The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-02-05
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (29,849 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
On February 5, 2026, the Portland City Council held an afternoon session that reconvened from a recess, with roll call confirming member presence and rules of decorum read into the record. The council took up a first reading of an ordinance establishing City Code Chapter 3.40 governing appointed boards, commissions, and committees, with committee background, amendments, and public testimony themes summarized before discussion covered governance philosophy, member conduct standards, resource allocation, and periodic review processes; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The council then addressed a second reading of an ordinance and resolution establishing a City Data and Privacy Office, discussing amendments, budget estimates for staffing and technology, and implementation approach; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. Discussion turned to a report on removals from the Community Board for Police Accountability, addressing eligibility determinations, a bias-screening process, a confidentiality agreement dispute, and resignations, with extensive public testimony on transparency, bias standards, and board composition; the item was continued to the following week without a final vote, and figures regarding the number of individuals flagged for bias were stated inconsistently. Finally, the city administrator and chief financial officer provided an update on unspent Rental Services Office funds, noting ongoing review and discrepancies in reported dollar amounts, with further information promised before a scheduled February 18 session. The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
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 It's not going to be good for everyone's.
1 Good afternoon folks. I'm calling to order the Thursday, February 5th afternoon council session back to the recessed council session. Back to order. Rebecca, can we please call the roll? Wait, I have to gavel. Okay, okay. Now, can we please call the roll?
2 Excellent. Good afternoon. Avalos.
3 Present.
4 Smith. Kanal.
5 Present.
6 Pirtle-guiney. Ryan.
7 Here.
8 Koyama Lane here.
9 Morillo here.
Procedural episode · turns 10–18
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
10 Novick here.
11 Clark. Here. Green.
12 Here.
13 Zimmerman.
14 Dunphy here. Colleagues, we have one unfinished item from yesterday. And then four items for this afternoon. We got a tight time line. We're going to dive in. Rebecca, can we please call item o? Can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
15 Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at w-w-w. Ed.gov agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council 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, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying one. State your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. Two if you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Three virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
16 Thank you very much. Can we please call item number 11? Read item number.
17 Sorry. Pardon me. The agenda was reordered. We're starting with item 12, I believe the.
18 Yeah. Let me see. Sorry.
19 Item 12. Ad appointed boards, commissions and committees.
20 Code perfect. Thank you. Colleagues, this is a first reading of an ordinance that came out of the governance committee. With us is council. Dana richardson.
21 Good afternoon. Council president and councilors. For the record, my name is dana richardson. I'm here on behalf of craig cook, a former policy analyst and staff to the governance committee. The ordinance before you document 2025471 was heard in the governance committee on December 8th and December 15th. It was referred to council, as amended, with the recommendation that it pass. The ordinance itself adds city code chapter 3.40 to establish policies for city appointed boards, commissions and committees, otherwise known as abcs, the ordinance contains definitions and classifications for abcs and provisions on applicability. It prescribes the creation, sunset, and periodic review of abcs and specifies that members are public officials, subject to the rules of conduct established by the bureau of human resources. It requires that the city administrator report back to the council in a work session no later than February 28th, 2026, to receive feedback on the implementation priorities and the proposed implementation plan. It requires that the city administrator to ensure that council receives a written implementation report within six months of passage that describes progress on the elements in the final project report. Sections relating to implementation and continuous improvement. The committee adopted six amendments prior to moving the item to full council. The effects of amendments on the original ordinance can be seen on the committee staff summary that's posted online. Impact statements that are available for this ordinance include a financial and budgetary impacts, and information on potential community impacts and community involvement. There were two individuals who provided verbal testimony and six people who submitted written testimony prior to committee action. General themes of that input included appreciation for the work done through the advisory bodies enhancement project, the need for the report to be more explicit about budget advisory committees that used to exist. Support for periodic reviews of boards and commissions, the importance of supporting staff that facilitate the abcs. Support for annual convening and recognition event with city leadership. Concern regarding council appointment procedures and the need to expand transparency of full council, and the need for diversity of thought among the membership of advisory bodies. That concludes the committee. Staff summary. Thank you.
22 Thank you, dana councilor Koyama Lane. This came out of your committee. Any additional comments to add?
23 Sure. Thank you. Council president, I want to emphasize that this ordinance in front of us today is about good governance. It is work that has been picked up by many different commissioners along the way over the past ten years or so, but hasn't quite gotten across the finish line. I want to emphasize this point. The recommendations from the advisory bodies enhancement project team adopted. This ordinance, adopted by this ordinance are intended to support a healthier, stronger democracy. And this ordinance isn't just about decreasing the number of advisory bodies we have, although that might end up happening along the way. This project is about improving the way we bring experts from our community to help us do our work as a city of Portland. So it's about giving elders, youth professors, small business owners, nonprofit leaders, and the hundreds of other volunteers who serve on our on our appointed boards, commissions and committees to give them some better guidance and clarity on how their unique knowledge and life experience with us is used. So this is also about making sure the people of Portland know who's serving on these boards, commissions and committees. It's about making sure that these bodies have meetings in the open so the entire community can have transparency into these meetings and build trust in the advice that they bring to us as electeds. It's also about building, growing and nurturing a stronger democracy, and I hope the council will consider adopting these recommendations into our city code. I appreciate all of the work from councilor Ryan's office and his staff, as we've worked with our city attorney and amanda garcia, snell and ocean and all the folks that have been part of this project along the way. Thank you.
24 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane councilor Ryan, did you have anything else you wanted to talk about this?
25 Sure. I'll thank you. Council president, I want to start off by acknowledging a few people I see out there. Julia meyers is not here. But she was the main staffer that kept poking and probing us along. Right. And also, amanda, you're out there in ocean and also sarah ames. Thank you all for your efforts to bring these codes along to allow us to make sense of this framework. I think it also will be a fluid document at times. I don't think we should ever get wedded that it's done and it's complete, but we are at a place where I think we can improve a very important framework and start to draft out the details of how this will practically work through protocols and procedures. I look forward to having structure and consistency. I think that was a theme of our conversations with the city's advisory bodies, and ensuring that both meaningful experience from those who serve on the advisory body and meaningful contributions to inform city operations. Governance is fluid, for sure, and I recall also in our conversations how we want to ensure that we have equitable representation on all the advisory bodies with a mix of subject matter expertise and that generally interested community members have access back at you, councilor Koyama Lane and your team's partnership. Aubrey and mary, I think, did a lot of the heavy lifting, and I just want to acknowledge that as well. I do look forward to one thing, and I don't know if this came out, but maybe we talked about the fact that there's been clutter on this for some time. I remember when it was moving in 2024, it was too much to take on in November. I think diana from the auditor's office was part of that transition team. So I'm looking forward to like maybe six months down the road where in fact there could be staff recommendations on where we actually see some clutter or where we see some duplications. And I think that will really be helpful. We're all really staff resourced right now. The staff is unconstrained. There's capacity challenges, and governance isn't something you just do. It takes a lot of time and effort and takes up a lot of staff time. So I think we have to be more efficient with some of these that we build. And so I look forward to recommendations from staff in the next six months about where that could be. Thank you. I look forward to passing this.
26 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, before we move to technical or clarifying questions, there are two pre-filed amendments. They come from myself and from councilor Koyama Lane. They are on the. They're on are on. They're posted online on the item. Stumbling through my own words, I apologize. I want to just read what these two amendments do very briefly into the record before we take testimony. Any clarifying questions? Dunphy. One is about clarifying what basic information about abc's members. Abc members should be publicly available. It's about making sure the public can easily see how these bodies are formed and how they operate. Amendment number two codifies the advisory bodies, enhancements, projects, recommendations for open meetings law. This is a set. It sets a clear transparency standard and signals our expectations that the administration matches this bar for advisory bodies not created by council. So I am going to move those amendments and would entertain a second if someone's willing to. Second, thank you, counselor Ryan. Colleagues, we're going to move to folks in the queue for any technical or clarifying questions. And I see councilor Novick.
27 I apologize, I haven't not having read carefully to see if it's there, but since both the council president, you and and counselor family were talking about people knowing more about these bodies, I was wondering, is there any provision? And we don't have to really address this today. I just wanted to raise it to ensure that members of advisory bodies have email addresses that are available to the public. I had the experience a year and a half ago, trying to figure out how to contact the pcf members who play a pretty important role, and there was no information about how to reach them. And I think that we now have city emails for members of the advisory body, so don't necessarily have to give up their personal emails, but I'd just like to whether it's in this legislation or in some other time, I think it would be useful to have a protocol that when you look up an advisory body, you'll see emails to contact them with.
28 Let me just note, not all of them have emails because they cost money, and not all of the boards can afford that slash. Not all of them want them. So there's just not consistency on the everyone having a a city email. Just so you.
29 Know, I'm wondering I don't know the answer to that in this policy. Councilor Koyama Lane do you know or is amanda garcia able to. Oh, hi.
30 I'm sorry.
31 Yeah. Could you help us answer the question?
32 Thank you. Yeah. Hi. Council. Amanda garcia snell. For the record, yes, that's an excellent question and something that we have been in conversations with technology services folks around the potential. And what are the possibilities there? It's of course, like many things complicated. It is costly. I think it comes in around $200 per email address. And so we're in conversation about what are those options. But that is part of the the shared practices recommendations. To really dive into that and make sure that there's a way for the public to contact people who are participating in advisory bodies while also protecting their privacy and wishes as well.
33 Thank you so much.
34 Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Koyama Lane.
35 Thank you, council president. Councilors. When this ordinance was originally drafted, it had set a three month deadline and at that point, thinking that this would be coming before council in December. That's so it says January 28th on there. And I'd like to offer an amendment to give our city administrator more time and change that date from February 20th 8th to may 29th. So I'd like to move to amend the ordinance to read. The city administrator will report back to city council in a work session by may 29th, 2026 to discuss.
36 I'm sorry. Second.
37 To discuss and receive feedback on implementation priorities and the proposed implementation plan. And thank you for the second.
38 Sorry for interrupting.
39 No, it's fine, councilor Ryan.
40 Great.
41 We now have three amendments on the table for consideration. Councilor Kanal.
42 Thanks. Council president, is it okay to ask technical questions about the amendments?
43 Absolutely.
44 Okay. So I am broadly supportive of of the I guess this tcl three now for Dunphy. Tcl two. I just wanted to clarify the word choice here is that it must have that that abc must have meetings open to the public, even if they're not required to under Oregon public meetings law. And I'll just want to note Oregon public meetings law is much more broad than simply accessibility to the public. So just that the intent was that the public can that the meetings are open to the public, not the entirety of the law.
45 Absolutely, yes.
46 Great. As we are continuing to ask the state to make improvements to that law, I think that's a really good central place there. The other piece for Dunphy tcl1 I wanted to ask about. There's one word in here that I have questions about everything else I broadly support and it's qualifications, and I just wanted to to ask about what you intend intended to be put into that, as well as who would be the arbiter of that in terms of how to what those are, whether they're relevant and how they're categorized or characterize it.
47 Yeah, great. Thank you. Specifically, the intent of using the term qualifications is not in any way to imply a preference for experts, but rather clarifying how each individual's background or perspective aligns with the enabling legislation, demonstrating our commitment to public accountability for including a wide range of perspectives. I ultimately the appointment side of it, you know, the to verify that this happens properly would be coming to council. When we appoint we make these appointments. But the expectation is that this would be noted earlier in the appointment process as well. And a consideration as as people are applying.
48 So I broadly supportive of that. I am concerned that that word would be interpreted solely for professional experiences and things like that. When many of the advisory groups, including most of the ones that I worked on, had a a very clear set of goals around having lived experience, having representation goals in terms of restricting things like that. So I'm curious how we can I think for the first part of it, it's likely to be on the council president when the when the appointments come to council to ensure that that's adequately described in the legislation. I'm less concerned about that. But I guess for the second part, my question would be going over to and sort of to the administrator and sort of establishing legislative intent around this, that that breadth is the goal that when reporting here and just wanted to to daylight that question.
49 Absolutely. Yeah. Please.
50 Yes. I was going to say that's not an issue. We can do that.
51 Thank you very much.
52 Yeah, absolutely. I'll just reiterate it. That is absolutely my intent with this legislation. The legislative intent has been set. Councilor Zimmerman.
53 Question is for you, council president, you've moved one and two. I am noticing one through seven, Dunphy one through seven. And there are a lot or they're substantial. Were those already adopted? Are they moving or have you just come off of them?
54 Those there was a substantial amount of amendment conversation at committee level. A number of them had been. These last two were. In response to the community conversation, but without enough time to do it at committee.
55 Okay. So with one through seven, those are not currently up for anything.
56 The only thing, the only document under the exhibits and attachments is the top document. Proposed amendment. Dunphy Koyama Lane one and two January 22nd, 2026.
57 Got it. Okay, thanks. Thank you.
58 Colleagues. Any other technical or clarifying questions? No. Then, rebecca, can we please call any public testimony?
59 One person is signed up. We have vicki pain. Vicki's joining us online. Okay, vicki, you can go. You can go ahead vicki. Vicki you're muted. Sorry. Just having some difficulty unmuting. Looks like looks like our testifier lost their connection okay. Give us one minute to try and get them back.
60 Yeah. Do we.
61 Need a recess for a minute. We just sit here for a second. Nobody leave.
62 Their back. Vicki, you can go ahead. Vicki.
Procedural episode · turns 63–71
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
63 Okay. Sorry. One second. I'm trying to get my speech pulled up. Sorry. Hi. My name is vicki payne, and I was here a month or so ago and said I'd be back when I testified on specifically on the psr committee selection because this is a really big deal to our community. I just want to reiterate that, of course, we need diversity of voices on these committees and boards, but only including topic experts and people with lived experience who are more often than not involved with local advocacy organizations leaving out, quote, regular portlanders and other dissenting voices, does our community a huge disservice? Again, a committee full of yes people is no different than how donald trump and his ilk operate, and why we often see a lot of community pushback once we get to the actual implementation phase of these various committee backed projects. A few examples are our new form of government. While there are thankfully a few dissenters on the original charter commission, their voices were ignored and their dissent was that the commission was going too far, a sentiment echoed in the work of the committee that formed our new community police oversight board, when even former commissioner Hardesty said that group was going well beyond the scope of what the ballot measure asked for. Now that these things have rolled out to the public somewhat, we are seeing the community not enjoying several pieces of the end result. And back when I was a low income renter without a car for over nine years, I tried several times to get on a different PBOT committees for walking, biking, and riding transit. I never see people like myself on these committees. Someone who could be a great voice for what? Regular people who aren't bike activists want to see if you want to get them on their bikes. Over a decade later, we still have not seen bike ridership increasing despite all of the annoying and frankly, unsafe infrastructure PBOT has spent millions on. And I have to wonder if it's because we fill these committees with yes people to push our fun ideas forward and wonder in the end why the community is unhappy and the intended results. More bike riders in this case are not coming to fruition. Metro and the city are seeing this happen once again. With the upgrades we're trying to bring to 82nd avenue. I attended a lot of those initial planning meetings, and there was a huge lack of community involvement during the initial planning process, so the current backlash is not surprising to me at all. The community based organizations that the city often pays to get the word out are not, in fact, getting the word out. And the advocates from these organizations who are placing on all these committees have an agenda to pass just because they claim their org represents the community. I think we are seeing in real time, those communities are very small bubbles that thousands of regular portlanders do not have the time for, as they go about their day to day lives. So please consider the verbiage carefully in these documents as you are codifying something that should be a big deal. The current status quo basically tells the community that these committees on boards are just a virtue signal to pretend you've engaged the residents who care, while pushing forward ideological projects that do not truly represent the larger population of the city. Thank you.
