to wait for something to happen. So I will stop there. And again, I'm happy to share if folks are interested in any of the research after the fact.
31 Thank you to all four of our panelists for being here and for presenting. I'm going to open it up for questions, but I do see here a note that we have some other folks here that can answer questions about Portland. Specifically. I think we have deputy chief lavelle here. Sorry. Assistant chief lavelle, dca bob cozzie and director elizabeth perez and director stephanie howard from the public safety service area in case any questions apply. I don't see all of them, but I see many, so I'll just mention that before we open it up, I'll go to councilor Morillo first.
32 Thank you chair. Thank you all so much. That was such an informative presentation and I actually hadn't heard about this policy before. And the fact that I am deeply invested in so many of these things, and I hadn't heard about it before, is a problem, so we'll do better to share that information out to our community members. Thank you. I was curious about some things. I was curious about what type of evidence is required for an officer to apply. Erpo. So I think you talked a little bit about it being partially officers discretion based on the situation. So is it solely officer's discretion and what sort of parameters are in place in that case to ensure that the law is being applied equally politically, racially, etc. Since we know that falls through the cracks most of the time.
33 Yeah. So I think I can answer that. The courts need clear and convincing evidence that the person is at risk of suicide or homicide. So that's what we're looking for, for an application to go through.
34 Gotcha. Okay. So it would be like maybe I'm getting too nitty gritty. Would it be like text evidence that someone said, I'm planning on using a gun to kill myself? Is it like a family member testifies that this person said they're going to do this? I'm just trying to understand how that works more practically.
35 Yeah, it's kind of hard to answer that, but it's it's definitely one of the things where an officer will assess it, usually the community partners, being the mental health co-responders, will be able to assess on on their level of expertise as well. And then it is one of those things where, like I said, in my presentation or my speech, that I do feel that if I leave this person, they're likely to kill themselves or someone else. And so there is some discretion there on, on what I see and what I'm what I'm what's being presented to me by the person, as well as that the community partners with, with what they're saying.
36 And if I can, the courts are going to look for specific evidence of behavior. So the examples you gave, I think, are right on where you've got a lot of times they'll be social media posts that will kind of be present evidence of the risk. If you have a family member who's the one who maybe called, they can provide specific examples of behaviors that are demonstrating the risk. But the way the law is written is that it really does require evidence of behaviors. And one thing to to emphasize as well is that it is not contingent on any kind of diagnosis. And a diagnosis will not be sufficient for for an order to be issued. So it really is based on observable behaviors that the court can assess as part of the petition.
37 Maybe last thing I'd follow up on is speech alone is typically not enough. We're not here policing speech. And so in training officers I'm talking about making a threat versus posing a threat. And those are two very different things. And discussing what are the specific, articulable reasons why I think this person poses a risk, not just them making words.
38 Gotcha. That was super helpful. Thank you so much for answering that. And I appreciate too, that a diagnosis isn't necessarily needed because we know in domestic violence situations, it's not because someone's having a mental health crisis. It's a power dynamic that needs to be addressed. So appreciate that nuance as well. And so it sounds like maybe this is less of a question, more of a statement, but based on my own ignorance of this law, that we need more outreach to community for them to be aware of this. So yeah, thank you for this presentation today.
39 Thank you. Councilor Morillo. I'll pass it over to counselor Smith.
40 Thank you. Thank you, counselor canal. Thank you all for giving your your presentation. Just curious if someone wants help to filling out the epro form, who should they go to pbb or is there someone that they can go and talk to?
41 I'd say that email address is going to be your best one stop shop. Okay, asterisk if the emergency is right now calling 911 and we'll go through whatever mitigating safety stuff and then emailing that.
42 The emails.
43 Yeah.
44 Thank you so much.
45 You councilor Smith councilor Zimmerman.
46 Thanks.
47 Appreciate you being here. I just want to note.
48 For my colleagues that sergeant pemberton's team is often on the budget chopping block at the county, the gun disposition unit. And I think you should know that in councilor Novick is our representative. Leipzig. I count on you to know that. So I've had to fight previously to keep that funding in place. You know, I this is important to me. I was trying to make a list of all of the people in my life, the people who have worked for me, the friends of mine who've been cut down in this type of situation through suicide or domestic situations, cops who have died on the door, and I haven't completed the list yet since we've been sitting here. So I think we do have a need to get the word out. And I remember hearing a while ago about deschutes county success, and I think this is an important day in getting the word out more broadly in Multnomah county. I have two questions can be applied to a person who does not already own or have access to a firearm. Yes, I'm seeing shaking heads. Yes.
49 Yeah, I think that a lot of purpose are filed in that manner because that one that was filed, that person is no longer able to purchase a gun. So we have a lot of cases where people are making threats that are credible threats with plans to go to a store to purchase a firearm. So the moment that erpo is in effect and served, they are not able to purchase firearm.
50 That's a great answer and I'm happy to hear it. Incredibly important in delaying the moment of decision and the moment of action or the possibility of action remains top of mind for me. Who else gets to know when an erpo has been issued? And I say that as a person who employs people who use firearms. Both here and in my other job.
51 That's a great question. I'll tell you one. You know, when you run, when we as law enforcement run, somebody in leads, it shows up as a hit in leads saying that they are prohibited from owning firearms. So if in the course of your job you're able to access leads, you would be able to see that information. I don't know that maybe, you know, are there other ways of seeing that information?
52 I don't believe so. I mean, it's a civil protective order. So ideally only the parties that are involved in that case will have the information about that case. I think to the extent that you have concerned family members who are the ones who brought the the risk to law enforcement in the first place, I think I would hope that the PPB would be kind of communicating with the family about what's happening with that case, but I think generally speaking, it's just the parties to the matter that will have that information.
53 Okay. I hope that we can add that to a legislative perspective for some cleanup in the future. That if a person works in an industry that is inherently related to firearms or has access to that that employer, be informed, I think that we need to change that in the law. That has to be a notification, but also, of course, the family and whoever else is involved. That's really helpful. There was one thing I want to clear up. There was one statement that said suicide ideation with a gun and another that said suicide or homicide. Clear and convincing evidence does the does the speech, the posing of the threat, etc. Have to be specific about a gun, or can it be suicide related or suicide in general, but not specific about a gun and be applied can be applied in that situation?
54 Go for it.
55 In deschutes county, the way that I teach it is suicide ideation or homicidal ideation with a firearm. A lot of people live with suicidal ideations daily, and that's a daily struggle. That doesn't mean they need necessarily. So it's more of a plan with the firearm where a deadly weapon when we're filing our post.
56 Okay, like I said, I think this is incredibly important. It's very personal to me. And of that list I've made, I'm not sure that any of them, but for one would have likely benefited from an intervention. So that lends very powerfully with me. Thank you for being here today.
57 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman. Coach Novick.
58 Thank you, mr. Chair. Councilor Zimmerman. Actually, I was told by somebody I forget who yesterday, not sergeant pemberton, that his unit is often on the chopping block, which may be particularly glad that yesterday this whole group gave the same presentation at leipzig, and there were three county commissioners there. So I hope that that helps. I was wondering if I could ask a question of somebody, not one of our panelists, but somebody else I see in the room. Jason marino, is that you? Jason's with the. And could somebody make room for him in the diet? Oh, actually, there's one more chair. Yeah. So we you know, there's I know that in your work, you often express concern about having the police involved with mental health issues. So I was curious, what do you think about these things?
59 This is a chance to make friends with police officers. They're they're absolutely necessary in this circumstance. The mental health system doesn't have the capacity to do the sorts of work. But we know now we have someone to call, and that's very valuable. And now we just need to educate our mental health community, not just people with mental illness, but also people who work in the mental health community to make use of this. I think we can really make a dent in suicide here in Portland, and this is really a proactive, durable tool. That's a fairly simple. And will have a great effect.
60 Thank you.
61 Thank you. I'll I'll pass it back to counselor Zimmerman and then I'll go at the end there.
62 Thanks, chair. I had one question I forgot to ask. I have certainly worked with and been around many people who we have removed firearms from, etc. Not many of them who we weren't still working with a year later. A year is concerning. For me. Five years is a hell of a time, and I and I found that a person who is successful for a few years, five years out, has been tremendously different than they were five years previous. But in the world of pts and other another things and if you know my background, that's where I'm coming from in terms of of those experiences, one year is too short. So does that require a reissuing? And should I, as a lawmaker, be considering a way to influence the state to consider a longer initial time frame?
63 So you're asking for an opinion. So to be clear, I'm speaking for josh silverman.
64 I love josh silverman's opinions, and I love mr. Chandler's opinions. And I respect the position I just put you in. Yes.
65 So so I think that so first of all, to answer the technical question, after a year we do have to reapply. And so there's a renewal process that we have worked out with the city attorney's office in order to do that. It's the same burden of proof, it's the same legal standard. And so I can imagine an argument where maybe the renewal might be a lower burden of proof, especially for not getting evidence of new activity. But we still believe the risk is there. I can imagine wanting that. I'm actually curious nationwide, if there's anything different in the burden of proof for renewal.
66 There's nothing different in the burden of proof for renewal. There are a couple of states that have expanded the initial duration to be longer than one year. So delaware just did that this legislative session and extended it for up to five. And there are a couple of other states that have a longer available duration for that first order. Every state allows for renewal, and the courts are directed to consider the renewal basically as if it were an initial petition. So there there need to be again, there needs to be contemporaneous evidence of a risk at the time.
