The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-01-29
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (24,479 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 January 29, 2026, the Portland City Council held an afternoon session that opened with roll call and a reading of public testimony rules. The Council first took up a transmitted report from an outside contracted group reviewing officer-involved shootings and critical incidents for the Police Bureau, covering ten incidents from 2019–2022 and containing seven recommendations addressing pre-shooting tactics, tracking of internal recommendations, litigation-related reporting delays, vehicle-boxing techniques, investigator practices, dispatcher training, and PIT maneuvers. Staff and presenters discussed the report's history and process, noting a prior work session had covered details more extensively. Public testimony addressed the report, including concerns about withheld case files during active litigation, the 48-hour rule for officer interviews, and requests for continued contracting and additional independent reviews; figures describing the number of past reports were stated inconsistently. Council members made statements of appreciation and discussed contract continuation; a motion to adopt the report was made and seconded, and a vote occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The Council then considered a proposed ordinance and resolution to establish a City Data and Privacy Office, receiving a staff report, sponsor remarks, a detailed presentation, extensive clarifying questions about cost, staffing, and structure, and public testimony largely supportive of the proposal. Due to a technical drafting issue, the vote on both items was postponed to the following week; a floor amendment to the ordinance was moved, seconded, and voted on, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:01 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 Good afternoon, friends and family. I am now calling to order the Thursday, January 29th afternoon council session. Keelan, can you please call the roll?
1 Present online.
2 Smith.
3 Here Kanal.
4 Here pirtle-guiney. Thank you.
5 Ryan.
6 Here Koyama Lane. Here maria here. Click here Clark. Here. Green. Zimmerman.
7 Dunphy here. And can we please read the rules of conduct?
8 Yes. Welcome to the Portland city council to testify. Testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at wwe Portland gov backslash council backslash 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 other 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, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
9 Thank you. And can we please, colleagues, we have three items today that will be read as two items 11 and 12 will be reading together. But first, can we please call item number ten?
10 Transmit. Transmit report to the city of Portland police bureau. Officer involved shootings and critical incidents by the group.
11 Colleagues. This afternoon, we're going to be receiving a contracted report from the ir group. The ir group works with the city to review officer involved shootings. They review these events and offer the city feedback on policy. This is euler's ninth periodic report. Council considered this item yesterday at a work session, so it should be fresh to us, asking our friends to come back up to the dais. Thank you for setting us up. We'll be going through largely the same presentation, but I'll ask you all. We don't need as much room for dialog because we had this. This is really to transmit this information to the public and be responsive to testimony. So the time is yours. But, you know, you don't need to indulge as much. And with that, I will turn it over to, I believe, michael, am I turn it over to you. Who's michael? I'll turn it over. Tracy. There we go. Tracy. Tracy.
Procedural episode · turns 12–20
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
12 Warren. Good afternoon. Council. Thank you for having us back this afternoon. My name is tracy warren. I'm the deputy city administrator for city operations. And to my left, I have kelsey lloyd, who is the acting director of eipr. Kelsey.
13 Thank you and good afternoon, members of council. As tracy said, my name is kelsey lloyd, acting director of the independent police review. We appreciated the time with council yesterday in the work session to introduce and discuss the work of the our group, so I'll be brief today. City code requires ipr to retain an outside expert to review completed investigations of officer involved shootings and in-custody deaths. Since 2010, the group have been those outside experts. There have been eight of these reports and each one has been presented to city council. This current report covers ten incidents that occurred between 2019 and 2022. These reports offer valuable transparency about these incidents for our community and provide a thorough, objective review of the most serious uses of force by Portland police. We are grateful for their insights and recommendations that improve investigations, policy and accountability that are crucial to the city going forward. Thank you to everyone who took the time to review this report and for your time today. I'll hand it over now to julie and michael with the ir group.
14 Yeah, good.
15 Good afternoon council, it's good to see you again. We had an opportunity, as indicated by your council president, council president Dunphy, to present this to you in the workshop environment yesterday. So, as indicated, we will go through the presentation. But I think the word of the day for this part of our presentation will be alacrity. So this is our ninth report. If we go to the next slide please. For you all. We started in 2010, in Portland, where we did our first report on an in-custody death of a fellow by the name of james chassis. That led to additional engagement. And since that time, we've had the responsibility to review and report publicly to you all and to your community on any critical incident officer involved shootings and in-custody deaths that occurred over the period of time. That was our scope of work. And so we've done nine cycles between 2010, 2012 and 2026. This is our ninth report. We have done work in Oregon, california and elsewhere. We've had the opportunity to be engaged in reviews of critical incidents for a number of jurisdictions. And I would estimate that over the course of the year, years we've been doing this work, we probably had an opportunity to review over 500 officer involved shootings and in-custody deaths in that period of time, 75 just for the city of Portland. Go to the next slide, please.