64 Thank you very much for being here today.
65 That concludes testimony.
66 Excellent, colleagues. We're going to now move into council discussion, and we'll then move to vote on the amendments. Councilor Avalos.
67 Thanks. Thank you. Hold on. I gotta scroll back up to my notes. Thank you so much for this work. This is definitely long overdue. I strongly support creating a clear city code for appointed boards and commissions and committees. And I say that not just as a councilor, but definitely as somebody who's personally served on these boards, like the citizen review committee and the charter commission, advisory bodies are one of the most meaningful ways that community members can engage with our city government. And what I appreciate, appreciate about this code is the clarity and consistency that it begins to bring across various different advisory bodies. I see that it is setting some shared expectations so that these bodies can function more transparently and effectively, and this code rightly treats advisory boards as substantive, not symbolic. They help shape policy. They strengthen accountability. They build public trust, but only when they are clearly structured and well supported. I also appreciate that this ordinance reflects years of work, including past council direction, charter reform, feedback, feedback from people who have served on these bodies, and for those reasons, I support the ordinance as an important step towards stronger and more accountable, community centered governance. That said, I do want to flag one area that feels underdeveloped in the code and that's support for advisory body members themselves. This is something that I experienced a lot when I was on the board. I want to better understand what support exists for when members face conflict complaints or potential discipline. What standards are advisory board members being held to, and how clearly are those standards communicated? I know from my personal experience, I experienced a lot of hostility and racism from other members and was told that I did not have access to the tools of the city, like hr or any other kinds of mediation or conflict. There were no standards for consequences for people who behaved in such ways, and it just felt like I had no where to go. As a member who was volunteering in this big, you know, enterprise and had no resources allocated for advisory board members. So I just want to understand, you know, our members being held to expectations, similar to city staff or hr professionals, and if so, what training and protections come with that? I'm also interested in what access advisory members have to city resources when these issues arise, whether that's guidance, mediation or administrative support. And, you know, these are about implementation, not objections to the code. I definitely support it. But as this moves forward, I want to make sure that we're not only setting expectations, but also meaningfully supporting the people that we asked to serve. So I'll turn that into a question, which is, you know, how do we see support for advisory board members being reflected? From my read of the code, it didn't I didn't see that pop out. So if I'm missing it, if it's in there coded in a way, I'd love to hear that. But if not, I want to ask why that wasn't included, and I don't know who should answer that.
68 I can tell you that. I mean initially, and I'll look to our experts in the room, but I my initial understanding of that specific question is that those kinds of specific details need to come through administrative rule, and that should not be in code, especially because some of them are mayoral appointed boards versus council appointed boards, and that we will have another opportunity to to see what to ensure that that will be happening. But I just want to look to the folks in the audience, maybe. Amanda, welcome back.
69 Thank you. Don't go far.
70 Yeah. Thanks for the question. That was something that came up in a couple of different conversations with the internal work group, and I think it was councilor Kanal maybe that suggested this section around member conduct. So 3.4060 and it's it's pretty high level because that's the code element there that references the bureau of human resources. But more detail around how that will be operationalized will be in the administrative rules as those come forward.
71 And I think part of it, too, for me is like, are there financial resources being allocated? Because I think that was the other inconsistent thing. I mean, it kind of speaks to what I said earlier about how not everybody had emails because we couldn't not everybody could afford to pay that, that city expense for the emails. So is there some kind of standardization for access? I think it'd be. Maybe a solution could just be that there be a big pot of dollars that they can access for their needs. I don't think that they have to be exactly the same. But what does it look like for boards to have resources, which could be emails, but also could be conflict or mediation, or if they're using the city's resources? I mean, that comes at a cost, right? So how are we paying for that? You know, hr's time or city attorney's time? I know I had lots of times that I had to talk with the city attorney's because I was on the crc about things that were specific to the work, but also to the interpersonal interactions we were having.
72 Yeah. So that is part of the you're you're absolutely correct. This is an issue that comes up a lot in a lot of different spaces. And because of the inconsistent nature of how we've been doing, the advisory bodies across the organization, there isn't shared practice or universal thinking around that, but that is part of the intent of the recommendations from the report and really working towards those shared practices and the implementation plan, as well as in the administrative rules. In terms of like a dollar amount, we know that there will be resources associated with this. We don't have an amount yet, as those actual practices haven't been developed and will be will happen in concert with the internal work group as well as in the administrative rules discussion.
73 Got it. So then based on council president, what you're saying, are you saying that after we pass something like this, like what? We're turning then to our city administrator to decide that, I guess, what, in what way can council be involved in shaping that?
74 So that yes it is. Sorry. Do you want to okay. So yes, that will be part of the administrative rules. But that in the councilor Kanal amendment for us to come back, that's on February 28th, which now has been proposed for a later date. It's to share the the implementation plan, a draft of that, and then get your feedback and priorities in that discussion. And that will influence the administrative rules as well.
75 Okay. Yeah I think. That's helpful to know. Not as comforting as I would like because again, we know we're passing the code. And that's, to me, a big part of what I'm hoping that this reform does is to provide those kinds of resources. But I guess I can stay tuned for that next phase. Anything you want to add, administrator? Okay.
76 Not at this time.
77 That's good.
78 Hold on. Let me just make sure I think I had one more question. Yeah. And then the other question I have is around just trying to understand the way that the authority works for dissolving the advisory boards. I think it you know, it states that like the mayor and the council can create and abolish, I think is the word that it has in their boards, but it's not really clear on the the why or the how or what criteria we're measuring that off of. And also because we're adding these sunsets, which I think is a good idea, although then it makes me worry that there's this there's going to be this like administrative burden of like, like, are they going to be coming to the council every four years? And it's like all of these boards need to be re-approved for another four years. Like, help me understand what that churn is supposed to look like administratively.
79 Yeah. So for the periodic review, which I think is encompasses what you're asking about, that's a 25% of the board's every four years. And so we'll review those every four years. And that hope is that after four years, every board has been reviewed. Currently there are 91 in the recommendations in the report that service areas and the internal work group work group worked on there could that could result in a reduction of 18%, I believe is the number. The other piece of that is, of those 91, only 57 of them. Does the city have authority over. So 34 of those are things the city doesn't have authority over. And so there will be a process to do this periodic review. But some of them, we won't be able to do really anything about, depending on which boards those are. But that is the intent to come back every every year with a, you know, recommendations or review around those. Share that with you.
80 So is that then also something like an administrative rule as far as like what is the process for making the decisions on what needs to go or stay.
81 Yes. So I would probably would refer to sarah, I think for the legal pieces of that, but yes, the for the process, the process for making decisions around that, for the boards and commissions that the city has authority over, and then whether that authority is mayor authority or council authority. Because it's it's all manner of them is the short answer there?
82 Okay. Let's see. I think that's all for now. Thank you for answering my questions.
83 Yeah. Councilor. Ryan, please.
84 I think that we we had conversations about the first one. And when you come back in a few months, I think explaining the consistency of support, what we lack is, is that so I think some boards and commissions and our staff really well and they receive a lot of support. It could go hand in glove with maybe the ones that aren't really that active, but we had an inconsistency in that dialog was took place. So I think when it comes back we have to talk about staff training so that the sport is more consistent and so that everyone that serves on these would feel equally welcomed no matter what bureau it's in. And so that did come up in dialog. Thanks for bringing it up again. Yeah.
85 Thank you. Councilor Ryan councilor Kanal.
86 Thank you. Council president. I was the council's representative to the internal workgroup on this, and I was great to work with everybody who has already been thanked and who I've had the chance to work with in the past as well. I wanted to just quickly cover a few things. So with relation to the email, it says on its page 42 of the report that all abc members will be provided a city email address and are expected to use the city email address solely and consistency consistently for all abc related business. It's a really important thing to try and follow up on. I don't personally think that that the existence of an email address, it does seem more administrative. I think we've drawn the line a little bit higher in, in terms of more things being on the administrative side and less things in code than fewer things in code than we should. But that one does feel right to me. I will say that we have later on in the report, there's an entire section on continuous improvement, and that relates to some of the things that we're talking about here, not the email address, but some of the other pieces of it. And that's part of why the amendment that we adopted in the amendment that the governance committee adopted, that I wrote for the while it was in committee, had that the continuous improvement section would be a part of the next steps here, and also the work session that was scheduled for February and may now be moved to may. That also talks about the cycle, the four year periodic review, which I think is a really important part of this. And the biggest issue with that, and one thing I'd like to see if should this ordinance pass, is that the rest of the advisory groups, the 91, are that this applies to are actually a smaller subset of the overall number, and the ones that are least likely to follow some of these standards are actually the ones that aren't on that list. And so that's that's a goal of mine, is to to start expanding that in. There's several others. We had a list that came up. This is the fifth iteration of the advisory bodies, at least in project in the fourth round, which I was involved in, in my old job, there was a much longer list. So that's that's a goal there. Getting to the amendments, I have thoughts on the underlying ordinance, but I think we're technically an amendment discussion, so I'll keep it there. I think that the date is is workable. Three months is what what was asked for. Then obviously it was the previous administrator. But if I'm seeing city administrator lee nod that three months is good, so I'm good with that one. I think the question around these other two I've asked the clarification ones, but. Where I'm at on the the second one is is great. We have had an issue with and that's actually particularly relevant again, for the groups that are not on the list of 91 having access to the public or even awareness of who's on them. This has been a challenge that that we have not yet addressed. But there are this is a step in the right direction by applying it to the narrow subset. And as it relates to the first one, I'm going to trust that that is sufficient protection for the concern I have on this one. And so I will be voting yes on it. I do think that we should eventually establish a practice of getting more of our abcs to be confirmed by council, the ones that are, if it's not important enough to have it be daylight here, then it may not be important enough to have the body at all, is my argument. So I would think that at least through a report, and it could be a combined report on a few of them, that seems like a good idea going forward. But in the meantime, having these standards for those in each category makes sense.
87 Thank you.
88 Councilor Kanal councilor Zimmerman.
89 If we're just an amendment, I'll hold till the more open. General.
90 Okay, great.
91 Thank you. Is there any more debate on the amendments? Okay. Rebecca, can we move to a vote on Dunphy? Koyama Lane one, please?
92 Just to clarify, we're voting on Dunphy. Koyama Lane one and two. They were moved.
93 They were moved together. Yeah. Great. That'd be fantastic. Excellent. One fewer vote.
94 So this is just to clarify, Dunphy. Koyama Lane one and two. Yes.
95 Avalos I.
96 Smith.
97 I.
98 Kanal I.
99 Pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I amendment two are approved with 12 votes.
100 Thank you. And can we move to I guess we're calling it Koyama Lane three please.
101 Yes.
102 Actually repeat it because I, I don't know what it is anymore.
103 This is the date change updating the date so that we have or allowing the city administrator three months from now rather than from when we introduced it in December.
104 Okay.
105 Correct. Okay. Can a point.
106 Of information really quickly just clarifying this would be a work session, but it could be a work session if given that it'll be in may, if this amendment should pass and there may be a committee of the whole by then. Okay, I'm seeing knots. Thanks.
107 Okay. Voting on Koyama Lane three.
108 Avalos I.
109 Smith I.
110 Kanal I.
111 Pirtle-guiney I Ryan I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark I Green. I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I amendments approved with 12 I votes.
112 Great colleagues to the underlying amendment underlying resolution or ordinance. We will not be taking the final vote on this because this is a non-emergency ordinance. But any further debate on the now amended ordinance? Counselor Zimmerman.
113 Thank you. In section 3.4 and point six, it's about abc member conduct. My question is going to go along the lines of the reads that members of abc are public officials. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So some bodies advise, some bodies make decisions. I am I am curious, going along the route that councilor Avalos was bringing up in terms of accessing legal advice and what it means to be a public official and what duties come with that, because there are so many different. I mean, I appreciate those of you that worked on this, right? There's a lot of housekeeping, but also housekeeping is important. And there were three pages of advisory boards in this. So whenever we can sunset some, I'm probably a big fan of that, because I think that advisory boards for temporary projects make a lot of sense, but it's time to close them down when that project's over. But sometimes we can just keep things going for feel, feel good reasons. But public officials is an important term I'm trying to understand here, because we as public officials have a duty to. Conduct ourselves. And make decisions based on everything that makes us who we are, that got elected to these positions. I guess I take that to mean the same for those who are appointed, that they're going to have to make some decisions about how they use staff information, how they use public information, how they use legal advice. So. Does a public official who's appointed to an abc have discretionary decision making authority for how to interpret or to use the information that they are made privy as a member of that board? Because I'm I'm trying to understand if we are calling them public officials, that seems like they have some independence. And independence comes with independent decision making. Or are we asking people to be our agents to do in our light, but on our behalf? These are different roles a little bit, and I was hoping that I don't know if we have attorneys who are able to answer that, or if miss garcia snell is. But what do we mean by the public official that independence and their decision making? I'm curious how they'll interpret that and what they're due for, right, in terms of their own indemnification and all those types of things.
114 Good afternoon. Council president, council vice president, councilors heidi brown for the record, acting city attorney, I'm here with deputy city attorney sarah ames, who's been working on this project. Thank you for her hard work. So between the two of us, we'll answer your questions. Councilor I'm going to turn it over to sarah to talk about, first of all, the question of whether or not the public official let's let's start there.
115 The term public official specifically is a term of art that's used in state ethics code and reflected in ours as well. To say that when you have, you're bound by some of the conflict of interest or not receiving gifts that are from people related, you know, some of those issues. And so that's specifically around those things and make them mindful of their obligations. Of course, in another reason for the email question, they're also subject to public records as public officials. And so that's kind of that framework. So I think that's that piece okay.
116 And then I'm sorry.
117 So with that, they're generally comes when I think about a public official. I generally think that there's some inherent independence that we vest in that person on, on sometimes they're doing a duty on our behalf or because we want to our perspective to be at a discussion board, a decision board, an advisory board. But in that, I guess there is some expectation that they are they are they have agency for how they use the information, the discussion, their position to advise best as the duties are written into that, into that board. Am I understanding that right versus an employee takes orders right in, in an authoritarian way, like they follow a rule, they have a role and and they have to follow the company line, so to speak. But these bodies are not so much that we're asking them for. Their independent agency, so to speak, is how I'm taking the use of public official.
118 I would say there is there's some of each. So, for example, when we have our advisory boards and commissions, we do expect them to follow our anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation rule. You know, they sometimes get as councilor Avalos spoke earlier, sometimes they get legal advice from our office, and then that's covered by the attorney client privilege, to which they wouldn't be able to waive it. But also balancing that with that they do have outside of those sorts of things, then, yes, of course, you are asking for them to bring in their external experience from the outside and provide advice to the city from that lens.