67 That sounds.
68 Cool, chair. I just I brought it up just I think that there are positions here where we are in a unique position, a unique role in which we can advocate for if we need adjustments to this. Obviously, Oregon did not go pedal to the metal on this, but but we could. And as we get more information about it, and I don't know anybody who spent only one year in crisis. So I think about that a lot. Thanks for those candid answers.
69 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman, and thanks for raising this. At a time when we're just starting the process, I think, around the legislative agenda and those things that we might eventually want to ask the state legislature to to work on. For myself, I'm very familiar with the Washington state piece of it, and I'll speak to why in a second. But I wanted to ask. In the first three years there I was reading about how the overwhelming majority of erpo requests came from law enforcement. I think it was over 85%. Can you speak to the the patterns in Oregon as it relates to that, or at least in your county? And here in Multnomah county.
70 You're probably the best answer.
71 Yeah, I think chelsea might have the numbers, but law enforcement applied for a lot more of them, which is a great thing because the success rate for law enforcement is in the 90% success rate. And a family member or another qualifying person is about 50%. And so it's a much smaller number, but it's still only about 50%, which is there's a lot of different reasons for that which could be incomplete packets, maybe not qualifying completely for the the probable cause for the erpo, things like that. But law enforcement is very good at articulating the need and the clear and convincing evidence as well as completing the paperwork. And so like I said, I think 90%, 92% or something like that in Oregon, success rate.
72 Yeah. There was a study of the first five years of, of erpo use in Oregon, and it found that 60% of petitions were filed by law enforcement. And again, I think for all the reasons stated, it's it's if you if you put yourself in the shoes of a family member, the idea of going to court and kind of pursuing an order like this, I think is incredibly daunting. And and in particular, even, you know, in the first couple of years, the clerk's office might not know what you're talking about. Like, there's a lot of education, even on the judicial side of things as well. So I think that's that's often why we see a pretty heavy tilt toward law enforcement being the petitioners.
73 Thank you. And I think what that tells me is that a higher number, a higher percentage is achievable. Looking at the Washington example, that there's support for it from folks that might not be the obvious support for that in other contexts. And I appreciate you being here, jason, and that the training piece of it that you've all mentioned is a really core component of that. I worked for, for governor inslee in Washington about nine years ago. And I know that this is a passion of his and something that he worked really hard on, and I'm grateful to get a chance to shout him out. I haven't been able to yet up here, but I wanted to ask one other question. And it's primarily in the national context. A lot of the other states that I've seen and read about, and this is anecdotal, I don't know if it's everywhere, have irpos as one piece of a collective sort of suite of policy solutions. Safe storage is another example. There's a lot of things like that. Do you feel that that overall context in Oregon aligns with the pattern at the state? Are we less or more prepared in terms of those supporting contextual pieces of policy?
74 Yeah.
75 That's an excellent point because it's important to remember that in erpo does one thing and it only does one thing, which is it addresses access to firearms. It does not connect somebody automatically to services. It does not automatically begin to address the underlying causes of a particular crisis. And, you know, there's in many cases, you'll see use of an erpo in the domestic violence context, which is appropriate sometimes, but it doesn't do any of the other things that a domestic violence restraining order does. So it's really important to remember that. Erpo it does one thing. It's a very important piece of what should be a much larger ecosystem of interventions that can address different aspects of a particular crisis. And so I appreciate you mentioning secure storage. That's something that my organization is very heavily focused on, and making sure that, you know, people who do choose to keep firearms in their homes or storing them securely and locked and unloaded and away from where children can gain access to them. I think Oregon has all of the right pieces in place, and I think Multnomah has all the right pieces in place, and it's really just a matter of focusing and putting some emphasis on the use, the availability of these laws and the appropriate use of them. And again, really reaching out to the public at large and really more specifically to those professional stakeholders who work with individuals in crisis or, you know, the medical providers who, you know, do an annual visit with, you know, your pediatrician and, and can talk about, do you have guns in the home? And are you do you need information on how to store them securely? And I think all of those things together is really what will make these laws that have been passed at the state level really have meaning and impact in the community.
76 Thank you. We're just getting to time. So I don't know if these are legacy hands, but if you can keep it short, if not. So I'll pass it to to councilor. Novick.
77 I just wanted to say that the reason we're having this discussion here today is that a year and a half ago, my friend katie poole, who follows gun issues, pointed out to me as the secretary of state did, that showed wide disparities among Oregon counties and use of repos. So thank you, katie.
78 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
79 This gave me some thought in terms of more broadly, applying an erpo not just at the suicide or homicide level, but the ability of one to elevate or advance violence. I think about the domestic situation, if you can beat the out of your partner, I don't think it's a long stretch that you can kill your partner. And so I don't think, though, in that situation it would be applicable because the intent to kill was not present in that first domestic violence situation. This seems like a gaping hole in an area of violence that we see every single day. And so I this is you've given me some really important food for thought, and I appreciate just the depth of how this is different in all the states. But the domestic piece here really leaves me wanting for a larger application of an erpo in other spaces. So thanks for that. And if your five year old was watching that, I just gave you a word that you could to teach them and I apologize.
80 Thank you. And and I think one thing we can follow up on is because those I mentioned, Washington, there are different standards in other states, immediate threat threat with a firearm and that's state law. So thank you as well. I think we'll wrap it here. Thank you so much to everyone for being up here and for for raising this issue. And thank you to councilor Novick for ensuring that we be talking about this. Rebecca, could you read the next two items together, please?
81 Item two discussion on potential legislation related to federal immigration enforcement activity. Item three public hearing on potential legislation related to federal immigration enforcement activity.
82 Thank you, rebecca, and thanks to everybody who's here today. So the second agenda item that we're just going into here is a presentation. We'll have a guest speakers is then a presentation opportunity for any councilor who would like to talk about what they're working on in terms of federal immigration enforcement related legislation, as well as a discussion among the councilors present, will follow this immediately with the third agenda item, which is a public hearing. Our intention is to highlight some of these potential pieces of legislation. We are aware of three counselors who will be discussing potential legislation today. Ask clarifying questions, briefly indicate initial thoughts and reactions, and have that be information that the public can react to today in the hopes that those who are working on legislation can use the reactions, both from their fellow councilors and from the public, in shaping the legislation as it's getting developed. I'm going to take a moment to note here that this is a community and public safety committee meeting. This is a public safety issue. Three people in north Portland, in my district were kidnaped by federal agents without due process over a 48 hour period last week. I know other districts have been affected or are currently being affected as well. I do think this is a public safety issue and a good use of our committee's time. As a result, alongside other pressing public safety issues like the discussion we just had, where this committee is a textbook example of walking and chewing gum at the same time pretty much constantly. So we're going to hear presentations on at least four different documents today from myself from followed by councilor Morillo, followed by councilor Avalos. These are all different documents with different co-sponsors and all do different things. We'll each have about five minutes to present documents. We'll then take some committee member questions on each. Following all of those presentations will open it up for committee member discussion and then switch over to hearing public comment. But before we get to any of that, we wanted to invite up some representatives from latinx pdx, which is our employee resource group for latinx employees, to kind of set the stage. And after that, I'll present until I and you'll see councilor Novick will be facilitating while I'm presenting until it's councilor Morillo turn. So I think we have ana maria perez coming up today, but as well as anyone else that you'd like to have with you, if anyone.