16 Hi. Good afternoon. I'm julie rulon with our group. Just quickly, the process we use for reviewing these cases involves reviewing the complete investigative file that both the criminal investigation and the internal affairs administrative investigation conducted by the bureau. We look at all available video. The training division reviews, grand jury transcripts, and then all of the documentation that that discusses the the internal review process and decision made by the bureau. Next slide please. As kelsey said this, this report discusses ten incidents. And just to quickly break those down in those ten incidents, there were two fatal officer involved shootings, three shootings in which the subject was hit but not fatally, and survived the injuries. Four shootings in which the subject was not hit. So we call those non-hit shootings. And then one incident in which, during a the standoff with police, a subject who was inside his vehicle with a firearm, took his own life. During the course of that incident. Our report addresses a number of different issues, including the pre-shooting tactics and decision making around that preceded the use of deadly force. The bureau's consistency in addressing recommendations that are made internally, issues, and some of the pitfalls of shooting at moving vehicles, and some delays that were the result of litigation. In these cases, we make a total of seven recommendations here, and they address both the review process and the follow up to that. Some investigative protocols and training protocols, as well as the timing of these reviews. Next slide. Again, just sort of breaking down the ten incidents. Three of them involved shots fired at a vehicle where the subject was inside the vehicle. And we talk about some of the some of the issues that come up in in the course of those incidents. For incidents involved an individual who was in mental health crisis or exhibiting some kind of suicidal intent, and in general, these cases, the officers who got involved in these critical incidents were responding to calls for service that involved domestic disputes. One case of a domestic dispute, stolen vehicles serving warrants, public disturbance. There was one subject who was wanted for a home invasion and criminal trespassing. Next slide please. So we do make seven recommendations just for the sake of our of our discussion. We take them out of order here, but it just made more sense in the way we could discuss them. But recommendation number one, make.
17 Sure you can read the slide. So I'm not going to read it again. But essentially a recommendation one has to do with really a request or recommendation to formally drill down and make assessments with regard to what we call pre-shooting tactics. As we indicated in discussed yesterday with you all, oftentimes what happens leading up to the shooting can well dictate what happens as to whether or not there is going to be a use of deadly force. So in our view there, the bureau could do more and should do more with regard to making formal findings, both with the review board as well as with the chief's office. Ultimately, with regard to these decisions that are made by the officers, we're not suggesting that that formal accounting result necessarily in any kind of punitive action, necessarily. In fact, almost all accountability should be remedial in our in our view. And so even if there is a formal finding that there was suboptimal decision making preceding the shooting, we think that the most common remedial action there would be training, briefing or other kinds of guidance.
18 And then recommendation number six deals with recommendations that come up out of the review process. So. As the bureau has this very multi-layered review process, the training division does a really in-depth review of each one of these incidents and often produces some very thoughtful and well considered recommendations. The commander reviews the case and and often has recommendations. And the police review board also reviews and has recommendations sometimes. And what we found not just in this report, but over the course of the years that we've worked with the bureau, is a lot of inconsistency in terms of how those internal recommendations get discussed, whether they are formally accepted, not how they are implemented, even just how the bureau goes about tracking those recommendations. Who's responsible for implementation. So this this recommendation really goes to finding a process and a and a, a sort of formal a formalized way to track those recommendations, to assign somebody to be responsible for them, and then to be able to be accountable to the community when those recommendations are completed.
19 Recommendation seven has to do with a practice that has been in place over the time that we've been doing this work that was modified during this review process, which resulted in two cases that at the time we began our review process, were still in litigation, and unfortunately, those were not presented to us. Our recommendation is to go back to the former practice, where the fact that a cases or an incident is still being litigated should not prevent us from reporting to you all and to your community about what we see, what we find, and our assessment of the strength of the investigation and review process. We've had a chance to review the bureau's response and are heartened to see that the bureau is accepting of this recommendation. There was a suggestion that we present cases that have ongoing litigation, the city attorney for fact checking, etc. We have no problem with that. If that ends up being the the protocols on a going forward basis, that's something we do for other jurisdictions, and we'd be happy to do that if, in fact, we start again getting access to cases that are still in litigation.