119 Okay. Where, when, when there's an you know, councilor Avalos alluded to some of it, but I am sure with with three pages full of advisory boards that there have been conflicts through the years in terms of people thinking this is part of the board's role or this is not part of the board's role, or where a member where there are membership, interpersonal issues, which I find quite uninteresting. But I know it's just a fact of life that that's going to happen in any group of people where where those types of conflicts come up. Who is the decider in those situations? Is it the staff representative to that organization? Is it the chair or chairperson of that board? Is it the individual member who, like me, I take all the advice that hr and the attorneys give me, and then I make my decision and how I do it. Is that the way that these members who are appointed from the public, or does the staff make a call when those points of conflict occur?
120 I can I can at least tell you from some situations in the past where we had allegations of, of of discrimination lodged against a committee member, you know, our office worked with hr and with a then commissioner to talk to talk to. This happened a couple different times to talk to the board member about whether they wanted us to bring that matter forward to council, to make a decision about removal, if that's the appropriate process or whether it goes to the mayor. In the instances I'm thinking of, they voluntarily resigned rather than have that public process, just given the concerns that were raised. So it's not really it's not really that individual's decision about that for. And then also like for the attorney client privilege information, it really is a city that owns that privilege. So, you know, like the mayor may make a decision to waive the attorney client privilege or, you know, when we're giving legal advice that's cross counsel, than you all might decide to waive the attorney client privilege and open that up. But at least in that context, you maybe have talked hopefully to our office about what does it mean when you open that door? What are you opening? How wide are you opening it so that you understand if you waive it, what that means, but it doesn't reside in individual board or committee members.
121 Okay. And last one, mr. President, I think I think right. So in the case of the conduct or decisions that are made by a board or commission member who is a public official, and we we said earlier Oregon government ethics commission, if a. If a concern arose around things like public records, does the city own that situation since we are the ones who who initiated or or we brought into existence that board, or is it the individual members of the public who we've asked to volunteer for us, who own those situations? And I don't mean so much in the gift category, because I believe that's so darn clear. But in the category of public records, where I think we have a duty as a city to, you know, archive, and ours is probably more robust, frankly, than any other government I've seen in Oregon. But. Who runs and who has the duty to to protect those records or to live up to those requirements, the individual or us as the entity who started the board or owns the board, so to speak?
122 Both. I would say to the extent that individual, individual board and commission members, as public officials, have an independent responsibility and ethics obligation under the law to follow those rules. So to the extent that the an individual committee member were to violate the ethics laws, they would be individually at risk of being severely penalized by ojek. And then also, we'd look at it within the city of whether that violated our rules as well. But but then additionally, I mean, the city has some responsibility. So hopefully we have set it up in a manner that we can retain those records. I would also note on public records, it is criminal to destroy public records. So that's also an individual liability that somebody would have if they were to, not to to destroy a public record or not retain it the way they're supposed to. So it's it's a serious issue that we try to train our, that I believe we train our boards and commission members on that. Those two things they can have individual liability for, and they need to be careful about that.
123 Okay. Thanks. There are a lot more public officials in the city of Portland than I think any of us acknowledge or recognize every darn day. So thanks so much, and I appreciate the time, mr. President.
124 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
125 Thank you, council president.
126 I will just note, because it's come up twice now, that there's a whole section in the report that we're not approving, but that is part of what's posted today around how bureau of human resources should be involved with members of abcs. So there has been some thought on that. That is a part of the report that I very much agree with colleagues. I did want to note that one thing that I said in committee that I think is worth repeating is that I don't actually agree with every part of the report, but I think what we're being asked to do is adopt the code changes and acknowledge the receipt of the report. So I was happy to be supportive in committee and will do so today as well. But I do think that there's a lot of work to do as we move through that work session and some of our the upcoming ordinances or resolutions that I think we may receive to make sure that we get this right. I do appreciate all of the patients that our staff have had with us. This is something that we spent a lot of time on in committee, and we had many iterations and just want to express gratitude to folks on the staff side who worked with us through those many iterations to try to get right what we have before us today. We need to standardize and professionalize our practices around abcs. That's not something that we did in the first part of changing to a unified government system like this. This is the first step in that, and I'm sure there will be more. And I am glad that we're able to at least get this part done today. So thank you all.
127 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal.
128 Thanks. I supported five different advisory groups in my job. On the other side, they had appointments that were all different. One was by council, one was by the mayor through a report to council. One was by the mayor without council council confirmation and two were one was a hybrid of council and a bureau director. The last was just the bureau director. In none of those cases was the staffer who was assigned to it, the arbiter. And in multiple of those there were raised complaints about conduct. And so I hadn't actually shouted this out, but there was a subgroup of one of the the quarterly meetings that that ocean used to run that worked on volunteer conduct. So, maya spencer, there's a bunch of folks who were involved in it, but a lot of folks did really good work there. And julia took some of those notes, I think, as well as amanda, to help build this section, which is on page 43 of the section that councilor Pirtle-guiney talked about. It is really hard when you are an advisory body support staffer, because you don't have the ability to take action directly when someone is doing something that is clearly problematic. And part of the reason why it's so important that this is in not only the report, but in the code that bhr step up is because, in my personal experience, I asked several times for bhr to get involved and they said that they were the right people to do it, but that they weren't going to do it because they focus on employees, but that under the system they'd be assigned to doing it. And that was really frustrating. So this is a really important part of the conversation. I do think that councilor Avalos point is broader than that. I think we do a good job in this code of dealing with the the worst type of situation and also ensuring the email thing, by the way, relates to councilor Zimmerman's question about public records, too, right? Part of the reason why it's so important for us to resource these things is to give enough to make it easier to do the retention and not make it on the individual advisory body member to go into their personal email and come up with all the relevant records. So these are all kind of related points, but there are some things missing here. We offer basic public official training out of, you know, out of the city when someone is is first appointed. The city attorney's office has videos and modules and things like that. But there are more that we could do about the interpersonal conduct things. There's more that we could do about the things that aren't technically 2.02 violations, but are still problematic. And I know a couple of us have talked about that up here as well. So I'm viewing this entire piece of legislation as a first step to get something into writing that has outside of administrative rules, but in the context of actual, you know, binding law that has never been written down before. And I think that's really valuable to do, even though we haven't necessarily addressed everything there is to address, I think I'll probably save my broad, sweeping things about how great this is until next week or whenever this comes back for a second reading. But the very short thing that hasn't been mentioned before, I wanted to to say, is just how appreciative I am of the the openness to building a system through this process, not just making a fix. And that periodic review is so vital for that. Yeah. The I by the way, when the when the staff summary was given, I definitely brought up the convening and recognition event. That was my testimony. And I think it's really important that we talk about the good things too, and also give people the opportunity to meet each other across different groups to avoid some of the turf wars that have come up over is this or mission creep that has come up? Because that is a very common practice. Thanks.
129 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Zimmerman.
130 Thank you, mr. President. So I think that these points are well made and well placed, and it's. It will be a it will be a hard challenge to civic life to the city administrator that we don't engineer out conflict, because the very nature of an advisory board is conflicting ideas. And having heard over the last several years, members experience serving on boards in the city of Portland, I worry that we've gotten to a place where we are overengineering out conflict, and that wouldn't serve me well. And there are too many advisory boards that I'm not sure I value what comes out of them already because they are dogmatic. And so this is a thin line that has to be balanced between the topics that are being brought up by by councilors in terms of when things went awry and were were either offensive or poorly serving the city, and how to not send a signal that don't get on a board unless you're going to toe the line. I think those are important things that I'm hoping to see come out of this. And having served on advisory boards of different types across different governments since I was old enough to do it, I think I've seen all types, and it does feel like it has somewhat changed. Or at least here it has changed to where? Advisory boards are more conflict ridden today in ways that prevent the work from happening. That is concerning to me, and maybe that's a reflection of the greater political dialog of our times, but I certainly am looking for advisory boards that have conflicting ideas on them more than I'm looking for. Dogmatic. Yes, this is good for my advocacy, you know, widget. So your task is large ahead of you. But this is like I said to all of you from the governance committee who worked on this. I just want to say thanks again. I will definitely be supporting it.
131 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Avalos.
132 Yeah, final couple of thoughts. I think that, yeah, definitely conflict always occurs when you have humans interacting and making decisions. But I'll just offer some other perspective on this that in my last job we were, you know, talking about how we train community members to be part of these different kinds of boards. And because, you know, these are really important pathways into leadership, right? As somebody who was a student government advisor for many years, I saw often when you give people an opportunity to use their voice to learn how government works, it can grow their leadership and then turns into the people that are around this dais. So I really strongly believe in nurturing leaders who are on our boards because they become our future leaders in the city. And what I heard a lot from community members was that they struggled on these different boards, like we were putting them on these, these boards so that their voices could be heard. They struggled with not having consistent training to understand how to navigate the city. Right. So sure, there's like hr modules and all that, but it's like, how do decisions get made, you know, how do things work? Like there was a lot of discrepancies in how that kind of training was offered. And then I heard a lot that people felt that it was just really hostile, that they would encounter these experiences and have no recourse, and then they would be discouraged from wanting to join these sports. So I just elevate that as to give perspective of why it's super important that not only we're doing this cleanup work and, you know, there's all these little technical things that we're doing in this code change. But I do think there's like some culture work that we need to be doing to prepare these individuals to be successful, not only in knowing the job and understanding how to navigate the city and their responsibilities on their particular board, but also having the ability to, you know, have somebody to talk to when they're experiencing harm from their fellow board members to have some kind of recourse and consequences to have somebody that they like have clear chains of command. Because definitely I experienced that often. It would be like, yes, you're the chair of this board, Candace. So you have to figure out the conflict. And I'm like, well, I don't have any resources or tools to do so, and I don't really have authority to do that because I'm just a chair of a board. Right. So I'm just naming that as like, that's the the source of it for me. And so and what I was looking for in the code and I get that, you know, it can't exactly be spelled out there. But I just think that's why it's important, because we want to create spaces where people feel empowered. And that lack of culture work has meant a lot of people have strayed. And and lastly, I'll say, you know, this is a little deeper because, like, we just don't have money for this, but there's also not a lot of good parity among like whether that's pay some of the boards get paid. I remember I remember there was this one board member of some advisory committee and they were like, oh yeah, we get like $1,000 for something. I was like, what? I've been doing this for free. Like, what do you mean? So that was not fair. So there's there should be some pay parity but also like child services, right. Like are you going to have child care available to you or if you're going to be required to do these evening meetings, are you going to get dinner? Like all of those kinds of things really contribute to people's accessibility to serve on these boards. And I get that. That's a bigger question. So I'm not raising it to say it needs to be in this code, but I think it's something we need to consider as far as how we resource these. I guess the office, if you will, so that they have money to do things like making sure people can receive some kind of compensation if that's appropriate, making sure that people I know like on the crc, we would get refunded for our parking, for example. So those little things, they really add up over time. And again, I don't want these boards to be full of people that just have all ample time and money, because then we're not going to get the diverse perspectives that we deserve. So that's all. Thanks.
133 Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor Kanal last word.
134 Yeah. I just wanted to say I think ocean might have left the room, but it was involved in helping fix some of the things you just mentioned on the the stipends and trying to ensure that there is a parity, at least in terms of a range, that that has an upper and lower end that's consistent across the whole city. So there have been a couple pieces of improvement. It could be better, but I'm grateful for that step because I was I was around when that happened. But I think it's that office, the civic life folks that made that happen. Thanks.
135 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. It now moves to second reading. Rebecca, can we please read items 13 and 14, I believe together. Is that what it is? Yes, 13 and 14 please.
136 Item 13 add code to establish a city data and privacy office. Item 14 direct the city administrator to establish a city data and privacy office to advance privacy protections. Steward data assets and minimize risks from data brokers. Uncontrolled sharing of personal information and secondary data use.
137 Thank you colleagues. This is a second reading of an ordinance and a also, I mean technically the second reading of the resolution, but I understand there are some amendments to be offered to the resolution. Is that correct? Councilor Kanal and Morillo, I want to turn this over to you to also to provide any context or comments about the next steps, and then we will move to adopt or move to vote on amendments and adopt the resolution today.
138 Thank you, mr. President. So I think I gave a preview last week of the the big amendment, which is Novick two. During the committee, councilor Zimmerman raised some good points about the ordinance resolution. As a result of that, we moved a segment of the ordinance to the resolution, removed some specific language like the word audit, to ensure we weren't stepping on any toes. We also worked with the administration after committee to refine the timeline on the religion ordinances, and to have some changes that are clarifications or elaborations on certain issues. One of my favorites is under recommendations, item three. It said, establish heightened protections in city contracts and procurement procedures to close loopholes permitting onward sale, release, transfer, etc. We changed that to establish heightened protections in future city contracts and in existing contracts. When amending original terms to reflect the fact that we can't necessarily go in and just amend a contract that is not being amended, that already exists. So we have, again, some clarifying timeline amendments in Novick two, we also had a request, and this is Novick three from the public safety service area to make some language changes in the section a three, a one transparency, oversight and community protection. One of the things which relates to. Traffic enforcement systems that collect or process license plate data that those bureaus need to publicly make publicly available. Any reports on the use of alpr, the public safety service area wanted to include in that report number of stolen vehicles recovered, which to give some context, they also wanted to add the report should include any known misuse of the system, which sounded like a good all purpose catch, which we should have thought of ourselves. So those are my two amendments. I also, as I'd like to move those, and also I think I should also move unless Kanal one, which is under exhibit a3c3, which now says the office of community engagement, with the assistance of the office of equity and human rights and in partnership with the city data and privacy office and councilor Kanal, suggested, in partnership with council and the city data and privacy office.
139 These are three separate amendments. Or are we moving them as one?
140 I yield to the to the better procedural understanding of the council president. I wouldn't mind moving them as one, but if we have to move them as three, so be it.
141 I think we have to point of information. They have to do at least the ordinance and resolution part separate.
142 Oh for sure. Absolutely. I thought these all the amendments were to the resolution.
143 I'll just say personally, I'd prefer that they not all be.
144 May I? I will say these as one of the key sponsors. I would say that these are all friendly to the resolution. They're technical language changes that were made with, you know, councilor Kanal I think is very small. The things that councilor Zimmerman proposed in committee are very friendly to me. And the the things that the bureau requested, I think are also perfectly fine and helpful to the language. So if we can take them as friendly, I feel fine with that.
145 Okay, since I see them filed as Novick two and three, but a separate one as Kanal one, I'd like to. I think we're going to do them all separately and just go quickly through them. Have the amendments been moved and seconded?
146 I'll second them.
147 Okay. They are all moved and all seconded. And councilor Novick just verifying reading. We have Novick two and Novick three and then Kanal one. Is that. Yes. Okay. Colleagues, any discussion around the amendments? Councilor Kanal.
148 Thanks. I second them all. I've had the chance to read Novick two. I obviously wrote Kanal one Novick three. I just wanted to ask because this one's new to me. I agree with all the additions. I wanted to ask why categorized by event offense type would be removed. And just if you could speak to that a little bit.
149 To be honest, I don't have a good answer to that. Let's see. Okay.
150 Basically, it was to ensure that the reporting on the api alpr usage wasn't too burdensome for the bureau as we're establishing this. So we did this in conjunction with pbb. It's a very reasonable amendment in my opinion.
151 Yeah. I guess maybe to put a finer point on the question, and I'm happy to be deferential to it if because it is friendly, but I just want to make sure I understand it. I think part of the question around alpr is, is whether or not the data captured is broader than maybe is widely known, and so the offense type, is it your feeling to both co-sponsors that the the offense type is not necessarily material to determining the expansiveness of the use of these technologies? I don't know if that question made sense.