83 Yes.
84 Come on down. We're we're calling people out of the crowd tonight like it's price is right. Evidently. But.
85 Yeah.
86 No music. Sorry.
87 Pull up a chair.
88 We're all together. Sorry. There was not enough chairs, so we're going to make it work.
89 Okay? Thank you. Is this okay?
90 So. Hello, counselors. Thank you for inviting us to participate on today's committee panel. My name is ana maria perez, and I'm a city employee and co-chair of latinx latinx pdx here. Sitting with me are fellow members of what we call the latinx pdx workgroup, who've been collaborating with city council on these ordinances that are being presented here today. So latinx pdx is one of the 13 officially recognized city of Portland employee resource groups, with over 200 members in latinx pdx. We provide professional development resources, collaborate on and host cultural events for employees, and meet regularly to build community amongst each other. Seeing our members connect with each other is one of my greatest joys of being a co-chair of this group, and even more so, I'm extremely proud that we have built a community where many of our members feel safe enough to share their personal life experiences with us. Leading up to and culminating at election day 2020. For our members began expressing their fears about the second round of this federal administration and the hate and bigotry toward latinx and immigrant communities. We held processing sessions where we could openly talk about our fears and support each other. We expressed fear for ourselves, our families, our community in general. We expressed. We expressed fears for our grandparents walking outside and going to medical appointments. Will they be harassed? We expect we expressed fears for ourselves or family members. Would u.s. Citizenship be taken away? We expressed fears of having to relive traumatic moments from childhood, like witnessing our family families being literally torn apart among screams for help. These are not new issues for us. The hate for latinx people and immigrants may appear dormant during different federal administrations, but the reality is that this is a generational trauma that we've been carrying on our backs and in our blood, and we will continue to into the future. We are hurting, angry and tired. Since the new federal administration took office in January, latinx pdx has been advocating for, at a minimum, the city to acknowledge the pain and terror that latinx and immigrant communities or immigrant employees are experiencing, and at best, protecting us as workers and people. My fellow co-chair and I, who you'll hear from during public testimony, wrote a letter to city leadership in response to the initial ice protocols, where employees were the initial ice protocols that employees were given and how the messaging lacked trauma, informed wording and guidance for employees who are targeted. This summer, we formed a latinx pdx workgroup to continue our advocacy and push the city to do better for employees and the community we all serve. In August, the workgroup sent a letter to city leadership, including all members of city council and outlining demands of meaningful acknowledgment, preparedness plans, employee training, submitting records, requests to dhs and ice, and more. We received responses from several several councilors, city bureau leadership, and a letter from the mayor. We're grateful to all city leadership and their teams who hear us and see us and take our concerns and demands seriously. Which brings us to today. And why my why our participation on this panel? I cannot express enough gratitude for the responsiveness and care we have received from city council, especially to councilor Canal and his team for their ongoing collaboration and inviting us here to speak today. Even though Oregon is a sanctuary state, and the city of Portland passed a resolution declaring us a sanctuary city, there is a lack of clarity on what a sanctuary status really means in practice. This is why we at latinx pdx are deeply appreciative that this draft ordinance has detailed and will put into city code many of our demands that will positively impact the community. First, requiring city employees to be accurately and regularly trained makes everyone in our city safer. City employees work all over the city, all day and all, all week, and having us ready and equipped to follow sanctuary law and potential code is essential to protecting community members and for protecting ourselves and our colleagues. Adding clear signage to all city buildings provides employees and the public with necessary information to distinguish. To distinguish where federal immigration agents can or cannot enter. Submitting regular freedom of information act or foia requests about dhs and ice activity shows that our city holds federal entities accountable on our streets. Regular reporting and documentation of immigration enforcement activity in our city shows the community that we care enough to simply pay attention. After thoughtful collaboration between latinx, pdx, and city councilors, we're proud to support the ordinance presented here today. The city of Portland sanctuary city resolution in 2017 was a great start, but it is time to make real change and put these guidelines into the city code permanently. Do not wait until more people are kidnaped on our streets or worse, killed. As we have seen in some cities across the country. Do not wait until the ice raids swarm our city like we have seen in other cities. Do not wait to prioritize human rights and dignity. Now is the time to be proactive, not reactive. Put forward this ordinance and show the latinx and immigrant communities in Portland, in Portland, that we are valued. Thank you.
91 So much, and thank you for highlighting the gravity of this. For those who don't know, we have employee resource groups for city employees, and a lot of them are maybe not as well known as they could be. Shout out to multicultural community and friends, which was the one I was a part of when I started working at the city four years ago today. So I will say that we might ask you back up for for a question, and we'll hear from many other folks during the q&a, but feel free to step down, and I'll invite my staffer up for my part of the presentation here. Get started on that. So today I'm going to focus on one ordinance, which is in the process of attorney and auditor review. So it is filed, but it is still adjustable. I'll also give a brief overview of two future proposals for ordinances. Each is a standalone document, separate from each other and separate from what you're going to hear when we later invite up councilor Morillo councilor Avalos. Anyone else who has anything to share? I'm joined. I have jack jordan from my office helping share slides here and may assist in responding to questions. So first I want to stress these are drafts, committee members and media. You may be used to seeing from the old council fully polished documents ready to be voted on before they're ever seen by the public, products not only of research and writing, but of negotiations with fellow councilors. Outside of the public's view, this is not going to be like that. These documents are not the end of a backroom deal. They're the start of a front room deal in draft form, ready for council questions and feedback. And through today's discussion, welcoming and community feedback, all of which will shape the final drafts that I and my office file for council deliberation and hopefully eventually vote. So I'm going to welcome councilor Input on this. It's not done perfect or anything like that yet, whether that's supportive or constructively critical. And I'll also add that since prior to this meeting, public meetings law has prevented me from asking for co-sponsorship from many of my colleagues until it's aired in public, this is also the first chance I have to ask my committee colleagues. If you like what you see, please indicate if you'd like to be a co-sponsor. I'd love, especially the codification ordinance. I'm going to start with to be a document that many councilors are a part of shaping to help unify portland's response to the federal government. So the primary document I'm focusing on today is an ordinance on sanctuary city codification that is taking our non-binding city resolution from 2017 and elevating it to binding city law. I'll briefly mention here, though, that we are working on a second and third ordinance as well. The second ordinance would restrict mask usage and require visible identification by law enforcement, and direct that the city verifies if a person claiming to be federal law enforcement is in fact federal law enforcement. To prevent imposters from pretending or claiming to be ice. And I'll note on this we're in the process of discussing and implementing copious feedback from attorneys and the public safety service area, which includes Portland police, on this draft. So it's not filed yet because conversations are still ongoing. And I really want to thank attorneys and the psa for their time and their input into that process. And then the third ordinance would restrict the usage of chemical weapons within the city, including in response to folks protesting against ice, and would establish environmental impact remediation when usage occurs. That's in an even earlier draft stage. Okay, back to the main ordinance for today the sanctuary city codification ordinance. The ordinance is current draft is posted to the website. For today's conversation in full. We can screen share any part of it that anyone has questions about as well. First, I want to discuss why this matters. In 2017, city council adopted resolution 37277, which declared that Portland is a sanctuary city. It had no formal force of law. Resolutions are a statement of opinion. It did require that the Portland police bureau incorporate this into its directives, and PPB did, but no other part of the city has this requirement. Ordinances, by contrast, create law. Law has to be changed in public by city council. The state's sanctuary promise act created binding law at the state level, but the city has not done so, and by contrast, executive orders can be time bound or evoked by future mayors without a public process. They're helpful for indicating how the city will implement a law, but are not really designed for or sufficient for creating that binding, long term public commitment in the first place. So the key components of this ordinance are one. Elevate our sanctuary status from nonbinding, non-binding city resolution to city law. This will extend the requirement of not doing the work of federal immigration enforcement, which currently is primarily focused on PPB, to all city employees, facilities and money. It will define public spaces within city buildings as some as compared to some that are for authorized personnel only, which helps convey information to the public and city employees about where a judicial warrant or a city badge is required to enter. It will require that the administration finds a way to ensure that all city staff know their responsibilities and are able to fulfill them. That might include revising existing trainings and establishing notification processes. And finally, it directs the city to initiate freedom of information, or foia act requests to get information about the federal government's activities in Portland. Portlanders deserve to know who is in our community and what they're doing. And I'll I'll note here, we'll leave this up for a second. In addition to jack, who's my senior policy advisor, has spent many hours working on this, I also want to thank the vice president's team for their input, specifically on the public private space section councilor Morillo team for their input and the thoughtful input from community partners, in particular latinx pdx, who did send a letter to all of us. And finally, I want to express appreciation to the city attorney's office and auditor's office for their work on this process. And note that we received some legal guidance last night that's still being incorporated into some of the word choice. So the version on the update on the website will be updated. So I'll wrap it up here and ask that. In addition, any clarification questions you might have, you indicate if you'd like to be a co-sponsor. When we get to that part of the conversation. But to keep it moving, I'll pause for a second and then hand it over to councilor Morillo to speak to her documents or documents. Thanks.
92 Thank you so much, councilor Kanal. And I know how hard you worked on all of these policies and how hard your team worked and all of the research that went into it. And I would proudly co-sponsor any of any of these things. Thank you so much to the community for being here. Thank you so much to the latinx pdx group. It is honestly an honor to see you guys come up here as a former city employee, just to see us represented here, and to know that our shared struggle is one that we are fighting together. It meant a lot to hear your words earlier, and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure that that city code gets updated so that our employees are protected and able to protect our community members, too. So thank you for being here and for pushing us and making us be better at our jobs. I have a few policies that I'm bringing forward. I don't believe they've been filed, but are going through legal review right now as well, and so they will be subject to change. But I think that it's time that we use committee spaces for more workshopping together. Anyways, I also want to give a big thank you before I begin to my policy advisor, susie doister, because the amount of research that she has gone through to craft these policies is honestly unbelievable. And I'm just incredibly proud of my team and all of the effort and work that they have put into this, because they know it's an issue that I deeply care about, and I couldn't do anything without them. So I just have to say thank you to my team. And now I will get into the policies, the first policy that I'm bringing forward is a detention facility impact fee. And this policy is going to establish an ongoing impact fee to be paid to property owners that lease their land or buildings to a detention facility. So essentially, if you are a landlord that is choosing to create a new contract with a detention facility, including an ice detention facility, that usually incurs a cost for the city, that we don't really talk about. Detention facilities create ongoing, substantial burdens on portland's police, fire, transportation and environmental services because we constantly have to account for the fact that we have police overtime and emergency response. We have traffic control and street management, we have environmental remediation and public health impacts due to the use of tear gas and other enforcement metrics. And we also have a lot of people who need our help who are not getting help. Right now, we don't have assistance for households or businesses that are impacted by facility related conditions, which includes tear gas. We have heard from so many constituents who live in the area that they are unable to live safely in their homes. Their children are being impacted by the amount of tear gas that's seeping into their homes, and that just shouldn't be something that our portlanders should have to deal with, because someone is choosing to create a new contract with a very controversial detention facility. So this is something that I think is incredibly needed and is going to help us just create a more ethical contracting system in the city where when you are choosing to profit off of something, that you're also thinking about the impacts to our community members. The second policy that oh, and I want to talk about what those fees are going to go towards. So when we are when the city is collecting those fees, it's going to go towards all of those issues. It would go towards police overtime, it would go towards any traffic control or street management that has to be done. It would go towards environmental cleanup costs and it would also go towards helping immigrants or people who are having to be relocated because they live in units that are being impacted by tear gas. So all of the impacts that we are suffering, that the city is paying for, that is what that funding would be used for. My second policy that I'm bringing forward is about it's called unauthorized detention code, and it is a new section of code that would regulate detention by private security entities and actors. So if you're a private security member, private security officer, it basically clarifies that the detention authority is strictly limited to what Oregon law already allows, which would be citizen's arrest or shopkeeper's privilege. And it requires that anyone who is lawfully detained to either be released without delay or immediately transferred to state or local police, and this is extremely important. We have seen that private security among just what ice agents are doing right now, and anyone really who is choosing to enforce the law in this way, it creates risks of violence, abuse and unwarranted deprivation of liberty. So if a private security entity is detaining an individual under Oregon or Portland law, then portlanders should be assured that that detention will be subject to the accountability of Oregon public, of the Oregon public and the courts. There are so much federal overreach in everything that we're seeing, and we want to ensure that we have state and local actors that are protecting immigrants and assessing their rights before people are being transferred over to the federal government without due process. And the last policy that we are working on is the data privacy and governance resolution. My office is working on that with a councilor Novick, and I think we've discussed at length how ice and other federal agencies are really using people's data in order to surveil them, in order to surveil immigrants, surveil activists, and data privacy is going to be the new frontier of addressing fascism. We need to ensure that people's privacy is protected so that the government can't make an entire map out of your life. Figure out who you organize with, where you take your kids to school, all of those types of things. And we are working with city employees and everyone else to ensure that our city data is as protected as possible because we have power over things like traffic cameras that have license plate readers and things like that. So we need to do our part to ensure that people's data privacy is secured, and we will be sharing more details on that policy at a later time. Thank you.
93 Thank you, councilor Morillo. I know that councilor Avalos let me know she was looking to to come on up, so please come on up councilor Avalos and then I'll open it up after that. If anyone else has anything they'd like to add before we get to q&a and discussion. Thank you so much for being here, councilor Avalos.
94 Thank you. All right. Hello.
95 So I am going to provide just a super high level look at the resolution that I'm putting forward that I'm calling the protect Portland initiative. This is a resolution about protecting portlanders from unconstitutional federal militarization, affirming our commitment to equity, safety and local democracy. It builds on our history as a sanctuary city and reinforces our values. This is also about solidarity. So I modeled this after chicago's protect chicago initiative. I was inspired by the way that they were putting up a very clear value statement, a very clear directive for their entire organization, their city, to align in every single way to ensure that they're protecting chicagoans. And this has the same spirit. And I'm also hoping that by modeling it after this, this can create some momentum that we are trying to build as an entire country to put up, you know, to have municipalities put up strong firewalls against creeping fascism. This I'll talk a little bit about the general sections of, of the resolution. So first and foremost, it is about establishing the protect Portland initiative. So essentially that is directing the mayor, the city bureaus, any other partners to work to safeguard portlanders, ensure that residents know their rights. There is a component of legal. There's a legal and advocacy component. So strengthening legal and advocacy tools, conducting legal research, filing foia requests, etcetera, etcetera. There's a component of transparency and accountability. So creating new transparency and accountability requirements, including including reporting on federal activity, tracking community impacts, and launching a multilingual education campaign. There is a component of local control of policing. So reaffirming the police bureau must remain locally controlled and not deputized by federal authorities without the city's consent. There is an aspect of community employee and contractor protections, in particular directing bureaus to protect employees and community members from federal overreach and extending our sanctuary policies to city contractors requiring their compliance, training and accountability for anyone that does business with the city. And finally, it sets up a frame for future legislative work so it commits the council to exploring, to essentially set us up for all of the ordinances and code changes that you just heard from councilors, canal and Morillo aligning with these principles and ensuring that we are, as a city, taking a really vocal public stand together so that we can affirm that Portland Portland city council is essentially aligning all of our work in support of protecting portlanders. So this resolution is designed to be a frame. It's designed to be directive. It's designed to complement the various code and ordinance changes and to send a clear message aligning both the legislative branch and the executive branch. So that is the summary of protect Portland.
96 Thank you.
97 Thank you so much, councilor Avalos. We'll open it up to q&a and then discussion. But before that, does anyone else any other councilors have anything? I saw a couple others pop in at some point during the meeting, so I want to give them that chance. All right. Anyone wishing to ask a question or start the discussion off, please raise your hand in zoom. And we can we can get started. And at any point we'll be able to move to public testimony. We will as well. Not seeing anyone in the queue right now. I'll give you another second.
98 To have a question.
99 Have a question? Yes.
100 Could we outline for the public a little bit the difference between your code codification and the resolution that councilor Avalos has brought forward? Because they're there was some overlap in what was stated, and I think it would be good for people to know what the difference is.
101 Sure. I don't know if councilor Avalos stepped out, but you're welcome to come back up to speak to your part of this. I'm not sure that I can answer that definitively. I haven't had a chance to read the the full text of councilor Avalos yet resolution. But I do know that there are some things related to explicit denunciation of of federal deployment here and things like that that are in the resolution but are not part of the code package that I'm putting forward. I'm not sure if councilor, you have more to add on that, but that's one very clear example. That's that's not in an overlap there.
102 Yeah, there are definitely areas in theory that overlap. But the point of the resolution is in particular to be broad strokes, to talk more about the federal overreach, to set a frame by which the city can move forward and create, you know, the different trainings or the various components of making sure that the entire enterprise is working to protect portlanders. There's components around protester protections. And overall, just trying to set a a value and a a united front to show portlanders that their city council is working to protect them.
103 Thank you councilor.
104 I thought I saw another hand for a second. Any other questions, councilor Smith?
105 Thank you, councilor Canal, for for bringing this forward. It reminds me of the sanctuary county that I authored in past when I was a county commissioner, and in 2016, it was basically to make sure that new portlanders, refugees, undocumented folks knew that they were going to be safe if they walked into one of our county buildings like our libraries, our health clinics, any of the of the county buildings that they could feel safe, that we were not going to turn them over to ice, and that we were not going to be the local police, the local federal police for ice. So I think that that in general, that this is a good way to reaffirm our sanctuary city. I do have a couple of concerns about councilor Morillo. To to resolutions. I want to make sure that we're not doing local government overreach by, you know, if you're talking about private security and then you're talking about folks who rent to government agencies, which is a legal thing. Currently, we have so many buildings that are that are empty in downtown Portland and throughout the city. And if we start to begin to cherry pick on who and how the federal government gets to rent places, that is concerning to me. That's concerning that we may be using a little bit of local overreach, especially when a lot of these buildings, they they're empty. And if we're saying that the federal government can't be their landlord can't be a leasee. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about folks who who may, you know, want to go into this work, and they're getting targeted for the kind of work that they're doing. So we have to be very careful about how they do that. I'm really excited about the data piece, because I think that using the data to find out where people are, electronic data, that it is wrong. It is it is egregious and it's unconscionable that we would allow that to happen. So I really think that we need to figure out how to put these things together. Councilor canal, could you tell me is, are some of these things going into a big omnibus? What is what does that look like? How are we going to put that together or are these going to go individually? I'm not quite sure.
106 I'll pass it to councilor Morillo.
107 First and then I'll answer that.
108 Okay.
109 Yeah. I would just like the opportunity to respond to some of your concerns with the policies, and I understand that we might not get to the same place on all of them. And that's okay. I want to emphasize that the detention fee does not prohibit any landlord from renting out to a federal contractor who wants to rent out for a detention facility. It is simply a fee. I would also like to point out that if we were to use, say, ice as the example, even though this applies to all detention facilities, that they now have billions of dollars, which means that these landlords could do what they regularly do to the rest of us and pass off those fees to their contractor. But I think that when we are facing such an extreme level of federal overreach, where we are having federal agents come, they are superseding our local laws, our local officers, they are disappearing our neighbors. Then we do have a responsibility to act boldly in ways that we haven't had to act before. These are unprecedented times, and we have to do unprecedented things. And so I would say that there are lots of different and more productive ways to lease out your empty building in the city of Portland. I think landlords could be housing providers. They could do all sorts of things that bring value to our city, that are not creating detention facilities, that create a high cost for the city of Portland, especially in a time when we are facing such critical budget deficits. Thank you.
110 Thank you, councilor Morillo.
111 I'll answer the. Councilors question around omnibus possibilities at this moment. What we've been working off of is sort of the guiding, sorry, the drafting guidance, which says that each ordinance should be about a singular topic. I know there's options to theoretically combine things over time, and I'm certainly open to that at this moment. We're kind of keeping each idea separate while we understand both because there's different folks to talk to, different lawyers, sometimes within the city attorney's office who are advising on it. And so just trying to make sure that we're developing a full idea, bringing it eventually. Right now, this is not a formal committee consideration, but bringing it forward as individual ideas. And then if and when it's possible, I'm more than open to that and to to welcoming in more, more leadership in it, including from yourself. Because I know.