152 And we do have folks from PPB available to answer. Okay.
153 So they already do categorization by offense type, which includes like bolos. It just won't go beyond that. So they scan for geographic areas. For some for some of the offense types.
154 Okay. Any further discussion on the amendments? Rebecca, can we please call the roll on Novick two?
155 On Novick two, which is for the resolution document number 2025 481.
156 Correct.
157 Avalos I.
158 Smith I.
159 Kanal I.
160 Pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with a with 12 I votes.
161 Thank you. Can we please call the roll on Novick three.
162 Novick three.
163 Avalos I.
164 Smith.
165 I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I amendment is approved with 12 I votes.
166 Thank you. And can we please call the roll on Kanal one.
167 Kanal one Avalos. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I and the amendments approved with 12 I votes.
168 Thank you colleagues. We now have two two items in front of us. They have been amended. Is there any debate to the underlying resolution or ordinance. We are on a second reading of the ordinance. And so we do vote on the ordinance today. But I believe we have to vote next week on the resolution because we amended it. Is that correct? No. I'm wrong. Heck yeah, I'm wrong. Don't listen to me, colleagues. Any other debate on the items? Can we please call the roll on the the first one? What is it? The the the ordinance, please.
169 Item o.
170 Or the resolution? Let's call the let's call the roll on the the resolution. Thank you.
171 On item 14. Item 14, document 20 2541. Thank you. The.
172 Avalos I.
173 Smith aye, Morillo Kanal I pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I clean. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I and the resolution is adopted with 12 I colleagues.
174 Is there any debate on the under on the ordinance councilor Ryan.
175 Yeah this isn't a debate. Thank you council president. It's more of a you know, you don't know what you don't know. So I really appreciate that you all brought this forward. We know that we're in budget constraints. So I was comfortable with the resolution side. I was less comfortable with the ordinance. And I did have conversations with people that were way above my pay grade in the tech world, and that was really helpful. And so they explained data governance in a way that actually, I didn't really hear it last week for some reason. And so it was it was quite helpful. And I just want to acknowledge that. I do hope that that city administrator lee helps the team follow the best practices that you learn from other cities. They all warned me about how expensive it is to to hire someone with this capability. You're nodding your head and try to keep the offices tight and efficient as possible, and really keep it in that narrow Lane, not so narrow, but narrow when in terms of the world of tech, about governance, which is very legal, which is political and it is operational. So I just want to thank those that brought it. I wanted to acknowledge it. Last week I asked have questions because it was concerning to me from a budget perspective, and it was really helpful. And I thank those, you know who you are that helped educate me on this important item. Thank you. I'll be supporting it.
176 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Smith.
177 Thank you, council president. I just want to go back to what councilor Dan Ryan was talking about in terms of the price, because I went and talked to some folks, too, and we had identified that $200,000 would probably be the data privacy person. And they were like, and I didn't think so either, because I was thinking more about 350 with benefits and everything, and that was a little cheap for this actual expertise. So I think we need to get together. When you all do the report, please. City administrator lee, please give us true numbers on what it's going to cost when you send the report back, because I think $200,000 is too low. Thank you.
178 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
179 Thank you, council president. I think I was the other person last week who expressed concern over passing the ordinance before we knew what the costs were going to be, and I want to express my gratitude to one of the co-sponsors, councilor Novick, who followed up with me with some good information about cost estimates beyond what we were able to hearing committee. So I really appreciate that. It gave me some confidence in this. I will add to what? Councilor Smith just said though, I think we absolutely need real numbers. I don't want to get numbers and then find out later it's going to cost more when we've already committed. But we also heard last week that we would see what it would look like if we did this without a cost or with a minimal cost. And I hope that folks can get creative and show us with with true trade offs on policy, what it would mean to do this in a way that doesn't have significant costs, so that as we get into the budget, which we know will be tight, we can have that trade off between cost and and what we would need to give up to pay for that, on the one hand, and the policy costs and what we would need to give up for this office. On the other hand, I'd like to really understand what we're working with before we make those next set of decisions. Thank you, council president.
180 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Vice president clarke.
181 Thank you, council president. I just say that we're going to pay one way or another if we don't do this, if we don't protect ourselves. Every day I get an email from my son who works in ai, who tells me what's coming. I'm like, please, no more. It's just really overwhelming what's coming at us, and we have to get ahead. I think we're behind the curve. And we talked about reading governing magazine and what all the other cities and states are doing around the country. We are behind. So we're going to pay for this one way or another. I don't mean to sound like the sky is falling, but I'm I'm willing to pay. Thank you.
182 Thank you, vice president. Clarke. Councilor Green.
183 Thank you, council president. Just really appreciate to the sponsors who brought this forward and are taking this leadership. This helps us modernize as a city. We're going to we're going to face some really tough budgetary challenges over the next five years. We know this. And having someone be able to step in and rationalize our tech systems and help us be better stewards of the dollars we already have, I think is going to pay dividends. So I'm really looking forward to having this person on board in this office. And I'll just note, you know, bonneville power administration has a chief data officer there, a gs 15 top of their salaries, $197,000 a year. So that's that's cheap compared to what the private sector does, but it's still public service. And people are drawn to public service for a reason. And they execute an absolute fantastic shop. So look forward to that and thank you.
184 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Novick.
185 I just wanted to take a minute to clarify some of the budget issues, and I apologize. Tracy warren sent me an email, sort of really laying things out a couple of days ago, which I should have forwarded to everybody, which reflected some of the things that she was saying last week in terms of personnel, we anticipate that the office would have, at minimum, a the chief data officer and four employees. We've already identified two people within bts that we think can be moved to be among the employees of this new office without significant loss of functionality. And the administration is still sort of looking, looking to see is there anybody else that can be moved, either to be the chief data officer or the other two positions that can be moved without loss of functionality in other bureaus? So there's sort of a range for the personnel cost of like zero to around around 700,000. Then there is and I do not pretend to understand what this is really. There's some technology capability had tracy's email says discussions with the technology team indicate a baseline need of $200,000 for azure dlc and nlg environments, microsoft premium support, and bts power b1 subscriptions to support these functions. That's the cost of that is, again, $200,000 ongoing, which they consider essential. And then there was a discussion about a city, about a data platform, which is desirable and which would help support the office, which would require approximately $970,000 in additional technology staffing support. That's desirable. It's not essential to stand up the office. I kind of think of this office a little bit like I do with pbem, where pbem is far smaller than it should be to be, you know, a state of the art emergency management office. And there's a lot of things it should have, but we're better off with pbem than no pbem. So that's kind of the way I feel about this. We're better off with this office even. It doesn't have all the tools we'd want than without it.
186 Thank you. Councilor Novick. Councilor Morillo.
187 Yeah. Thank you all so much. I, I want to thank my co-sponsor, councilor Novick, for engaging in this work with me. I think it's really important. And at a time where data privacy is also being used against regular people by the federal government, it's more important than ever before. So I'm really proud that our office is we're able to work together. Our staff were able to work with bureaus and all of the folks at the city who led the charge on this years ago, and never had counselors who were willing to really engage with the work and push it forward. I also really want to give specific thanks the utmost thanks to the data governance and privacy staff. Those folks at the city know more about data privacy and governance in their pinky finger than the rest of us all combined, and they deserve the utmost gratitude for all of the help that they gave us in doing the research and pushing this forward. So I'm really grateful for the work that was put into this. I look forward to the ways that the city is going to improve this in the years to come, and I would love to move this to a vote, unless there are any other hands in the queue.
188 Seeing no other hands in the queue, pausing for dramatic effect. Rebecca, can we please call the roll on the ordinance item 30?
189 We'll call the vote on ordinance number 2025 480.
190 That for.
191 Item 13?
192 Yeah.
193 There we go. Avalos I, Smith. I Kanal I pirtle-guiney I brian. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I and the ordinance passes with 12 votes.
194 Thank you. Congratulations counselors. Can we please move to item 15?
195 Item 15 accept removals from community board for police accountability recommended by administration due to ineligibility and cause, and appoint alternates to vacancies.
196 Colleagues, we have before us a report. I will note that the report before us is specific to recommendations for removal of members appointed either as members or as alternates to the community board for police accountability. Next week at council, there will be a resolution focusing on nominations to backfill. So that is not the conversation before us today. We are specifically moving towards a report from the administration on specific I guess actually originally three, but now two members who are being removed. One of the members who was originally flagged for removal due to ineligibility has, since the item was posted, chosen to resign. I have introduced an amendment that is posted Dunphy one in order to reflect to make reflect those changes to the reports and I would hold on, let me pull it up really quickly.
197 I'll second it.
198 And that was what I was hoping for. Was that councilor. Thank you councilor Kanal for seconding. Before we move to the full staff presentation, I'd like to move this amendment and take a vote on it to have the full underlying report adopted, amended before testimony. Colleagues, is there any discussion on the amendment? Dunphy. One, which again removes the name of a member who was slated for removal but has since resigned since the item was filed.
199 Who was the name?
200 The name was charlie. Michelle. Wesley. Okay, rebecca, can we call the.
201 Oh, sure. Oh, sorry.
202 I'm trying to understand.
203 When we when the item.
204 Are we just going forward with whatever's here? I'm not. It's the same outcome or. I'm not trying. I'm trying to understand who you're tracking. There's a few names I'm missing here.
205 Yeah, on the the document here. There are three names who have been listed as folks who have been eligible or who have been deemed ineligible. The middle one. We do not have to take action on her. We cannot take action on her because she has since resigned. And so.
206 I guess the reason I was asking is because there were some others here that say resignation.
207 Yeah.
208 We're not taking any further action on them right now either. They have since other there was yeah. Earlier resignations that this council has already heard about and we don't need to take action. My amendment specifically just removes them from the list of actions in this report. And add some clarifying language of why we removed them from that.
209 So point of information. This is just a cleanup amendment.
210 This is just a cleanup amendment.
211 Reflect what we're actually.
212 To reflect the actual actions that council will be taking today. Yeah. Councilor Kanal.
213 Oh, sorry.
214 Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
215 Just also on this cleanup piece, it looks like the document before us does list the members who have resigned since they are officially on the list that we have approved, and we need to take their names off of that list as having resigned. But what your amendment does is just changes the the reason for removal from the list that technically accurate?
216 I believe that is technically accurate. Yes.
217 Thank you.
218 Great apologies for confusion as we clean up this report, friends. Rebecca, can we call the vote on this amendment.
219 On Dunphy one, which was moved by Dunphy and seconded by Kanal? Is that accurate? Thank you. And Dunphy one Avalos. I Smith. I now. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. No and Dunphy. I and the amendments approved with 11 I and one no vote.
220 Thank you. Do we have a staff presentation on this. Oh here we go. Welcome. Tracy warren, our dca. I actually don't know your full title, but. Tracy warren. Yeah okay.
221 Good afternoon.
222 Council. Welcome.
223 We're just waiting for the presentation to get up. My name is tracy warren. I am the deputy city administrator for operations. The office of community based police accountability is within city operations service area. I recently stepped into the role of dca, helping to oversee this process and getting the board to its first meeting, which we are happy to say is happening next week. On the evening of the 11th. I want to give my appreciation for the dedication people have shown not only the volunteers for the board, but also all of the staff members and the council who have supported it along the way. I'd like to also acknowledge that there has been opportunities to refine the process and continue to think about how we move things forward. This has been new and complex, and there's lots of opportunities for us to continue to work together while also meeting city charter and city code. Next slide please. Today I'm going to give you an overview. We're going to have some background and eligibility process. And then we'll talk about membership including resignations and ineligibility. And then we'll move on to talk about board appointments to fill vacant roles. In front of you. You have a visual that gives a big picture of where we've been with this board and the nomination process. We started with a total of 121 applicants. We had 118 that were initially eligible. The nominating committee narrowed that then further through a scoring process, which meant that those who scored 60% or above were moved to voting with those folks who had the majority of the votes, six or more were put in front of council for appointment to the board. You all had 43 applicants or you had 40 applicants. Excuse me? Because between the 43 and the 40, there were a few who were no longer eligible. Of those 40, you appointed 21 members plus six alternates. Next slide please. We're going to do a little bit of a background around where we've been since you all appointed folks to the board because it's been a lather, a rather lengthy process. So in June of 2025, the city attorney's office conducted a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, at that time, we probably should have also been conducting a bias check. But there was some internal misunderstandings and we were not aware that the other one was not conducting that check. And so it didn't happen before it came to you all for board appointments, which means part of the reason that we're here today could have been avoided and will be avoided in the future, because we will do those checks ahead of time. In July of 2025, board members received information about the fair credit reporting act and signed forms. The goal of that was just to make them aware of that act, which is part of the criminal records check process. The criminal records check has language within the fair credit reporting act that folks need to be aware of before we run their criminal background checks, so they have to sign for that. But to be clear, no one's credit report was checked as a qualifying factor or eligibility to be on the board. In August of 2025, we began conducting criminal records checks with an outside vendor using an existing city contract. The use of a third party is required by city code. Next slide please. In September of 2025, after several months of working with the Oregon state police, we were able to get signed up for an official account with the state police to do the criminal justice information system background check. That is a requirement of the board members to pass in order to be able to have access to highly sensitive information related to the cases that we'll be hearing in the future. In October is when we received our confirmation that we could begin sending information to the Oregon state police and our coordinator, kristin thorpe, who's not here today. She's visiting her family, which is nice, began working with all of the board members to be able to get their fingerprints submitted to osp and have the cjis ran in January of 2026 is when we received all of the final stages clearances for the board members, and I began finalizing the determinations of the background, the eligibility and the checks. And then that brings us to February, where we're in front of you all today to talk about the removals of ineligible board members and filling roles with alternates, and then again with the first board meeting to take place next week on February 11th. Next slide please. Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the background eligibility process. So members and alternates went through the same screening process. Everyone had a social security number an address trace and reviewed county and state records based on results that helped folks to determine if someone had a presence within a certain state or city so that they could check further records, things like state criminal history checks, national criminal and sex offender database, federal criminal court employment verifications, as well as what we're calling a social media search, which included news articles, blogs and social media posts that would be utilized for a bias check. I'm going to turn it over to chief deputy city attorney heidi brown to discuss over the next few slides, the additional background and eligibility process.
224 Good afternoon again, council heidi brown, city attorney's office. If we could have the. Oh thank you. We are on the next slide. So there were some parameters given to the outside vendor for what to look for for bias. And so there was one for bias demonstration of bias for police to give some some ideas of what could reflect that. That wasn't a final decision making criteria, but was at least gives gives some parameters for the outside vendor. So these were the bullet points that were considered for bias for police. And if we go to the next slide please. Thank you. The next slide was indicators that could demonstrate bias against police. The two indicators are relatively juxtaposing each other, giving each side of what could be biased for police and what could be biased against police looking for similar things on each end. Next slide please. As at the end of the background eligibility checks for the bias, the city operations deputy city administrator. And this in this instance, tracy warren. When we first started this, it was sarah morrissey reviewed all the bias check packages results for each member. Do you want to take it from here?
225 Yes.
226 Thank you.
227 Next slide please. So I want to talk a little bit about membership vacancies, resignations and ineligible members. Next slide.
228 A little bit because I thought you were going to talk about.
229 Community board for police accountability resignation. So you all talked about this a little bit in the intro. But this is for awareness. And we did send notification to council at the time that we had the resignations, but we had a resignation of carly edwards, charlie mitchell, wesley who are both members, and then harry shannon, who was an alternate, had resigned. Staff delayed the process of bringing information back to council because we wanted to make sure that we were able to get through the rest of the background check process before coming to council and asking to have people removed, and then added back in so that we didn't have to come before you multiple times. Next slide please. I'm going to turn it over to heidi to talk a little bit about the prerequisites and the service training requirements for cba. Cebpa members.
230 So under the city code section that's on the presentation before you. One of the requirements is that cebpa members sign a confidentiality agreement. In addition to being in our code. This is also a requirement under the d.o.j. Settlement agreement. There is also a provision under the under the code that that members complete all paperwork necessary to ensure access to city resources, including compensation and other support services. So those are the two code sections that we were working under, but specifically the confidentiality agreement. Next slide please. So under that provision, the dca warren is recommending removal of bob weinstein. And I wanted to address that the. The decision. Mr. Weinstein was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement. It's a pretty standard and broad agreement that all board members were asked to sign, and that we use regularly at the city for folks outside folks who are working on matters that might have confidential information that they have access to or restricted information, sometimes we have boards and commission members that are accessing confidential information. And so this is the standard form that we use for that purpose. So in this instance, the confidentiality agreement is important to cover one. They are accessing disciplinary records. Those dca warren is a former hr director would share with you are considered confidential by the city. And additionally there's state law related to release of those records that we have to consider before we we release that information. And in addition, there are training requirements, including training from my office that was covered as well. Some of it is about state law and might just reference the state law itself in the materials. But then there's discussion about what that law means, how it applies to the facts, and might be question and answers from board members around how how might that work? That was the whole purpose of that was to to familiarize folks with a number of the different laws that might apply in this situation collective bargaining laws, constitutional rights around due process, and other similar rights. So we had a the confidentiality agreement that all members were asked to sign, and all members did sign except mr. Weinstein. We engaged in I engaged in conversations with mr. Weinstein in an attempt to resolve his concerns and address them. Unfortunately, mister weinstein wanted to make a determination about something about whether something was covered by the attorney client privilege. And those are the kinds of decisions that our office makes around when we review documents for attorney client privilege, we determine whether or not that's covered by the privilege as an initial thing based on that conversation and then a subsequent conversation with another attorney, my office, we were unfortunately unable to resolve that, and he wasn't willing to sign a confidentiality agreement. And therefore dca warren brought his name forward for removal. Next slide please.
231 So the community board for police accountability eligibility requirements. The following individuals are not eligible for service on the cba. And so it lists out the different criteria an individual currently employed by law enforcement agencies. An immediate family member of an individual currently employed by a law enforcement agency. An individual who has demonstrated bias for or against law enforcement, and an individual formerly employed by a law enforcement agency. Next slide please. This just lists out the city code that outlines the council's responsibility for removal, which is why we are bringing it to you all. The city council may remove a cpa member for cause. Cause for removal may include, but is not limited to. And then the portion that we're about to talk about is objective demonstration of bias for or against police. Next slide. The following members are deemed ineligible. We have skylar halsey. We are requesting the removal of skylar halsey for cause based on a demonstration of bias against police. Next slide please. That concludes the portion related to the removals. I now have a section related to appointing alternates in vacant positions. I'm happy to go through that. Or I can pause so that you all can ask some questions and talk that through.
232 Great.
233 Let's pause there for a second if we can. Please colleagues, hop in the queue. If you have any specific questions about this section so far with regard to the removals that we are talking about, this is clarifying questions we're not debating yet. Vice president Clark.
234 Thank you, council president.
235 So I just want to make sure that the bias research that you did was all of the members.
236 That is correct.
237 Correct. All the.
238 Members, all of the members and alternates.
239 And the alternates.
240 Everyone was subjected to a bias book.
241 That's correct.
242 Okay. And I just want to make sure that I understand you, heidi, you mentioned some of the things that are included in the nondisclosure agreement. Could you just reiterate one more time what those specific items are?
243 The nondisclosure agreement itself is broad because we don't want to miss something that would be covered and not. So it doesn't list out everything. It's broadly worded that you'll retain information as confidential and restricted and and that they're not allowed to release that information. So but some of the things it does specifically call out are training and and I believe if I remember right, I was looking at it last night, but I believe it's also disciplinary records because that's what they're going to be working with. And so so those are two of the things that are specifically covered. To the extent that the information is confidential. And so I can't recall, I can double check on whether attorney client information was specifically called out in it.
244 Is that is the training just merely an overview of what the laws are that pertain to this topic?
245 The training covered a number of topics. The training covered collective bargaining laws. It covers discipline. It covers how arbitration works. It covered how public meetings, laws, public records, laws. And within that, there might be a slide showing the law or city code section that applies. Or there might be a slide that gets into a little more detail where our office included specific information about the how the law is might be applied and how it might be interpreted. And then additionally, there was sorry. Additionally, there was ability for members to ask questions and receive answers. So the nondisclosure agreement, not only does it cover the materials, but it also covers the discussions that occurred within there. So this ensures that board members are able to ask questions, receive legal advice, and and be able to perform their duties. And I would note just for in case this is helpful, normally managers and supervisors have direct access to our office to ask questions about discipline, arbitration, what they need to be concerned about and legally, how how our office views the risks, the strengths, etc. Of a case. And in this instance, we have a new board and people who have not served in this role potentially before. And so and certainly not for the city. And so it was an opportunity to have that conversation as a whole rather than one on one, which was normally how we do it and how we educate people, managers and supervisors generally occurs more individually at the city.
246 So are you saying that the question and answer that takes place during the training, that you record that.
247 No.
248 You don't.
249 We do not.
250 Okay. I'm going to ask a question, a future question. So the board is new. This is all new to us. And they're going to have significant resources per the charter amendment. Is it possible that in the future that the, the, the administration of that board will be doing the training themselves?
251 I'm sure that we'll be doing some of the training themselves as far as legal training, our office does that across the city on a variety of topics. And then, as I noted, when managers and supervisors have individual questions, then we we meet with them individually.
252 Were you continued to do that training in the future for potential appointees or appointees?
253 I don't know that we figured out exactly how it worked, whether I'll have because as we move forward, then if we have a group of alternates get replaced, or whether it's let's say there's only one alternate that you replace, then I'm not sure how that would work before they're actually appointed to the board. So we'll have to figure out what will be the best way to do that. But when we're talking about receiving training on the law and how that applies, that is generally what our office does citywide. You know, for like, for example, public meetings and public records laws. We provide that training across the city so that I don't anticipate changing. And let me correct myself because that those two trainings were given those those are recorded, they're still considered attorney client privilege because we're giving legal advice in those. And then I attended there at the end of the that meeting to engage in question and answer for board members.
254 And so what I think I heard you say also is that in the training and talking about the law that applies to these cases, that you're actually offering some interpretation of the law, the risks, you said the strengths of a case that your concern that that be privileged information.
255 That's correct. So when you're looking at the materials themselves. So to be clear, the nondisclosure agreement covers not only materials but also any conversations that happen. So if somebody doesn't sign it, then not only are they refusing to, they're not agreeing that they'll keep something confidential, that maybe in a slide, but also the conversations that happen as well. So if there's ever a public records request for a training materials, then our office would go through it and determine what is what is attorney client privilege and what is not. If there's a reference just to a law or for example, in this instance there was a flow chart that showed how the process will look as as people file a complaint, like what it's going to look like. That was actually something that our office helped put together for a council session back under the old form of government, that that we would not assert privilege on. So it just depends. We'd have to go through slide by slide to determine which ones are really just citing to a law and a flow chart that shows how how the process works versus ones where it's an interpretation of the law and sharing about how how that works.
256 I appreciate that it may come back to that later. I'll stop at this point. Thanks.
257 Thank you, vice president Clark councilor Kanal.
258 Thank you, council president. I'm going to break up my questions and come back in the queue because I have a lot of them. Dca warren, I appreciate all the time you and your office have given, as well as the the nascent cba interim staff, ocpa interim staff. And heidi, we've talked about a lot of this a lot. And I appreciate the the bias language conversations we've had here. I wanted to just do a couple quick clarifications on slide four. It's the slide that says four of four up at the top. It talks about six people. But my understanding is that in addition, there have been actually eight total people who are flagged at some point for potential bias. Can you clarify if it was 6 or 8 over the life of this process?
259 I'll have to get back to you on that.
260 Okay, heidi, with relation to the confidentiality agreement, how similar is that confidentiality agreement to the one that community members who serve on the police review board or community members who serve on the citizen review committee have to sign?
261 I will be honest, I haven't looked at that one. There was another attorney supporting that, the crc and ipr, prior to my taking over that role six years ago. But my you know, our office has a standard non-disclosure confidentiality agreement that we utilize. And and so we we may go through it at times and fine tune it for a particular board, commission or situation, outside vendor, etc. But it's generally going to be a standard form.
262 Okay. With relation to the bystander. You've mentioned that it's based off of juror bias standards in the past for the state, and I wanted to just ask a little bit about that. To the degree that you can hear and feel free to tell me what can and can't be done in this setting. But my understanding is in terms of the, the standard for for rules, the actual bias on the part of a juror is something that would exclude them from service on a jury, but also that when they explain it, they talk about and I'm reading here from the rules of civil procedure, actual bias is the existence of a state of mind on the part of a juror that satisfies the court, and the exercise of sound discretion that the juror cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging the juror. I'm curious as how this standard ended up being not applicable to the individual circumstances like it is with the jury example that's often cited, but how? In the context of the cebpa membership, it's just broad bias for or against, and it's said in two different ways.
263 I think that language of bias is not defined. And to the extent that we want to further define it, then I think we would need to have a discussion with the union about that particularity. But using the court definition is a good, good consideration. And then in addition to that would be consideration of what is going to give this board, make that the best chance of being successful. If there's a challenge before an arbitrator, and if a, if a, if there's evidence that shows that somebody has made statements or reflected statements, maybe they have a t shirt, maybe something or social media post or repost that indicates a strong bias, that they don't believe any police are good, or the opposite, that they think all police are wonderful and perfect. And I've seen both that people are on each extreme. On the bias for police, then that will undermine the credibility of this board and the ability to hold people accountable when there is misconduct that needs to be addressed on the other end, on bias against police, that will undermine our ability to uphold any action, disciplinary action that is taken by that board, because that will be evidence that the union would use in an arbitration to challenge the credibility of that board's decision and the impartiality of that board's decision.
264 Thanks. And then the the I guess two questions here. After the decision was made to propose that council remove these two individuals and you can separate for the two. Could you characterize whether your communication with them, or maybe even after the initial report was received, was more notification, or whether it was more consultation? In other words, did the person have a chance to to come back and say, it's actually not that it's this and have a conversation with you in either of these two cases.
265 I would characterize it as notification. A determination was made and they were notified and and were provided with the details of what was considered.
266 Thanks. And then finally, you mentioned that there's that the bias checks hadn't been done. I think that's been talked about why that happened. We I think we're going to learn from it. And I appreciate you coming and starting with that. But one thing I wanted to ask is when was the process for the bias checks determined? I my understanding is that that didn't happen until after June as well, in terms of how the the process was going to go, which contract to use, what the look for would be, all that kind of thing. Can you speak to how that when that decision was made also how?
267 Yes. What I so yes and no. As you all know, I have recently transitioned into this role. And so part of the process was conducted by the prior deputy city administrator. What I can speak to is what I did once I finished up the process. So in January, when we began to get the checks back, I started to review the information for bias free review.
268 Okay, but the do you know if it was before or after June? And by June, I mean the date that that we appointed the the 27 people.
269 It was after you appointed. I do know that.
270 Okay. Thank you. I'll get back in the queue later. But that's that's it for now. Thank you.
271 Thank you.
272 Colleagues, I want to note that it is currently 4:00. We are behind. We have not finished the presentation yet and there are 14 people signed up to testify. And we have a hard out at 5:00. So if we can keep our clarifying questions concise, that would be great. Councilor Koyama Lane.
273 I'll take my hand out.
274 Okay councilor Green.
275 Thank you. When reviewing social media posts, was there any difference in how the investigators or you viewed the posts made by someone or by something that they posted? So are we distinguishing the kind of person who's doing the posting versus the thing that they're posting on? And was there any evaluation of of memes, irony, you know, so context setting, I guess that's my broad question there. And I understand that we contracted, I think with criminal background check for this. That's correct. So they probably did this evaluation. So the second part of my question is is this part of their book of business? Because I did look at their website and noticed that they don't offer this as a service. So I'm just curious how we got to hiring them to do this type of work and whether or not they have any expertise to evaluate social media posting.
276 Thanks.
277 Absolutely. I can answer that. And if I miss something, please let me know. So crc is a group that we have contracted with previously out of the bureau of transportation. And so they have done criminal background checks previously. And they offered this service. That is part of why we went with them. What they did is they went out and they used the predetermined criteria that we set, and they went out and they did a social media search, news articles, blogs, and they just pulled everything. That might be something that needs to be reviewed. And then it was up to us to review it and determine if we felt that it rose to the level of a demonstration of bias, either for or against police. I think I answered.
278 Yeah.
279 So they're so they're just doing the kind of dragnet of the posts. Correct. And then you guys are doing the sort of judgment call on whether or not it indicates bias.
280 Correct. Using the predetermined criteria that were set with the city attorney's office.
281 Thanks, thanks.
282 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Zimmerman.
283 Thank you. I'm afraid it will be difficult to make your timelines. Mr. President, I think there's a lot to this. So first off, I'm going to ask that we separate the bob weinstein question from the rest of the ordinance. I would like to take it up separately. And so that's where most of my questions are going to go. Is the cebpa a public body?
284 Yes.
285 Are the members of it public officials?
286 Yes.
287 Okay. From my conversations with mr. Weinstein, he indicated to me no concern about confidentiality as it relates to things like the salaries, which, by the way, are public. They get posted to personnel records, to the cases that they would be reviewing. But his concern that he conveyed to me was around some of these training questions that that you spent some time talking with councilor Clerk about. And state laws are also public. I actually just pulled up a collective bargaining agreement on the internet. It's public and. I'm troubled by the requirement e2 and g2 as being the thing that's used here as a reason to disqualify mr. Weinstein, because it's leaving me to kind of wonder if the conversations that happen at cebpa are never supposed to see the light of day, because I kind of thought that was the point of the cebpa. And so are we expecting that if any member from the cebpa ever discusses any case outside of that room, that you would be back here to immediately have them removed for violating a an nda or a confidential agreement? I'll just kind of start with like that's where my, like, world of concerns are going. When I when I listen to the explanation, given my conversation with him and just the very what seemed to me is a small part of the overall confidentiality agreement. So that's kind of where my my thoughts are going, where the pieces are not connecting for me. And I was hoping we could talk a little bit about that.