112 You've worked.
113 No, I agree, I had a a mask resolution that I sent to you a few weeks ago, and that mask resolution would make all law enforcement take off their masks and identify who they are and where they're coming from, because until we know that, it's really hard to say who's coming in and kidnaping, folks, and we need to know who they are and and where they are, there's, there's there's a couple things. If I am wrong about this, I want to make sure that our attorneys, because I know they've been looking at it for a few weeks now. I need them to tell me, are we discriminating against certain property owners by attaching a specific fee? Because you could say that about these, these, these teen clubs, that you're going to start attaching fees to that because there's there's a lot of, you know, trash outside after they leave. So I don't want us to get so petty about these things, but I want us to do some things that is going to that really are going to change the landscape of how we how we deal with the feds. I do agree with you. Councilor Morillo. We have to do some unprecedented things in this unprecedented times, but we have to make sure that two wrongs don't make one right, and we have to do it in the right way, because we will be we will be charged with the things that that we do wrong. There is no accountability on the federal level. I do agree. I think we need to do a better job of highlighting those things and making sure people know what's out there. I am so sorry that there were some people in your district that that were kidnaped last week, and that's very troubling to me. And the other issue is, once we get further legal and financial analysis, that would be great. And I believe that the proposed ordinance has great intent, but we need to figure out how the impacts are going to be put on the city of Portland. And is that going to cost us additional dollars to implement and what that looks like, if we're going to if we if we have to train all of our 626 bureaus, what that looks like, what is the cost to that as well? But I think that right now we do need to do some drastic things for some of the very drastic actions that the federal government has produced in the city of Portland. It's not right.
114 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Morillo. I'll let you respond.
115 Thank you. Sorry. We're just having a back and forth. You and I, over here. I appreciate those concerns and that maybe I think what you're getting at is the concern that this could become a regular thing that we do all the time. And I guess what I would say is that that is already the status quo under land use, because we have different costs for predictable use. So for example, for an airport, they sometimes pay more for noise abatement. Bars often have different costs because of, you know, things like what you described. So that's actually already the status quo. And these detention facilities end up costing us so much in police overtime, environmental cleanup, all of these costs that are incurred by the city when we have to address what they do in our community. So I think that.
116 As a result of protesting, is that what you're saying?
117 I would say as a result of having a facility that is so controversial and usually doing such harmful things in our community that the community feels the need to show up and protest. Sure, people aren't protesting your local bar though, right? Because the bar is probably not doing anything that egregious. And what we're really emphasizing here, then, is the prioritizing one landlord who wants to profit off of an opening a new detention facility, versus taxpayers who are paying for all of the environmental cleanup costs, all of the police overtime. Every single thing that we end up paying for is coming from our taxpayers who are working class people who are fighting to live in our city. So I would say that, you know, it's already the status quo, that we have different fees for different types of buildings, and that it is time that we look into this for detention facilities, too. Thank you.
118 Thank you both, councilor Smith and Morillo. I'll just answer the other question that we are getting the the cost estimate revised as the text gets revised. We've been told that we're not expecting much additional cost on the codification one, because there are already trainings. They probably need to be updated, but they're already trainings that need to get get potentially revised as well as state attorney general metro, they all have trainings as well on these types of issues. So all right we're going to move into public comment I'll just make two notes. If there's time remaining at the end, we'll have the opportunity for councilors to respond some more. We did have more people sign up than we originally said we would have spots for. We'll see what we can do. I'll note that I read the first 58, but now it's up to 80 of the written testifiers. If you gave written testimony, I'd ask that you in particular. Keep it short. Feel free to to direct our attention there. I am reading all of it, and that might help us cut down on the time. But with that, I'll ask rebecca if you can call up the first testifier panel for their two minutes each. Thanks.
119 First, we have kip silverman, liz kay, and maya nordlund. Kip is online. Kip, you can go ahead.
120 Great. Thank you. Just connected. First of all, I love the proposals that I've heard you guys working on. Thank you. So I'm going to go to my prepared thing. Thank you, councilors, for giving us the opportunity to weigh in on one of the most important issues that we will face in our lifetime. My name is kip silverman. I use he him pronouns. I've lived in Portland for 27 years. I'm going to jump ahead here. My family history. Both sides of my family fled lithuania in the late 1800s to escape the pogroms on Jewish villages and homes. Half of my family fled to the united states. The other half went to germany. As I understand it, no one who went to germany survived, save for one child. My grandfather sam, fought in the infantry in world war one. Upon returning to the united states, he opened up a shoe store in pennsylvania during the great depression. If he saw someone walking down the street without shoes, he would rush out of the store, pull them in to fit them with a brand new pair of shoes for free, and send them on their way. My ancestors were grateful for refuge and paid that gratitude forward. These values are embedded in my dna. Nearly everyone in Portland is an immigrant or descended from immigrants. We live on occupied stolen land from indigenous peoples, and in recent years we've done land acknowledgments that are mostly performative. But that's not enough. We have to take action right now. Right here is our time to stop being performative and make a stand on our values. Two fathers have been snatched from my neighborhood, plus a third person, while waiting for the kids to get out of school in the past week. No one is safe. We need to take action now as a community and stand on our values and have a constitutional right to due process. I urge all of us city council, mayor, police chief, sheriff, rest of our community stand together on these issues. We need to codify our existence as a sanctuary city, built up on the laws that we were talking about a moment ago, and.
121 Thank you, kip, liz, and then maya.
122 Good afternoon. I am a resident of district one, and only one of countless witnesses to the severely corrupt and exploitative ways ice has been harming our neighbors. This nation's immigration system preys upon our neighborhoods, spreading fear and traumatizing families of all backgrounds. The cruel irony is those who support ice claim they make our neighborhoods safe from criminals, even as ice conceals their identities while committing crimes against constitutional laws and human rights. When ice violates the rights and freedoms of our neighbors, they declare open season on the rights and freedoms of all of us. For this reason, I appreciate all the time and labor that went into making our city's sanctuary laws more concrete. However, one key point I would like to challenge the city council on the annual report of exemptions to sanctuary law. This is too much time afforded to PPB and would only serve to impede justice when PPB inevitably breaks the law. I urge city council to consider mandating a monthly report instead and ensure sanctuary violations are strictly enforced. So we are being just as diligent in holding our law enforcement officers accountable. The history of this city has demonstrated to us that police will collaborate with ice if given the choice. A monthly report should hopefully discourage our own cops from notoriously breaking laws they claim to uphold. Thank you again for your work in codifying our sanctuary status. Please don't let this be the last time you work to strengthen sanctuary policies. There's a lot more work to be done.
123 Hi, my name is maya. I am a resident of district three, so thank you. Councilor Novick and councilor Morillo. Kidnaping members of our community is bad. I don't really think that should be controversial. Ice is doing that every day here in Portland. I moved here roughly three years ago because I believed in what this city represented, both in terms of diversity and focus on its community, the economic harm of leaving families without providers. These are people who provide food, provide shelter for our community, for for their family members. My girlfriend's father works doing delivery apps, doing film work in our city. The recent racial profiling approval by the supreme court puts him at risk. He's been here longer than I have. He's a full sister in the united states. But now that protection has been stripped away from him, my girlfriend is afraid to go out. She's afraid because we have armed gangs of masked thugs roaming our streets who won't identify themselves. I'm here to testify in support of unmasking them. I'm here to testify in support of doing something to stop them polluting our city, and to speak out for people who, you know, aren't necessarily safe to come here and say, we should have a city that's safe for them, a city that supports everyone who lives here and keep us safe. Thank you for your time.
124 Thank you. Rebecca, can you call up the next three?
125 Maria hernandez. Rachel, rachel sanchez, and mirna ortiz.
126 Good afternoon. Co-chair canal, co-chair, Novick and members of the committee. For the record, my name is maria hernandez segoviano and I speak today as a city of Portland employee and employee resource group, as a solo mother of choice and an immigrant that came to this country for a better and safer future for me and for many of my colleagues and community members. Sanctuary policies are not abstract. They are lived realities. When I walk into a city building right the bus or bring my child to school, I should not have to wonder if immigration enforcement could turn those everyday spaces into places of fear, or if I'm going to come back to my child. That is why codifying Portland sanctuary city status is so important. The city first declared itself a sanctuary city as already mentioned. However, even though that was with great intentions, it was not legally binding. Binding. At this moment, we have the opportunity to use every single tool in the toolbox to make and keep our community safe. Resolution, ordinances, executive order, you name it all are important. This ordinance transforms that intent into enforceable law. It ensures that all city bureaus, not just the police bureau, are guided by clear and consistent rules that employees do not engage in immigration enforcement. The training is not. Every bureau has a designated liaison to support this work. Equally important is the ordinance requiring visible identification for law enforcement. This is a standard of accountability, not a criticism. Identification ensures clarity in public interactions, strengthens trust, and removes ambiguity. When residents are seeking to simply understand who is exercising authority. This ordinance makes that exception clear and enforceable across all law enforcement agencies operating in our city. Therefore, codifying is really important. I really just want to make sure that you all know or safety or safety and clarity as employees. And the safety of our community should not depend on who holds power tomorrow, it should be guaranteed in city code. I cannot guarantee if you all will be here tomorrow or the next election. That being said, we really thank you for your leadership right now and we thank you for your leadership in the future. Therefore, I really urge you to move us from simply just words into action. Thank you so much.