288 So I would just note that, first of all, the cpa will be meeting in two different forms. One is going to be as a full board 21 board member. And to the extent they're discussing board work, that will be a public meeting and open to the public, then all the all their meetings will be public meetings. And then the question is whether or not they will at times enter into executive session. And actually, I would say they will when they're engaging in disciplinary reviews and investigatory reviews of potential disciplinary matters, they will be in executive session. And that's what's contemplated within the code section. And this is because of the way that the laws talk around discipline and investigations and determinations. And so in order to address those laws, those matters are taken up in an executive session, and they should remain within that part of the code. Language states that officers and supervisors thereof who are subject to the the board, that they'll be referred to as employee a or employee b, and that the allegations will be referred to again anonymously. Allegation one. Allegation two and so when they come out to actually vote on whether or not somebody has engaged in in misconduct, they will come from their executive session to a public meeting to take a vote on it, but that it will retain some confidentiality for the employee in order to be in consideration of state law, as well as general confidentiality around not publicly shaming public employees and then going we go through a review if there is, if there is a point at which there's a request for a disciplinary record, similar to how we do now, where we review of the public interest in the information juxtaposed against the public employees interest in not being publicly shamed. So there will be there's a lot of work that the board will do in public, but there's also a lot of work that will be done in executive session because they're dealing with investigations into disciplinary matters.
289 That all makes sense. And that is not the area of concern that I heard from the candidate, though, on this, of that being the area for confidentiality, concern around what's public and not and what's not public record. I heard it more around the beginning part of the conversation about what is state law, how will the city attorney's office train this group of public officials on those state laws? And because there might be some venturing into legal interpretation, if we were to ask the city attorney to come in a public setting and give a similar presentation on camera and out into the public, would we alleviate that need to have that be confidential? Because now we've had that training out in the public, because I didn't get any concerns from the candidate. On the things that you listed about executive session, and maybe that's a mishearing by my part, but I, I got a commitment that the personnel records and the case records were, of course, confidential for that decision making, but it seems to be focused around what are the training materials. And I know that from other places. We've seen plenty of training materials from different bureaus, particularly police bureau get get released right, slideshows, etc. So what are we what are we keeping confident or expecting these public officials to keep confident in the room relative to just being eligible to serve? Because I go back to the slide that says who's eligible? And then there's a code piece about this confidentiality. And it it seems like it may be quite broad here. So what in the training is so confident, confidential that we're willing to dismiss a person for cause for it for, for not even agreeing to the nda.
290 Well councilor. Like I said, there are there are plenty of instances where I'll meet one on one with a number of folks where I would impart the information that was imparted in the training to managers and supervisors to understand how does the collective bargaining act work and my interpretation, or other attorneys in my office interpretation of how that works and how the process works and how arbitration works, and all of that is giving legal advice. If the you know, if if this council asks for legal advice, I think, you know, there's times where we will answer your questions and there's times where we'll ask to go into executive session or to give us time to meet with you one on one to address your question, in order to not waive the attorney client privilege. So like I said at the beginning, to the extent there's a request for materials to be released publicly, then I can go through that training or another attorney in my office can go through the training, look at what what is confidential and what is not, what is privileged and covered under that privilege and what is not. And we can release what is not. So if if there's just a citation to city code, obviously that's not confidential, but how that code might apply, that's, that's, that is giving legal advice on, on our offices interpretation of that law.
291 I guess. So we've set all together in many executive sessions. Perhaps I did, but I don't remember signing a confidential agreement with the city of Portland. And I know because I'm an elected official, maybe that's not an applicable, but I don't remember having any of the staff who've ever accompanied me to those executive sessions to sign one of those, I'm going to use ndas. I know that's not the right term, but even then, let's say we did. The question comes down to me a little bit about who is getting legal advice. And in this situation, since we've already said that they are public officials and they are a public body, that and I just want to note for a moment that bob weinstein is a former mayor of a town. He is a long serving former school district superintendent. We are not talking about a person who just found themselves into public service and volunteerism for the first time. We are not in amateur hour moment. So for just credibility standpoint, if we were in court, I'd call him a subject matter expert on some public records, at least in alaska. But I'm sure they're not that different here in Oregon. But the I guess what I'm. What I'm trying to say is, it seems I'm trying to decide is your legal advice to bob weinstein legal advice to him in his interpretation, in his role that we've asked him to take on as a volunteer on this board? And does he have a right to interpret your legal advice the way that I have a right to interpret your legal advice? Because there have been some times when I've gotten legal advice in my career to and I've disagreed with that, but I was fully aware of that advice and then taken action thus far. Excuse me. Thus far, I'm trying to weigh that a little bit because this seems. This seems I appreciate the interruptions in the room, but you can keep it quiet. Thank you. But this seems like an extension of a standard for a public official that is setting a quiet tone about the role of cebpa. And I worry about that, and that's why I'm going to separate the question, is he getting the legal advice, or is the board or is the city getting it? In this case.
292 The board is getting legal advice to act to act on behalf of the city under city charter and city code that we've established. And unlike all of you as elected officials, the code requires and the d.o.j. Settlement agreement requires folks to sign a confidentiality agreement. You're not under that requirement to sign a confidentiality agreement. They are. I'd also note for all employees, we have an administrative rule that says that employees must keep confidential information even after they depart. And so when they agree to work for us, they agree to be bound by that so that you don't have an individual employee releasing information that is attorney client privilege or is confidential and shouldn't be released, and making that decision on behalf of the city as an entity. So I think that, you know, you all are in a different position than these folks are given the the code language that applies to this situation. So it's it's slightly different. And then the question of who gets to waive the attorney client privilege, to the extent that our office is giving the entire. Counsel attorney legal advice, if one of you decides to waive that privilege and tell the question that another counselor asked, and the legal advice that we gave that other counselor, you all would need to deal with that, because you all are the only ones who can, can, can exercise any authority over each other. But, you know, but it would still, I think, undermine what you all, I would hope agree, which is that if you're going to waive the attorney client privilege for things that we're telling all of you as a group, that then you would want to have some consensus among all of you to waive that.
293 Okay.
294 Thank you, mr. President, for letting me take some time to figure out. I do want to stick to separating out the question, and I I'm thinking through whether or not it would be appropriate to ask mr. Weinstein what the what the part of the nda was that he refused to sign for, because my understanding was a quite limited part. And I am curious if if we can achieve the point of the cebpa. But also I think some of the training is important, for I'm not worried about training of members being public, that that seems a step too far for me in terms of what the intent of this board would be. And so I offer that up to colleagues, as you're thinking through your your questions and deliberations here. Thank you to both of you.
295 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman. Three things, four things. One, I see on the the sign up list that to your question, counselor Zimmerman, bob weinstein has signed up for public testimony. I will repeat also that there are like 16 folks signed up for testimony. Tracy, in the interest of time, because we are not talking about appointing alternates, we're going to move to the rest of that presentation later for next week. On the advice of the city attorney, counselor Zimmerman. Because this is a report, not a resolution, we need to offer an amendment to remove bob weinstein's name out of the adopted. Sorry, one more thing really quick because it is now 410 and we have 16 people signed up. I unfortunately have to reduce testimony to two minutes apiece. I apologize for that.
296 How much time did weinstein get?
297 Minutes.
298 One of information. Councilor Kanal can councilor Zimmerman not divide the report to to have a separate vote on bob weinstein? That's my understanding. And frankly, I would have asked for the same had it been not done.
299 I understanding comes from the city attorney's office, and I'm not an.
300 Attorney.
301 So whether the question to separate requires an amendment on a report or whether the question is separate is.
302 Yeah, my understanding is you're just going to vote next week to accept this report as drafted. So you would just go to amend the report.
303 No.
304 We're going to accept this today.
305 Are you going to accept it today? Sorry. Still the same answer. If you're just accepting the report as drafted, you're just going to amend the report to say exactly what it will say when you accept it.
306 Can't we divide the report the same way we would divide anything else? I'm going.
307 To I'm sorry to accept part of the report. So you're.
308 Separate votes on accepting these two parts I think is what am I correct, councilor Zimmerman, that.
309 Yes, you want to.
310 Accept the same outcome? I'm not sure the mechanism here, but thank you.
311 Sure. Yeah, I think that would if you'd like to separate the report and. Great. That is fine.
312 Thank you.
313 So, mr. President, I would accept whichever way. And thank you, councilor Kanal. You know, this is our first group of people that's going to sit this. And I guess I would encourage you, we don't necessarily have to accept this today. If to do it, we have to cut down public testimony. So I wouldn't certainly be in favor of the regular timing if you were able to.
314 Okay. Well, my hope is to get folks to three minutes. We still also need to hear from the city administrator with regard to the Portland housing bureau dollars. And we have a hard out at 5:00. So I am going to do my best to get us through this. Councilor Avalos, take it away.
315 Yeah. There are so many constraints on time. I'm trying to figure out how to approach this. Well, I do have a question, though, I don't know. Where'd you go? Come back. Was there a due process for the people who were flagged for potential removal? Like, did they get a chance to argue their case to you and explain their social media posts?
316 They did not.
317 They did not. Okay.
318 That's correct.
319 Well I will and then just process wise. I'm just so I have like things that I want to say and talk about. I guess.
320 We'll have time for questions.
321 Right now is clarifying questions.
322 I know, but are you are you thinking though we will do that because based on the constraints.
323 Yeah.
324 If we have to vote on this on another day to accept this report, that is what this council will have to do.
325 Is that where it's trending?
326 It is where we're trending.
327 Okay. I just want to get I just want to make sure I know when I can say the things that I want to say. I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
328 Thank you.
329 Councilor Kanal.
330 I'll wait till after.
331 Okay. Testimony.
332 I would like to ask that the people who are actually named in this get their time at minimum.
333 Yeah, absolutely.
334 I am going to undo my last sentence about three minutes and I'm going to or about two minutes. I'm going to allow folks to please do as timely of comments as you can, and we'll move to public testimony with three minutes. And hopefully we can get through this.
335 Apologies. We're calling testimony. Yes we have. First up we have matt levine, followed by philip shashka and thomas kaiser.
336 Thank you.
337 Thank you. My name is matt levine. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this ancestral occupied land of different indigenous peoples of the lower columbia river. You all have heard from me many times, and I want to thank councilors. Avalos, Kanal, Koyama Lane and Morillo. Whether or not you've heard me, it certainly feels like you've heard the communities that I come from. The rest of y'all, I haven't seen it. What I have seen is repeated actions that support the white supremacy, which has been the foundation of the us throughout centuries of stolen indigenous land and life, stolen black bodies, labor in life, and economic and military exploitation of brown people. The legacy of these racist practices has been on full display in Eric zimmerman's treatment of his colleagues and brian ohlendorf's behavior, and Dan ryan's connections to and theatrics to distract from those years. This racism has been the norm from day one of this new city council. At the first meeting in January 2025, I watched ten rounds of voting for council president, which seemed for many of you to be a game of let's elect anybody who isn't a person of color. Despite the fact that councilor Avalos was the objectively obvious candidate. Still, I have never been more discouraged by city hall than when I saw mayor wilson's in the city attorney's racist application of racist policies around bias to try to remove charlie mitchell wesley from the cebpa you seem to mistake wisdom gained from lived experience and activism for bias. I've worked on issues of justice with people around the world for the last two decades. I'm always unbelievably grateful that I've gotten to know and learn from the people I've been in community with throughout this work. I have never met anybody more dedicated to truth, accountability, integrity, and care for community than charlie mitchell. Wesley. Frankly, charlie has been a nonstop advocate for portlanders engaging with this council, and this is all while in the middle of charlie constantly engaging in mutual aid community groups, being matriarch to her family, and an inspiration to many of us. If charlie is biased, then I don't want to be unbiased. Thank you.
338 Thank you for being here.
339 Thank you. Councilors. My name is philip tchotchke. I use he him pronouns, live in district three and a member of Portland cop watch Portland copwatch is working towards a police bureau free of brutality, corruption and racism. One of our goals is to promote and monitor an effective system of civilian oversight of the police. And that's why I'm here today. People mourn differently. Some people get quiet and withdrawn, some sad, and some get angry and lash out. Police brutality and misconduct were on our minds leading up to the ballot measure that created the cbpa. The city felt stuck in a cycle that seemed impossible to get out of, unless there was some means to hold police accountability to the community. Many people in Portland mourn the betrayal and loss of safety they experienced when they were tear gassed or hit with pepper balls, or had their faces shoved against the pavement pavement by law enforcement. That betrayal and pain is difficult to handle in a healthy, compassionate human will very likely make biased statements against law enforcement. During that time, the former city council, against the recommendation of the pac and many people in the community, added to city code that a member of the cbpa must not demonstrate bias for or against law enforcement. The effect is the exclusion of community members who have experienced betrayal by the police, talked about it, and talked about it, but it rewards people who are unaffected by or feel indifferent to police misconduct. I believe this is not the intent of voters. When they overwhelmingly voted for reform. Some of you have recently felt betrayed by law enforcement in our city, including mayor wilson, who was who with has demonstrated bias against law enforcement when he told all immigration and customs enforcement officers to quit their jobs and leave Portland, mayor wilson would not be allowed to be on the cp cbpa because of bias. That's my point. Thank you very much.
340 Thank you.
341 Thomas kaiser's online. Thomas, you can unmute. Go ahead.
342 Yeah. Hi thomas kaiser I live in northeast Portland in district two. I'm here to mourn the forced resignation of charlie wesley from this board, and to urge you to reconsider the misguided standards for bias upon which this resignation was pushed, pushed upon her. Thank you to councilor Kanal for questioning the genesis of these biased standards already. I'm sure there'll be more of that discussion. I find it unfathomable. Unfathomable that you would consider police or exercising free speech rights against police misconduct as a disqualifying bias. This board exists with every failed opportunity to hold their officers accountable for wrongdoing, that they cannot be trusted to police themselves, much less our community. As we saw with george floyd and so many others in extreme distrust of police, is necessary for survival. For many in the bipoc community, the existence of this board is itself the result of acknowledging relying on the police to hold themselves accountable has been an abject failure, and we must stand up and be critical of improper policing and abuses of power. If we disqualify anyone who has shown the willingness to do this, to speak truth to power, to be a check on these abuses that have been well documented and throughout the history of the city, then there's no reason for this board to do. You all think speaking out against what ice is doing right now constitutes a disqualifying bias? That means you're not qualified on whether or not their activities are qualified. Would all of you council qualify for a committee accountable by these standards? It's truth. If you label everyone pacted by police violence, misconduct or racism as biased against police and remove all those voices from the conversation, you will have no one left to stand up against improper or unlawful policing.
343 Thank you for being here today.
344 Next we have hugh halsey, Dan kaufman, and sarah citron baum.
345 Welcome.
346 Hello friends. My name is hugh skyler halsey. I go by my middle name or by sky. I want to say before my prepared remarks that I'm really surprised that the meme and my facebook post weren't put up there that apparently disqualify me. I would give permission and love for that to actually be admitted. And what does god require of you? To act justly and love mercy, and to walk humbly with your god? I wish to first speak in solidarity with both bob and charlie. I wish I was as cool as they are. It has been over five years since over 80% of portlanders voted to form this committee. Cebpa. If it speeds up justice even by an hour, I make no petition against my removal from this crucial work. I use what's left of my time to remember some of those that in these five years, were denied the assistance of this committee, and apologies for my mispronunciation. These were all taken from deadly force incidents in custody deaths. Summaries of on Portland gov. Gray, tristan stockton, david dolan, darren r carr, robert douglas delgado, michael townsend, joshua lyle merritt, alexander tadros, andreas julian, pavel beyonce, brendan l keck, joshua w dejesus, joel, michael. Arevalo, matthew r leahy, jonathan. Worth. Unknown. Suspect. Aaron. Stanton, robert. Connolly, jeremy j. Rick. Antoine. Young, emmanuel. Jaquez, Clark. Johnson, jack. Watson, pontiac. Kane. Calais. Isaac. Seavey, tyrone. Lee johnson, the second matthew g. Greer, nicholas g. Thorne, jesse. James west, robert d seeger, patrick. Myers, richard sean. Perez, matthew. Holland, damon, lamar. Johnson, bo w davis, brian. Velasco, ruthless, robert d hatley, and, as of today, unknown suspect. Friends, regardless of your decisions today, please make sure that this committee meets and does the work of justice. Thank you.
347 Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
348 Thank you. Council president and councilors. My name is Dan kaufman. I live in district four. I am a member of iatse local 28, musicians union local 99. I wanted to start with the story of how I got to know charlie. Michelle wesley, one of the people who was being kicked off the police accountability commission today but has now resigned. I'd then like to speak briefly about the bias in some of my issues with the commission. Michelle wesley organized a blm protest on the corner of rosa parks north denver in 2020. It was a safer space for regular folks and families to protest for police accountability. During a daily protest, a right wing male agitator assaulted a protester. There. She was a young woman with a toddler, and she stood her ground. When Portland police association members arrived, they did not arrest the assailant. Instead, they blamed the victim and kindly gave him a ride home. Regular folks no longer felt safe at the corner. Protest and participation dropped off mark a win for Portland police association, but charlie did not give up her banners. Her protests, nor her bias bias her bias in favor of police accountability. She sometimes was at the corner all by herself. That's when I met her and learned more about her work, including on the police accountability commission and our lived experiences in our settler colonial society. As an indigenous indigenous woman of color. More than five years ago, 82% of portlanders expressed their bias in favor of police accountability by voting for measure 26 to 18. Since then, the council, police council, police association and others have done everything they can to take the teeth out of the pack recommendations. And still we do not have a functioning independent community police oversight board today, michelle wesley was kicked off the oversight board for bias. We all have a bias, whether it be unconscious or not. A couple of years ago, commissioner Kanal tried to set up guardrails around bias similar to jury selection. But the council didn't have an interest in this and is now using city and ppa language as a weapon to remove those who favor accountability. We understand why the police want to continue to be unaccountable. They would prefer that such an independent board not exist at all. Removing pro accountability members like michelle wesley and packing the board with supporters is in their interests, not portland's other board members clearly have a bias in favor of police. One worked for the d.a. Another received donations from Portland police association as a mayoral candidate. Why are they not up here today to be removed? I believe there's another pro-police member. So removing for bias is not the goal of today's endeavor. Even if it was. Let's remember, if you are neutral about oppression, you are siding with the oppressor. Today, through a resignation, Portland lost a good person with lived experience, passionate public safety, and and for police accountability. Thank you.
349 Thank you so much.
350 Good afternoon. My name is sarah and I'm one of the four alternates under consideration to fill the vacancies on the community police accountability board. A quick note, us alternates were told to that council would be discussing filling those vacancies today and that we should be here in case you guys had any questions. But I understand from councilor Dunphy that that discussion isn't happening until next week, so I apologize if my timing of my testimony is off. I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity and briefly introduce myself and share what I would bring if appointed. And apologies if I sound a bit congested. I'm getting over a lingering cold that is just lasting, just never going away. And my day job. I focus on understanding the motivations, goals, grievances, and constraints that drive people in institutions, often across groups with sharply competing interests. Because nothing happens in a vacuum. If you want to respond effectively, you have to understand what is actually driving behavior. And I want to be clear, understanding is not agreement. It's not excuse making, it's competence. It's how you get past caricatures and get to a grounded assessment of what happened and why. The same discipline is exactly what I bring to accountability work. Evaluating an incident fairly requires full context. The complainant experience what the officer believed was happening in the moment, the relevant policies and incentives, the evidence, what the evidence supports and where the gaps are. If you skip that work, you don't get truth. You get a storyline. As an alternate, I've shown I'm ready to do the unglamorous parts. Read closely, think carefully, and stay engaged. If appointed, I'll bring rigorous analysis, consistent standards, and respectful treatment of everyone involved. So the board's work earns trust because it is careful, fair and grounded. I would be honored to be appointed. Thank you for your time.
351 Thank you so much.
352 Next we have mark poris. Mark is online. You can go ahead.
353 Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is mark poris. I use he him pronouns and I'm with the group Portland copwatch. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards police bureau that's free of brutality, corruption, racism, and as we're part of a peace group, we believe that everyone should be able to go home safe after interactions with police, civilians and officers alike. This morning, pb shot and killed a man in his home after deploying tear gas on a drone. He's the first person shot and killed by PPB since nicholas thorn in October of 2024. Two other men, matthew greer and damon lamar johnson, died in police custody. Since then, we again urge you to hire an experienced independent investigator, such as the group, to do a complete and public review of mr. Johnson's death on June 18th of last year, when these members were appointed to the cba, we said that we were not in favor of or against any particular candidate, but rather reminded you that the purpose of the new accountability system is to empower the community led board to decide when officers have violated policy and to impose discipline. The five members referenced today made it past the ten person nominating committee dreamed up by the city attorney's office. We remember this statement from chief deputy city attorney heidi brown during a public forum on the cba in July of 2024. We did not say that the nominating committee needed to be unbiased and fair. This is the nominating committee that includes the Portland police association president, who recently gave a ten minute interview to k2 news in front of a betsy ross thin blue line flag. We should not be here today, but I'm glad that we are. We empathize with mr. Weinstein's statement in the Oregonian about the nondisclosure agreement. The city requires cba, cba members to sign and how broad it is. It's overly broad. One of the city's values is transparency. But sadly, the city attorney's office does not seem to share that value. We appreciate your approval of president dunphy's amendment to accept charlie michelle wesley's resignation from the board, rather than removing her for essentially having the courage to speak up about her lived experience with police brutality. Charlie is a mentor to me and my colleagues at Portland copwatch, and her contributions make each of us and our organization better. She's also perfectly capable of, as city code states, making fair, objective and impartial decisions consistent with applicable laws, rules, policies and procedures, and based on the evidence. Doing so, however, would put her at risk of being killed by the system. Like our co-founder Dan handelman did. I have no doubt that charlie would honor her commitment to any confidentiality agreement she signed. I also have no doubt that keeping that commitment was a factor in dan's death, and we cannot risk losing charlie the same way. To repeat our suggestions from June, please make the necessary changes to remove the anti-bias requirement for cba members. Since no one is truly unbiased, allow the chief of police to be investigated and disciplined by the cba if the chief commits misconduct. And as we heard councilor Kanal mentioned during discussion around our group's recent report, please restore the cba's allowable findings to the four options recommended by the police accountability commission. Out of policy in policy unfounded or insufficient evidence to the volunteers who remain on the board. We are grateful for your service. Look forward to your first meeting next week, and encourage you to exercise all the powers granted to you by the city charter. Thank you.
354 Thank you mark.
355 Next, we have angie tomlinson, debbie iona and charlie michelle wesley.
356 And charlie. I just wanted to note I received a request for a little additional accommodation. So if you are wanting to go a little longer than three minutes, that's acceptable.
357 Maybe a few seconds. Sure.
358 Okay. In November 2020, ballot measure 26 217 was approved by 82% of the voters from the city of Portland. The ballot measure created a civilian oversight board for the police. For police accountability, please take a short moment to let that be heard. 82% of the voters of our Portland community wanted to see a new system for police accountability that included the community oversight. My name is angie tomlinson. Sorry. My mexican-american father was killed by police in a chokehold in 1974. And I served as a member of the police accountability commission that was tasked with working with the community to create the community board for police accountability. The cba, the police account, the police accountability commission, or the pcc was an unpaid board that worked for two years with the Portland community to create the cba. After creating our recommendations to the city council and proposed city code, city administrations change the proposed city code that was sent to city council to approve. I am here to request that the restrictions of membership based on bias be removed. This restriction restriction was added by the city administration without any community input. This restriction also appears to be in contrary to the original intent of measure 26 217, which envisioned a board made up of people from a variety of backgrounds and specifically called out people who have faced challenges in their lives. The community wants a board made up of. The community wants a board made up of members, including those that have lived, experiences that probably resulted in some difficult encounters with police. I hope that this restriction was placed in city code with good intentions, although it does seem to be a tactic for city administration to control the voices of the board members. I'm sorry. By by controlling who can be on the cebpa through this non-biased clause, imposing the bias standards right right out of the gate sets a bad precedence. Although personally I have had extremely negative experiences with police, I know what is needed for protection of our communities is a partnership between citizens and the police to keep us all safe. Partnership with our Portland community is what is needed right now, not continued control by the city administration. Please pay attention to the voices of all the Portland community and remove this verbiage from the city code. Thank you.
359 Thank you.
360 Excuse me. My name is debbie iona. Speaking as a former member of the police accountability commission, I served alongside charlie michelle wesley for the 20 months the pac spent designing the details of our new accountability system. The fact that the city planned to remove miss michelle wesley from the cbpa underscores the problematic nature of the bias rule. The city charter calls for representation from diverse communities with a variety of lived experiences, including individuals who have experienced systemic racism and those who have experienced mental illness, addiction, or alcoholism. In fact, the types of individuals named in the charter are likely to have had difficult interactions with the police at some point in their lives. Their opinions about police were shaped by those interactions. Their voices need to be heard through membership on the cbpa, as should those of individuals who have had lifesaving and other positive interactions with law enforcement. Given proper guidance, they will be able to make reasonable decisions in misconduct cases. I have attended citizen review committee meetings since the independent police review was created over 20 years ago, and have seen crc members come and go over time. Some of their personal opinions about police became evident when they were voting on recommendations to the chief about findings and police misconduct cases. However, they understood that they needed to set those opinions aside and evaluate the case based on bureau policy and the officer's actions. At times, they expressed discomfort with their vote, but with few exceptions, they abided by the expectations. Based on my observation of crc appeal hearings, I believe that cbpa members will be able to do the same and assume that the legal counsel will be present to remind them of their obligation. The pac proposed code called for five members on the misconduct case panels, which would have broadened diversity and reduced the likelihood that an opinionated minority could make an inappropriate decision. Unfortunately, our former city council adopted a code that requires smaller three member panels. If the city is truly concerned about should follow the pac's recommendation for five member panels. They further should either remove or significantly revise the bias rule so it doesn't exclude members like miss michelle wesley. Thank you for your consideration.
361 Thank you, thank you debbie.
362 If you haven't already guessed, I'm charlie michelle wesley, tribal member of the confederated tribes of grand ronde. Here on this indigenous land. This is a despairing testimony and that the reason for my disqualification as an indigenous woman, removing my voice, triggers the violent invasion perpetrated perpetrating racist genocide with egregious, excessive and deadly force against my people. An attempt to silence us permanently. I was chosen for the cbpa due to my decades of lived experience with police violence, a requirement for the oversight system. And yet the city recommended I be disqualified, accused of bias against police. Lived experience with police violence is not automatically bias, nor is sharing my experience on social media. Last I heard, it was my constitutional right. Law enforcement is an extension of that culture, supported by the powers that be, and to silence those of us who speak truth about these injustices. The 2020 demand for police accountability brought a sliver of hope. But after I got involved in creating oversight system and excited we would meet the expectations of 82% of voters, I then experienced the city deprived the cvpa and community of its potential. The bias standard is part of that injustice and a barrier to knowledgeable voices, a manipulative maneuver to undermine our influence and compromise my credibility. The way bias is applied, the look force is irresponsibly judgmental for me and for my extensive lived experience. It leaves out the fact that, believe it or not, a cop stopped another cop after he shot at me for an assumption. I am forever grateful to him, and I also want community and cops alike to make it home to their families every day. However, this requires moving out of the status quo and listen to those of us who clearly see a policing culture that thinks accountability and prevention is above them. Actually, it works towards trust. Anti-racism, anti-oppression equity, inclusivity, valuing community with humanity. Fyi, these are city and police values. My social media posts come from traumatic emotions towards a system that has brought great harm to me and others, and deciding this is a bias because you have no constructive response to my wisdom and experience. Instead, your only recourse to me was an attempt to disqualify me. Caring deeply for community drives me. It's incredibly unfair when only those with the luxury to be unemotional about this issue are granted the credibility. To discuss it, we need you to stand with us, not over us. Learn, understand our needs and our pain. Because without that truth, accountability can't begin. Trust cannot be gained without truth. When our voices are silenced, the PPB needs to heal. Using the core city values with facilitated support to actually be a learning institution. Otherwise, people will continue to die. I decided to resign from the cvpa for critical personal issues, but I will follow the cvpa and I will continue to address repressive actions by unjust exercises of power. And I just want to thank all of you who came here to support me, all my colleagues from the police accountability commission, former police accountability commissioners, my colleagues and comrades and friends, thank you for bringing your core city values and moral compass. Thank you.
363 Next we have vadim mazursky, seemab hosseini, and bob weinstein and vadim online. You can go ahead.
364 Hello, councilors. My name is vadim mazursky, and I'm here to testify about the need for transparency and fairness in our government. Fairness requires honesty. That honesty can only come when our government allows the public to know what our government and the people it places in positions of power are doing in their official roles. Honesty from our government allows communities to advocate for what works and demand change when it doesn't. We don't arrive at honesty through the blanket gag orders, where people appointed to a government board are precluded from sharing with the public even such basic things as what the government outlines in training materials, which is directly linked to public policy. I'm perhaps in a unique position in having served in a Portland committee and community engaged policing, the police budget advisory committee, the citizen review committee and through the crc, the police review board at. None of those public committees were volunteer members required to sign a confidential agreement as broad as the one currently being required by the community board for police accountability. In fact, it was surprising that the city attorney did not have before her the the agreement we had signed. Excuse me, I didn't expect to last this long and it outlined and I have before me here. This is the one I signed in 2021. It says confidentiality information is investigative materials. Disciplinary outcomes involve members, witness members, victim information, discipline information. None of that says anything about training materials, which is what we have here. As Portland copwatch pointed out, this agreement is overly broad and at this foundational time for the community board for police accountability, we need to have more access and not secrecy. The city attorney mentioned that the department of justice settlement agreement requires confidential, requires confidential agreement. Well, it does, but it doesn't state what the agreement is supposed to have. In fact, if you look at the doj settlement, it states under section 131, subsection a three, a confidential agreement, right before that, it outlines what training is necessary. If we are to believe that this is confidential, then there's an inconsistency in the very settlement agreement itself, because we won't know what the training is if the city attorney is allowed to call it all confidential. Furthermore, the settlement agreement outlines what one would need in order to remove someone, and it has several factors. None of those factors are not refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement. One of the factors is failure to participate, which is my understanding what the city attorney is basing her removal of bob weinstein, but he wants to participate. They just wouldn't let him. So he is fully qualified and we should not put roadblocks in place. People willing to fulfill their volunteer duties. I urge you to vote no on removing bob weinstein. Thank you.