127 Thank you.
128 Good afternoon. Coach, co-chair canal, co-chair, Novick and members of the committee. My name is rachel sanchez. I am chicana of mixed heritage of indigenous, mesoamerican and european ancestries. I'm an employee of the city of Portland, and I'm a member of the latinx pdx employee resource group. I am here to voice my strong support of this ordinance, codifying Portland as a sanctuary city. This ordinance is necessary if we are to keep our community safe now and well into the future. Resolutions, including the one adopted in 2017, are nonbinding, non-binding and do not meet this moment right now. Federal enforcement. Federal law enforcement is snatching people because of the color of their skin, or how they speak or the work they do. Let us be clear eyed. This is racism, pure and simple. It is part of the ongoing attempt to erase the original people of this land. But we are here, we are still here, and we have been here for thousands of years. This is our home. We belong here. Isis tactics, wearing masks, refusing to identify themselves, breaking car windows, preventing access to legal counsel. They're terrifying and they make us feel incredibly unsafe. This fear is exhausting. Employees and city contractors who work in the right of way are particularly at risk of being targeted by ice, and we have no protocols in place if an employee or contractor is detained, and the way the city's guidance is written, employees may inadvertently break state law by providing ice access to nonpublic areas. For months, we have been sounding the alarm about the city's lack of preparedness, the city's guidance to employees being contrary to Oregon law and the need to protect our community. Finally, with this ordinance, a light is shining on where we can and must do better. Updated protocols, training for all staff, signage for nonpublic areas, immigrant affairs, liaisons, working in true partnership with community organizations like Portland immigrant rights coalition perk. These initiatives must be implemented so in addition to this ordinance is essential for the mayor to issue an executive order, like so many other mayors have done, directing meaningful action first.
129 Thank you.
130 Good afternoon everyone. My name is marina ortiz. I'm a proud mexican American and proud city employee of Portland and one of the co-chairs of latinx pdx employee resource group. No one should have to fear that a lunch break or commute home could change their life forever. Yet for many city employees and community members, that fear is real. A simply sorry a simple ride on the max can turn into an ice encounter based solely on an appearance, clothing, or language. This is reality, which is frightening, even imagining it's hurting my stomach and it's making me just want to vomit. In the absence of ice preparedness plan and inaccurate guidance, our erg created a work group which is taking action. We have spent countless hours outside of work, away from our families, researching, discussing, and presenting our concerns. In a letter to the mayor, to you councilors and city leadership. But this responsibility should not, you know, solely rely on us. We need our, you know, your leadership. We need more than your symbolic words. We need your concrete support right now. If one of us was racially profiled and detained and, you know, just kidnaped, our supervisors and colleagues would not know what to do. Would anyone call our families who would make sure we are safe? We know people detained by ice are often silenced before they can even make a single phone call. This is happening here now, and Portland is not ready. What are we waiting for? Let's be proactive and not reactive. And what does that say about us as a sanctuary city? Sanctuary must be more than a word. It must be a plan, a directive, legislation, legislation. My my accent ordinance, protocol. That's what councilor Kanal recent call to action is strong and it matters.
131 Thank you. Thank you all.
132 Rebecca.
133 Could you please call up the next.
134 Three testifiers?
135 Ana maria perez, lydia kiesling, amaya blanco chapin and rod such.
136 I would like to.
137 Transfer my testimony slot to my colleague.
138 Here.
139 Josephine vasquez.
140 Good afternoon. Councilors. My name is amaya blanco chapin, and I'm here today as a member of the latinx pdx employee resource group. I am here to testify in support of proposed legislation that would protect latinx and immigrant communities from racist federal immigration policies. Earlier this summer, I testified in front of this committee in my own capacity to bring attention to the racially discriminatory federal immigration enforcement that was taking place at the time in my home state of california. I spoke up because I feared that the city of Portland was not doing enough to prepare a response. In the face of escalating threats toward sanctuary cities. Since then, the us supreme court has ruled that ice can detain individuals based simply on the color of their skin, the language they speak, and the work they do. This is a new and terrifying reality for our community, and we need protections in place for employees who are targets of the trump administration. Members of the latinx pdx workgroup have heard directly from many employees living with daily fear, trauma, and frustration. We need city officials to prioritize policies and provide resources to ensure their employees feel safe. We need clear guidance and mandatory trainings that empower our employees and reminds them that they do still have rights, despite what the trump administration tells us. The city of Portland must be on the offense of this issue, not the defense. Codifying current sanctuary city resolution into binding law is the first step in that direction, and it is the first commitment we ask of council resolution. Sound nice, but they are not legally enforceable law. They do not provide the legal protections in court that Portland residents deserve. When faced with threats from a fascist regime, latinx pdx will continue to show up and advocate for these necessary protections on behalf of our community and until they are met. Lastly, I want to take a moment to thank councilor Kanal and his dedicated team for providing us a space to be heard. We appreciate you leading the effort to introduce this important legislation and the community and public safety committee for taking the time to listen. Thank you.
141 Thank you.
142 Josephine. You can go ahead. Followed by lydia.
143 Thank you. Good afternoon. Co-chairs canal Novick and members of the committee. My name is josephine vasquez. I'm a city employee and a member of latin pdx. I am here today in strong support of a permanent sanctuary ordinance. I'm a proud mexican American who, like many others, immigrated to this country. I've lived in the u.s. For more than 40 years and in Portland over 12. My family is dedicated to serving our community through public service. I'm grateful for my journey, the courage, the challenges my parents overcame, and many sacrifices they made for my family to be here today. I know many others have stories like mine. We share past experiences most filled with anguish and fear, and it continues to be our reality even more so now than ever. We know what the current administration is capable of leading with hate threats, violence, and enacting racist policies that impact us, all of us. Portland has been openly targeted by this administration, and as these threats reach our city, we must be prepared. But we are not Portland, and many leaders have promised to stand with communities, and they have made promises to their employees. These promises must be backed by action to protect the rights of all Portland residents against cruel, immoral and illegal policies. This impacts me as a latino community member, as a city employee, and as a u.s. Citizen. The suffocating fear is constant in the possibility of being targeted on the way to work or at city sites, having lunch, or simply just making it home solely based on what I look like. I've declined to travel from overwhelming fear of becoming a target, being threatened, assaulted, or taken while away from my family. I speak for myself and those who cannot be here. I ask for the city support, for better guidance, more resources and better educated employees about policies, potential illegal practices and better support our community. It is important to recognize the warning signs of hatred and violence, and be a reminder of the devastating consequences they leave behind. Thank you for your time and efforts in moving this forward.
144 Thank you.
145 Lydia.
146 Hello. My name is lydia kiesling and I'm a resident of district three. I'm also one of the co-chairs of the Palestine solidarity and bds working group of the Portland chapter of dsa. I want to thank the city council members who are thinking about how to better insulate our city and all of its residents, particularly the most vulnerable, from the depredations of a fascist federal government. I'm here today to ask that the city considers all sanctuary legislation in the context of the nationwide struggle to end america's role in the genocide underway in gaza. Palestinian liberation is not a faraway foreign policy issue. Many prominent cases of federal kidnaping and abuse have involved immigrant students and workers whose due process has been trampled due to their participation in protected acts of expression, from writing op eds to participating in peaceful protests. The cases of mahmoud khalil, rumaisa ozturk and others have attracted media attention, but thousands of visas have been revoked, including in our state and city. At PSU, our city's flagship public institution, their community members who are at risk of federal detention and deportation, people who are in the us on visas, as well as Green card holders, are particularly vulnerable, but naturalized citizens are also a stated target. People engaged in protest are at the front lines of a major test of freedom that thus far many public and private institutions have failed. We have watched administrations, including at PSU, capitulate to the federal government at the expense of vulnerable students, faculty and staff. We have also seen companies like google comply with ice to hand over protesters data in ways that threaten every single person in this country. Protesters are the vanguard of movements that often feel contested or controversial, until the moment when they begin to feel inevitable in the future. The struggle to end us complicity in genocide will be something that many institutions pretend they always supported in this moment. Do not let these institutions abdicate their responsibility to protect the privacy and safety of their community members, whether they are students, workers or customers. I urge our city council to ensure that all institutions receiving public dollars or enjoying the benefits of doing business in our city are proactively honoring our sanctuary policies, both in letter and in spirit. Codifying and enforcing these policies is a crucial first step and a crucial part of the fight against fascism. Thank you.
147 Thank you. Lydia. Rod, you're up next. Rod. You're muted if you're trying to testify.
148 I'm sorry for that. My name is rod such and I live in district three. I am here to testify in support of the sanctuary city codification ordinance. And I want to thank councilor Canal who introduced this measure. When we are threatened with fascism and racism, as we are today with the trump administration, it is vital to transform policy into law. I am particularly motivated to speak in support of this ordinance, because of the provision that seeks to prohibit all law enforcement, including federal agencies, from intentionally concealing their identities during routine operations and to require badges to be clearly visible. When I first saw the arrest of an international college student living here on a legitimate student visa by masked ice agents who abducted her for writing an op ed supporting the rights of the Palestinian people, I realized that we were in the first stages of fascism, arrested for free speech without being informed who was in resting her, without being able to identify her abductors. There was a time when people came to this country to flee this kind of fascist behavior. Now it is here in this country as well. It is frightening to imagine what could happen if fascist vigilantes attempt to impersonate federal agents while masked. I am gratified to learn that california governor gavin newsom is introducing a similar measure in his state. It's a necessary preventative to creeping fascism, and it is particularly important to our oppressed communities. Please pass this important ordinance. Thank you.