365 Thank you.
366 Cmap is online. You can go ahead.
367 Greetings, everybody. Chair. Councilors. My name is simon hussein. I'm a community organizer, civil rights advocate, former member of the police accountability commission with the city of Portland. And I'm also a member of Portland copwatch I support president dunphy's amendment to accept charlie michelle wesley's resignation rather than voting to remove her for bias. But I need to say plainly that the city's whole bias framework is tilted. It's steering the system away from what voters actually demanded overwhelmingly, as as a former pac member, this was a serious question we posed regarding sieges without any help or assistance from the city attorney, surprisingly, which allowed us to confidently say that if those of us who are here to build this for communities, they deserve to serve it for the communities. Anyone who dedicated their lives to serve, those who have lost loved ones to unaccountable policing deserves to say acab. As much as an oncologist wishes to say cancer. And don't get me wrong, please use analogies in cancer. Bad policing is charlie isn't a witch doctor. She's one of the oncologists you in the city chose. Look at your own bias screening slide under demonstrated bias for police flags. Things like extreme trust in police statements that police can do no wrong, blaming community members without facts, and being quick to justify any use of force. That's not some fringe issue. That's exactly the mindset that has protected misconduct for decades. It's some it's somewhat. If someone never or rarely finds the force unjustified, that person does not belong anywhere near accountability decisions. But here's the problem the screening process is still biased towards policing as the default. It treats skepticism of police as a threat to fairness, while treating pro-police assumptions like they're just an opinion. The result is predictable. The system ends up screening out people who will hold police to high standards, while making room for police to start from. The police are right and the public is the problem. That's backwards. And we're not here to create a board that is comfortable for the police bureau. We are here to create a board that holds police to the highest standards, the communities they serve. We'll be able to accept accountability would have stopped the mass train stabbings the night before. Stopped mark kruger from becoming a captain after cosplaying and training in nazi memorabilia, retiring at the highest retirement ever. Only representative cebpa members can stop all the horrors mentioned by all my colleagues in here. So yes, accept the resignation, stop branding charlie as ineligible. But if you keep this bias rule and keep using these kinds of screens the way they're being used, you'll keep undermining the legitimacy of this board before it even starts. Fix the policy. Remove or write anti-bias eligibility. The fix doesn't just start with the cebpa. It begins and moves on and continues and uncovers and brings all the flaws.
368 Thank you very much.
369 Bob weinstein.
370 Counselors and mr. Lee, my name is bob weinstein. You appointed me last June to the community board for police accountability as an alternate. I'm here because staff are asking you to remove me for declining to sign a non-disclosure agreement, far broader than the law permits. Staff has framed this as incomplete paperwork in their report to you. But the real issue is whether confidentiality is being applied consistent with law and council intent, or stretched beyond both. Code 35.202 requires a confidentiality agreement. I've always and repeatedly agreed to sign one. The dispute is over what properly qualifies as confidential. When council adopted this provision in September 2024, nothing in the legislative record suggests intent to treat to treat routine training materials or basic operations as secret staff are not implementing council policy, they're redefining it by imposing restrictions that the council never intended. Oregon's public records law is clear information related to public business is presumptively public, unless a statutory exemption applies. An nda preventing disclosure of documents not falling under statutory exemptions. Conflicts with both public policy and the law. The concern is not theoretical. Board training has included some legal overviews, charter provisions. City code, state statutes using training slides like those the city itself has treated as public records and required to be disclosed in other contexts. Attorney client privilege is narrow at protects confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking legal advice. It does not transform general legal education or every training slide into a secret. Let me be clear I have never refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. I will sign one that protects genuinely confidential information. Personnel matters, investigative files and privilege legal communications. I say this with nearly 40 years of experience handling confidential information as a school superintendent, elected city official, alaska teaching practices commission member, and u.s. Senate staffer. In each role, confidentiality served clear purposes, protecting people, due process and investigative integrity, not shielding ordinary governance from the public understanding. I may go over a couple of seconds. The process here violated basic fairness. On October 7th, my training access was terminated. Despite requests to bring this forward promptly or restore access so I could complete my training within the six month code window, neither occurred. My city email was deactivated. I was removed from training rosters four months later. January 12th dca warren advised my removal would proceed under unavailability for service and unavailability the city created. This board exists because Portland demanded transparency and accountability in policing, requiring civilian oversight. Members to accept secrecy by default undermines that mission. You face a fundamental choice whether this oversight board operates as a transparent public trust or an extension of the bureaucracy overseas, I urge you to reject expansive secrecy and affirm confidentiality that protects what genuinely requires protection, while honoring the public's right to understand how police oversight actually works. Thank you very much.
371 Thank you.
372 Valerie aitchison.
373 Members of the Portland city council. I'll keep this very quick. I know we're ready to go. My name is valerie aitchison. I live in northwest Portland and district four. Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony regarding bob weinstein, the alternate on portland's community board for police accountability. You've heard how the. Nondisclosure agreement is overly broad, and as that is my point as well, and I won't relist all of the all of the ways that it is, but in particular the training, how the members of the board are trained will influence their decision making in the police disciplinary matters before them. That training should be disclosed to the public so we can see and understand it. If police accountability board can't be openly discussed, how it's trained, oriented and structured, even if it's basic operational materials are treated as secret, how can the citizens like me meaningful evaluate its independence or its effectiveness? I understand that legally confidential matters should be protected from disclosure, and board members should understand and commit to that confidentiality. Bob weinstein is willing to do that. It's my understanding he'll sign the nda that protects genuinely confidential information. Personnel matters, investigative files, privileged legal communications, things that take place in executive session, things you've heard earlier today. Well, portland's community board for police accountability operate in openness or will it operate in secrecy? Your decision will play an important part. And the answer to that question and all of Portland citizens like me who care about this disciplinary process would hope for openness. Thank you very much.
374 Thank you very much.
375 That concludes testimony.
376 Okay.
377 Colleagues, it being 454 right now, we're obviously not going to finish this today. Counselor Zimmerman asked to very quickly jump in.
378 Thank you, mr. President. My request is that for the two cases related to bias, I would like the file attached. And I say file with air quotes because I don't exactly know what was compiled. But I think we are being asked to make a judgment call. And I think none of us have seen. So I'd like to see that attached to this agenda item for public records so we can review that before we're asked to make a call on that. Thank you, mr. President. I lastly, I know that there was some work behind the scenes by the attorneys and clerks on the official action of separating the question. When we come back, we'll have that figured out.
379 Yeah. And, colleagues, I am, because there obviously is more work to be done on this debate and some amendments. I am going to move to.
380 Council president.
381 Oh, sorry, councilor Kanal.
382 15 seconds before you.
383 Do that. Sure.
384 I'm just going to formally request both the divisions of these two so that they get a separate vote from the resignations.
385 We will be moving in that direction for sure. It looks like we do need to offer an amendment in order to strip the names out and then put them back as I'm understanding it. But we will get to that. And I am without objection. I am asking to continue this item to next week. Seeing no objection, the item is continued to next week for further council action. Thank you colleagues, I am asking your indulgence to please stick around for a few extra minutes as we have item 16 and an update from our city administrator with regard to and our staff with regard to unspent Portland housing bureau dollars, can we please call item.
386 16.
387 Item 16 establish city council's priorities for the allocation of approximately $20,700,000 in unspent rental service office funds, and urge the mayor to reflect these priorities in the proposed budget.
388 Thank you. Colleagues, I asked tonight we're hearing from city staff and city administrator lee cfo biery anybody else they choose to call up about the new dollars that have been discussed in the Portland housing bureau? My office sent the city administrator a list of questions as a way to start the conversation. Today, we will hopefully have time to ask further questions, but because we don't have a full accounting on availability of resources, we're not voting on anything today. This is an information for us as one body to be able to get the most recent, up to date information. I intend for this body to vote to allocate these funds via resolution or ordinance or ordinance together. I'm not sure. At the evening council of February 18th that is when we will be having this. So, city administrator lee, please take it away.
389 Thank you, council president. As we went through the robust conversation yesterday as it relates to the additional funds that we were investigating and looking through and listening to council's conversation, as we continue the conversation as it relates to a public hearing, as it relates to asking additional questions related to this, you know, the administration and our leadership team take these type of things seriously. This is something that we don't want to see happen as we continue our new form of government. And as we have even the oversight within our administrative arm of the organization, I know we have a lot of dedicated staff that have spent years working in a certain manner, and this is a change of culture. This is a change in the way that we do business as an organizn, and how we represent that information to this elected body as a whole. With that being said, I know that the city will be moving forward with this hearing, but it doesn't take away my responsibility as administrator to dive deeper into this situation and take a closer look at some of the root causes of why this has happened and where we are, but also taking a closer look at what are we doing as a city as it relates to a lot of these reserves are earmarked funds that we have as an organization, and ensuring that these type of practices are not perpetuating itself throughout the organization. That is my responsibility as it relates to the administration. We have a great team with jonas as our cfo. That's going to help take the lead in that, but we're also going to be asking for outside resources to come in to help support this as well, to ensure that we have the transparency and accountability that we know this city is requesting of us and that we are demanding as leaders of this organization. But at this time, I will turn it over to jonas to kind of walk through kind of the responses that we have as of today as it relates to the questions that the council president sent out. Keep in mind, there will be a memo that goes out to city council tomorrow to kind of go into further details as it relates to where we are with the analysis and the evaluation of the funding. Thank you.
390 Thank you. Jonas, take it away.
391 Great. Thank you. Thank you. Council president and council. For the record, jonas biery city's chief financial officer, city administrator said, I think most of what I had to say, I just wanted to reiterate that I think one of the super important points in this came up in yesterday's conversation as well, is that we have a messy legacy system that is very, very difficult to unwind. And myself, my peers, this administration was brought in in this form of government specifically to address those issues, present them to council and support council decision making. So I just want to be really clear that that is our objective. Staff and myself have been working more than eight hour days this week to try to unpack all of the facts and realities so we can present that there is a team working literally right now continuing to assemble that. And we'll be doing that into the night tonight so that we can produce that memo for council and the public tomorrow.
392 Thank you.
393 And colleagues. It's my intention. You know, some of the questions that we sent to the administrator in the conversations that are happening in the memo that you intend to see is to to dive into not only what are these dollars and where do they come from, where do they currently allocated to, or what was the point of why they were in these funds? As we have heard, it is a practice of this, of the old form of government to allow funds to accumulate rather than trying to fund things a million bucks at a time to have a pot of dollars. But so we need to have a full accounting. But I will tell you that early, and we've all heard this, but there are early indications that some of these dollars may be able to be used for some of the different kinds of projects that we have been discussing, without requiring a code change. Some of these dollars may be able to help us with some of the enormous hole we are going to have in the general fund, and so many of these dollars may be simply untouchable. It is my promise to you and to the public, to the extent possible, that we will share information, we will have process, and we will find a a path forward to deliver the maximum good to the most people. And I appreciate your patience as we all figure out what is going on, because we are still in a new form of government and figuring things out to the. Is there any additional city administrator? Okay, I have a couple folks in the queue. I want to turn it over to councilor Smith.
394 Thank you. Thank both of you for giving us a purview of what what's going to happen tomorrow. But I just want to be clear with you, it's not about the new form of government or budget. Law requires you to authorize every dime, even in surplus or in a reserve pot. So don't twist this around as if this is something that you didn't know about and that you should not have authorized gotten it authorized from us. Because you know that you're supposed to authorize every dime. And so the new form of government has nothing to do with it. You authorize it some years, and then you didn't authorize it some years. So you knew about the money question. So you're going to give do a press release in the morning.
395 I know what I'm working on is a is a memo with the ca that will be delivered.
396 It's going to be different from the $15 million that you've already quoted, that the council president is going to be a different number.
397 It will likely be. It will be a different number. That was a not based upon the due diligence that's continued over the last many, many days to get into that, because you have.
398 Been working and you've acknowledged that there's more money that may be a part of this, it may be greater than the 15 million. And so you're going to announce the exact number. And the reason why I'm asking is because I have an ordinance that's up next week. And I could not put the exact number in there. So it's going to be a moot point. And it's going to be dead because it's 20.700. And now that this number has increased, I'm going to have to increase the number to my ordinance to slow the flow. And I really hope that we do have the final number tomorrow, because we can not actually put this on the docket for the 18th until we actually know the real number. Yeah. So that's what you're saying right now. You don't have it today, but you're going to have it tomorrow.
399 Yes, ma'am. The councilor Thank you for highlighting that. The memo will include the the actual numbers for each of a number of funds and sub funds, one of which has already been identified, which is the rental service offices sub fund.
400 Will it detail the last time that it was acknowledged?
401 I'm sorry.
402 Will it detail the last time that these funds were acknowledged and over what time.
403 Of year? I don't think it'll have that kind of a timeline. It will reflect what was in the budget last year, what was in the adopted budget last year, as adjusted by the fall towel. And it will include what's anticipated in the 2627, which will daylight councilor Exactly what you described, which is those contingency balances that existed but were previously unbudgeted within each of of a number of sub funds.
404 This was not in the budget last year. It was not authorized. That's correct. So you said it was. This is going to be what was in the budget last year.
405 I'm not sure. I'm not sure I'm tracking because what we have said is there was dollars budgeted last year. There are dollars that are now were in contingency.
406 That were not authorized.
407 That were not budgeted previously. And so we're identifying those dollars.
408 Let's use the language that we have to use to make to be clear, because they have to be authorized by us first, and then they can be put into a reserve fund. Unobligated. But right now they were not authorized. And so if you use those words that would that would make it clearer, because if you say they were budgeted, I can ask you where were they budgeted in the in the budget. And you won't be able to tell me.
409 Thank you.
410 Thank you, counselor Smith.
411 Councilor Kanal I'll be very brief.
412 I just wanted to say I appreciate the comments you made council president, about looking at both what the actual slowing of the inflow of dollars might go to, as well as some of the housing conversations as well as the general fund. I'll add that there may be more categories, and at least one of them that I wanted to daylight is the for the fees and the tourism fees, the need to actually bolster some of our tourism in terms of the use for that money. That's the smallest of the pots, the five plus million. Looking forward to that. And yeah, that's all I had.
413 Great.
414 And colleagues, I will just lastly preview for you that it is my intention to try and find a response to what the administration will be presenting and use that the dollar amounts. As counselor Smith was saying, the actual dollar amounts that we have, and compare that with the amendments of different things that we have already discussed. I do not intend to make this a broader grab bag to the broader public. We all know we've had friends who have reached out and say, hey, by the way, I could also use a half $1 million here or there. For now, I'm trying to limit the conversation of what will be coming forward as a compromise to items that have already been introduced by a member of this body. To that end, when this memo comes out, you are all welcome to try and futz with the math and try and find a way to find a compromise forward. And I would love people's help in finding us a way forward. So, city administrator, the last thing I will say is to the memo that comes out to whatever extent you have the ability to control it, more information will be better. Any anticipatory questions that you all can guess that this body will ask? We would love to have the answers ahead of time.
415 And I will share.
416 I will share this council president. This memo will have all the information that I have as of today, but that doesn't exclude or preclude any information that may come out as I do a third party review of it as well.
417 Absolutely.
418 We all recognize that this will be where we are today or tomorrow, and it may not be where we are today or the day after, but that is the best we can do and we will move forward. So with that, I am adjourning. Yes, the Thursday, February 5th city council at 507. Thank you everybody for your patience.