149 Thank you. Rod. Rebecca.
150 If you could go to the next panel, please.
151 Nick. Kai. Jack dickinson, holly. Brown, david. Pearl.
152 Can I go?
153 Nick can go ahead.
154 Hi, my name is nick. I live in north Portland. I'm a constituent of district two. Last week, two immigrant fathers in my neighborhood were taken. I live in portsmouth. They were kidnaped by ice on their way to work. Our community is shaken. Many of us gathered afterwards feeling helpless, but also determined not to watch quietly while the world slides toward authoritarianism. I have a friend who I met through mutual aid work, and she is undocumented. She's afraid to go to the grocery store or to take her daughter to school or her after school activities. So I drive her now because no parent should have to choose between feeding their family or risking separation from their children. If ice agents confront me, I will not comply. And I know many portlanders in my neighborhood feel the same. The ordinance that councilor Kanal has brought up applies to city workers. I think that that's great. I think it should go further. I think it should affirm that no portlander needs to comply with ice. When ice asks us, or demands that we roll down our windows and we refuse, they should not be allowed to smash them and to drag people out of the cars, as they did with one of the fathers who was taken. True sanctuary means safety in every part of your daily life, not just when you enter a city building its sanctuary in schools, churches, hospitals, grocery stores, every essential thing that we need post offices, community centers. No one should live in fear of being torn from their family simply by leaving home. That is sanctuary. And finally, I urge you to also consider how federal policy endangers federal police endanger our city. I am a trained legal observer with the national lawyers guild. I have witnessed violent interactions at the hands of federal agents at the ice processing center on mcadams. They commonly deploy chemical weapons on protesters carrying nothing more than cardboard.
155 Thank you. Tear gas.
156 Thank you so much. With the go on, jack.
157 Think about that.
158 My name, for the record, is jack dickinson. I've decided to center my testimony today on two areas. The first is voicing support for various policies that have been discussed. Councilor Kanal I support your initiative to codify sanctuary policies into law. Prior to this year, sanctuary policies sort of felt like the equivalent of a company changing their logo to a rainbow. During June. We no longer live in a world where that can be justified as sufficient. Last week, california enacted legislation on masked law enforcement. I fully support a similar policy here. Masked federal agents erode public trust, allow for easy impersonation of officers, and contribute to the cult of unaccountability that is, letting ice commit unspeakable evil upon fellow humans. In a similar vein, I would also like to see action taken on the dozens of vehicles that go in and out of the mcadam facility each day, with no license plates. If any of you are interested in discussing this further, I would love to talk about it. The community has knowledge of these vehicles, which should allow for action to be taken without requiring significant police resources. Now, I also feel the need to talk about the larger picture of what is happening to sanctuary jurisdictions in this country. The federal government is declaring war on us, la, dc, chicago. And make no mistake, Portland is about to join that list. We cannot ignore the unique role that Portland plays in the right wing propaganda machine, the city that antifa burned to the ground. Mayor wilson can cancel dei initiatives all he wants. The trump administration is still going to crack down here because they were always going to crack down here. A reminder that trump's renewed focus on us is because he saw a fox news segment where a they used old footage from 2020, and b he thought the tear gas that dhs has been launching was protesters setting off smoke bombs. One way to view our current predicament is as a prisoner's dilemma. Every sanctuary jurisdiction can choose to fight or choose to fold, and the payoff matrix would say everyone selfishly should fold. But where our situation differs from a prisoner's dilemma is that we can see how other places choose to act. We can see california and chicago choosing to fight.
159 Thank you.
160 Good afternoon council. My name is david pearl. I live in district one. What we are facing at the south waterfront ice facility is a federal agency acting against its people, purposefully escalating protest activity, targeting minority protesters and acting with a strong propensity propensity towards violence against the people they are meant to serve. Let's call ice what they are a terrorist organization designed not to punish those who evade the law, but to frighten the rest into submission. Their depravity is fully on display, which is by design as they want to, as they want you disoriented, enraged, heartbroken, and above all, silent. It's not about immigration. It's about domination due in large to the lack of direct consequences. These agents and the trump regime are becoming more emboldened in their actions by the day. As such, it becomes more important than ever to safeguard our citizens freedom of speech. On 916, chicago mayor brandon johnson signed an executive order for the right to protest amidst trump's issuance of sending the national guard into their city. I strongly urge the council to follow suit, as these same threats have been levied against our own city. I would also suggest barring federal agents from arresting or detaining of nonviolent protest activity that is not on federal property. As of September 8th, there are 26 individuals currently facing federal charges, many of whom are being charged with nonviolent activities. To quote john f kennedy, those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Let's ensure that doesn't happen by protecting our citizens from a rogue government and its coconspirators. Thank you.
161 Thank you. Holly.
162 Yeah. Hi, my name is holly brown. I'm speaking on behalf of revoke the ice permit and Portland contra las deportaciones. I want to speak out in support of the proposed sanctuary legislation and also in support of the mask ban, the ban on chemical weapons, and the attempts of other council members to bring forth legislation to protect immigrants. I want to particularly speak out in support of the proposed foia request. Information is invaluable, and I think that especially finding out where ice is doing raids will be very helpful for community advocates and trying to prevent this from happening. Some things that our group did want to bring up is that we are hoping for some more definitive clarity around public reports that will be made to the community. Like as in, you know, how often are they going to be made, what types of information is going to be given to the community as we believe it's the community really needs to be a full partner in this. So I did appreciate that being included in the legislation. We also wanted to bring up wanting more clarity to on needing guidelines and consequences set up for police or other city officials, city officials that violate the sanctuary city ordinance, to ensure that we are making sure that it is being followed. And I also want to speak out in support of consequences for landlords that lease to federal agencies that pollute and abuse our communities. It's not the protesters that are shooting cs gas into the street, it is federal agents with guns and the law on their side. And we need to be very clear about that. So I think it is important that we bring forth legislation to ensure that there are consequences. I want to thank everyone for bringing forth these ordinances, and I also hope that it is not the end of legislation to protect immigrants. We are glad to see leaders responding to the community as we have been asking for action. I echo earlier speaker saying we need to be proactive, not reactive. The people have the power and is clear that portlanders want action. So I'm really hoping that we can get more emboldened and really take steps to ensure that immigrants are fully safe here, and we're standing up against the federal government.
163 Thank you. Rebecca, could you please call up the next panel?
164 Edith edith. Gillis. Vladimir lopukhov, michael abrams, and charlie michelle wesley.
165 I don't see.
166 Edith online yet, but so please feel free to go ahead while others might come up.
167 Great. Thank you. Chair canal. Chair Novick. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the American civil liberties union of Oregon. My name is michael abrams. I use they them pronouns and I serve as policy counsel. The aclu of Oregon is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and advancing democracy, civil liberties, and civil rights. With more than 48,000 members and donor supporters statewide. We strongly support the proposed ordinance, which affirms portland's sanctuary status and our city's commitment to focusing its resources on supporting our neighbors and families and staying out of the business of terrorizing them. The ordinance mirrors state law and ensures that every city employee and agency is fully aware of their obligations under the sanctuary promise act to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, which has become increasingly cruel and unconstitutional. This ordinance will help keep our community safe and reduce the climate of fear the trump administration has created in the past year. The ordinance directs the city government to take several practical steps to uphold our sanctuary laws, including comprehensive training for city employees, regular foia requests regarding federal immigration activity in Portland to keep our community informed, and signage requirements in city buildings. To make it clear which areas ice will need a judicial warrant to access. The ordinance also wisely calls for bureau and office level points of contact and reports to the city council. This will help spur ongoing conversations around this issue and ensure policies adapt to community needs, which may change as federal aggression changes. We are facing rising fascism, the suppression of free speech and the corruption of due process by the trump administration, the unbridled assault on Oregonians who have immigrated to this country demands a decisive response. The the ordinance before you offers a foundation for meaningful local accountability and sends an unequivocal message to not only our immigrant neighbors and those of us who support them, but those who would dehumanize and scapegoat them as well. That Portland remains open to all. We respectfully urge this committee to vote yes. Thank you.
168 Thank you. Vladimir is online.
169 I'd like to transfer my slot to my colleague, isabella shepherd. Thank you.
170 Go ahead. Isabella.
171 Hello.
172 My name is.
173 Izzy.
174 And I'm.
175 Here representing Portland against deportations and the coalition for revoking the ice permit. I want to start.
176 By. Saying that we support.
177 Councilor Kanal ordinance as a first step, and we appreciate that.
178 City council is.
179 Taking steps to.
180 Codify immigrants rights.
181 Into law, immigrants rights.
182 Into law. We have a couple.
183 Concerns to raise.
184 However, and we look forward to hearing how these will be addressed. First, we are curious about enforcement. Dhs has already responded that they will not comply with the mask ban. If ice does not comply with this rule or the others, how will we enforce them? Will Portland police have the ability to arrest ice for trespassing on public property? Will city staff be subject to firing if they are caught working with ice? What will be what will be done? If these laws are that we are putting in place are broken? Second, oops. Excuse me. The exceptions portion states that the restrictions on working with ice do not apply to people arrested by the police and charged with a federal crime. We believe there is not enough oversight on the Portland police for them to be trusted with handling the exceptions. There is nothing to stop them from extending their practice of applying overinflated charges on people they target to immigrants, as a tactic for to justify turning them over to ice. In the context where the supreme court has ruled that the that ice can racially profile their targets, this creates yet another incentive for Portland police to apply these bogus charges to nonwhite detainees. We hope this ordinance excuse me again. We hope this ordinance is the first step, and we look forward to seeing future legislation to protect immigrants. Thank you.
185 Thank you. I see charlie has joined us online.
186 So hi, I am charlie michel wesley, northwest tribal member of our land now called Oregon. I profusely thank you, councilor Kanal, for your announcement to codify protection of all portlanders from ice, especially to point out, and I quote, our city sanctuary status should be more than just intentions. Your entire announcement is basic humanitarian decency. How you don't allow this city to ignore deny seeing racism without addressing it. Honor our first core city value of anti-racism anti-oppression and your commitment to protect our immigrant communities. Please read the guardian's recent startling analysis reported on July 23rd, 2025. Immigrant data articles. One of those things is the number of deportations, however, has fluctuated as the administration pursues new strategies and policies to swiftly expel people from the us to countries that are not their home or country. And I would add, this is their home. And where is the due process? But we don't need statistics to know. This is also egregiously wrong, and it's obviously traumatizing. And this administration is systemically targeting brown skinned people. One report says 69% do not have a criminal record, and not just by ice agents, but targeting all bipoc with the war on diversity, equity and inclusion. This is not neutrality as they claim. It is purely racism. It is one dear said. A friend said they are stealing our peace and making us live in terror. Sanctuary is a place of safety, protection and peaceful from danger or stress. But in closing, this this country is a crime scene right now and I would suggest it always has been. But now it's at an all new low that threatens us all. This will be our downfall if we don't act now with courage. Thank you charlie.
187 So I just want to point out we are just at time, we did guarantee that we'd hear 20 people. We've heard 17 people right now. So if it's okay with colleagues to have at least three and then we can talk again, more folks, I'll ask if rebecca can call up the next three, if that's okay with everyone. Okay. Thank you.
188 Jamie partridge, ross taylor, gary beaver. Benjamin benjamin gilbert is online. Okay.
189 Go ahead.
190 Ross, you can go ahead.
191 City councilors, other folks who are here. My name is ross taylor. I'm a member of the organization surge pdx showing up for racial justice. In terms of this ordinance, it seems to me that this is the minimum that should be done. Absolutely. In addition to this ordinance, I would draw attention to city council, and I put more detail in a written testimony to the proposals that have come from the Portland immigrant rights coalition, a letter that they sent to the council and the mayor, supported by over 50 community organizations, including surge. Summary of these recommendations. Creating a work group to monitor the interactions between federal officers and Portland police. Developing a staff preparedness plan. Making sure that know your rights information and the hotline number for ice actions is publicly available in city facilities. Carry out investigation of ice violations at the macadam facility. A number of other investigations that need to happen. Stop sweeping the protesters at the macadam facility and clean up the toxic contamination of the neighborhood around the macadam facility, and try to get the feds to pay for it. There's also a couple of exceptions in the current proposal that I think are were mentioned before and are kind of big. One is the exception for providing ice with information available to the public. I think basically it should be the same as if anyone else is asking for information. If it looks like the person is trying to commit a crime with that information, it should be slow walked or reported to the authorities. And the other part a about laws. You know that they have an arrest warrant right now. Illegal entry and illegal reentry are crimes so many undocumented people would be would be falling through that hole. And I think that needs to be looked at if there's anything can be done about it. Thank you very much.
192 Thank you.
193 Our Jamie or gary here. Okay. We'll go to ben gilbert and that'll be I think we'll have one more after that.
194 Hello.
195 My name is ben gilbert. I'm a lobbyist for the Portland democratic socialists of America and a resident of district four. Portland dsa supports measures to protect immigrants and places a price on landlords that are assisting ice. It's super crucial, and I want to give a big thanks to all of the councilors who put legislation forward and all of those who contributed behind the scenes to making to to doing this legislation. It's a really great first step and crucial for the safety and well-being of people in Portland. I also want to draw attention to the lack of resources, legal resources that many immigrants and people targeted by ice have, and the necessity of funding lawyers for for immigrants. And we've seen that in new york city, how the funding of the city city provided lawyers being a huge benefit to immigrants, and being one of the number one determinants of if they will be able to go home to their families. Thank you. I yield my time.
196 Thank you. Rebecca. I think next is madeline, who's already online.
197 Madeline. Madeline. Madeline. You can go ahead.
198 Hello. My name is madeline. Carol. I live in district two, and I'm a member of the Portland chapter of showing up for racial justice. I'm here to speak in favor of codifying portland's sanctuary city status into city code, as well as prohibiting all law enforcement from concealing their identities while engaging with the public. First, I want to say thank you to the councilors who have been working urgently to find ways for the city government to help. I and a huge number of portlanders want to do anything we can as a community to defend against this push for mass deportation by our federal government and to support the people left behind when their loved ones are taken. We want to live in a safe place that celebrates and defends the people who live, work and visit here. Ice has no accountability to us. They come in unmarked vehicles, wearing masks and sometimes civilian clothing, and violently abduct people. Throughout the us, ice has abducted, imprisoned and deported people based on their race, religion, the languages they speak, their country of origin, and to punish them for saying things the trump administration doesn't like. Undocumented people documented people, visa and Green card holders and us citizens alike. These are the actions of an authoritarian government. And this is only the beginning. Mass deportations have been opening acts for many genocides throughout history, and mass resistance is the only appropriate response. Please do everything you can to protect the Portland community, push back against authoritarianism, and expel ice from our city. Thank you for your time and attention.
199 Thank you madeline. Support staff have let us know they can stay another seven minutes. So I'm if it's all right with everybody, I would ask for four more names if that's okay. Sorry, rebecca, I know I put you on the spot there.
200 Next we have jordan lewis, Dan kaufman, aaron schwartz, and joseph. Oh, pardon me, chris lowe.
201 After that, we will have to cut it. So I apologize to everyone else. We'll make sure that if you do submit written testimony, I commit to reading it. And I'm sure our colleagues will as well.
202 Hello? Can you hear me?
203 We can. You can go ahead. Jordan.
204 Hello. City council. My name is jordan lewis. I'm a resident and a member of Portland dsa democratic socialists of America, living in the goose hollow neighborhood. I'm testifying today to call attention to the insanity that's happening on our streets. And I want to thank councilors maria canal and Novick for taking the lead on this crucial legislation. I use the word insanity with intent because it is insane what our community has to live with. People are getting racially profiled and abducted by anonymous thugs in broad daylight. This is not normal. If I, jordan lewis, the white guy, the us citizen, were abducted by an anonymous gang, there would be a k2 news article within the hour. Land and sea would change to save god's favorite white boy. And yet we're seeing parents snatched away from their children at court dates out of their cars. This has happened multiple times, and it just fades into the 24 hour news cycle. It's unconscionable. It makes me sick. Thank you for all the work that you've done, and I want to support every measure proposed by council, with the caveat that we do have to go further. Portland dsa supports measures that protect immigrants and rightly charged landlords for profiting off of ice crimes. I yield the rest of my time.
205 Thank you. Go ahead. Chris.
206 Hi, my name is chris low. I live in district three. I'm a member of Portland democratic socialists of America and a congregant at augustana lutheran church in northeast Portland. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify. And all of the commissioners who are developing legislation. To to address the crisis that we face. I want to frame this generally as a constitutional crisis. That's what we are facing. We have a lawless president who seems to delight in violating his oath of office. And this is seen in his immigration policies, which are unconstitutional and also violate solemn treaty obligations around asylum status and also the abuse of the military and involving it in domestic law enforcement. And so I and I think that this constitutional crisis requires of all of us citizens in the culture, citizens. I'm taking that not just in a legal sense, but people who live in the country and also people with especially people with privilege and people with power, institutional power such as you have. So I'm really appreciative of you taking your power seriously and and working to do the right thing here. I also want to speak to what's at stake for me beyond those abstract principles. I mentioned going to augustana. We had a salvadoran immigrant in sanctuary in the church for 93 days a few years ago. He's still here. His son returned to el salvador and was murdered by the gangs that are congregant was afraid of. I also want to just say that we often talk about our neighbors, but it's not just. I think it's.
207 Thank you. Chris. I see Dan online. Dan you're muted if you are trying to testify.
208 There we go okay. Thank you. Thank you chairman canal and council members for having hearing my testimony today. My name is Dan kaufman. I use he they pronouns and I am in support of proposals. And I just want to back up a little bit. There's a lot of people talking about the law, like changing laws, the laws in general. And I would just like us to acknowledge the fact that. That that all of our laws are predicated on violence at some point, or the threat of. And so, you know, knowing that we have a police force in the, you know, a battalion of people who supply the violence necessary to enforce the laws, which in this society we want to enforce, sometimes at great cost to human life and liberty and to and to the coffers of the city as we pay out millions and millions of dollars for the errors and their unaccountability. Often people are concerned that if we pass certain laws, we may be in violation, that the city may be open for lawsuit. And I would argue that our police force opens us up for lawsuit constantly. It is time for the city council to to rein in our police force and to have oversight over them. I know that we've been working on that, and I ask that you continue to do that because of all these things that we're talking about. If we do not have a police force that we regulate, then they will be working against us, and they are oftentimes so time to reign in our police and start thinking about, how are you going to do that? Because currently I don't believe council has that control right now. Thank you for hearing me. Have a great day.
209 Thank you Dan, I think that's that's going to conclude the time we have for testimony. I know we have. Sorry. Do you have to.
210 Say no. That concludes testimony.
211 Sorry. There I know there were three people who couldn't be here and three people who are not called. I apologize and I commit to hearing from you if you'd like to, to to reach out to my office. I'm very happy to hear from you as well. With that, we will conclude this particular topic. Our next meeting of this committee is Tuesday, October 7th. That's Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. Just thank you to everybody for being here, being a part of it. I know this is also a rosh hashanah. So shana tova, to those who are celebrating and thank you so much. This concludes the meeting of the community and public safety committee.