20 Next slide please. So so these next four recommendations really come out of a very the very specific fact pattern presented by a particular incident that we were reviewing. And so without getting too into the weeds on on the facts of each of those cases, we can briefly discuss these recommendations.
21 Sure. Recommendation two has to do with a technique in which officers oftentimes often try to prevent an individual in a vehicle from fleeing by using what's called a boxing technique, getting in front of the car, getting behind the car. That has to be carefully executed. And when it is sort of an on the fly decision, sometimes it creates problems. Our recommendation is to take another look at one of the cases in which a parked vehicle was attempted to be used as a as a boxing technique. It didn't work well, it didn't end well, and it resulted in a shooting. And so our recommendation is to take another look at it. I think the bureau has responded and has taken a look at it, and has refined their training with regard to that technique, and we appreciate that. Recommendation three has to do when in one of the cases, there was a discrepancy between what the officer said occurred and what the physical evidence suggested occurred, and our recommendation was the investigator during the review of the officer should have confronted the officer, if you will, not in a necessarily a negative way, but just asked the officer, you know, to explain if the officer could the discrepancy between the physical evidence and his account.
22 Recommendation four is, is to provide some specific training to to dispatchers who work in boec and, and it's, you know, but sort of stepping back from the specifics of that recommendation is really about, you know, maintaining and and making sure that the lines of communication between the police bureau and, and boec are that there's open communication and that, you know, that the people who work with in dispatch are have access to some of the after action and some of the analysis that happens by the training division. And, you know, elsewhere in the bureau's review process, oftentimes, you know, in the one case that prompted this recommendation and in other cases that we have reviewed for the police bureau over the years or for the city over the years, there can be how a dispatcher communicates the facts of a 911 call to officers can have a pretty significant impact on how officers approach that call. And so this is a recommendation that sort of acknowledges that and looks to maintain that open line of communication and training between the bureau and boec.
23 And final recommendation is recommendation five, which really, again, specifically is addressing technique that is used by the bureau. It's called a pit maneuver, which stands for pursuit intervention technique. And essentially what what the goal is, is to disable a vehicle by having the patrol car actually bump the vehicle in the back of the vehicle, causing it to go into a spin and an ideal situation, disable it so that a detention can be effectuated. Our recommendation was because of the potential danger and the guardrails with regard to what is the appropriate conditions under which a pit maneuver would be appropriate, that it would be helpful to get supervisor approval or input. And that's the essence of that recommendation. I think that concludes our recommendations. And I would just end our presentation by, again, commenting on the relationship we've had with the city and the bureau over these years. And we've said this before, and we'd be remiss not to say it again, and that the way in which we're able to do our work relies on having access to information, all information. And that has been a commitment that has been held by the bureau, and they've held their end of the bargain so that we can do our work and be effective. In addition, oftentimes materials do not tell the whole story. It's it's not in writing. We also have an opportunity to have taken advantage of the opportunity to talk to bureau leadership with regard to gaps that may not appear in the documents. And that's also been very helpful to provide us additional insight into into the bureau. And then finally, I would say that when our reports come out, the bureau has been extremely receptive to the recommendations, not just blind acceptance. We don't want that, but the give and take and the back and forth and the interest in improving that has been demonstrated to us by the bureau over these 14 years continues today. And I think you all, as elected officials and leaders of the city, ought to be proud of that. And that concludes our remarks.
24 Excellent. Thank you. Colleagues, before we move into public testimony, are there any technical questions? I know we had an opportunity yesterday to to grill these fine folks for a couple of hours, but any questions before we move to public testimony? Counselor?
25 Avalos well, you kind of just said it, but I did want to just enumerate for the public that we did have a three hour work session yesterday, so I don't want any lack of questions to be seen of lack of interest. I think I know I'm in a place of ready to move forward, but I just wanted to name that. So the public doesn't think that we weren't asking hard questions. And those were yesterday.
26 Thanks.
27 Yes, thank you, councilor Avalos. And that entire work session is available on our youtube page. So probably also on the city's website. Great. Not seeing any other hands in the q keelan can we call public testimony?
28 We have two testifiers. First up, mark morris, Portland, copwatch.
29 And y'all are welcome to go sit. Yeah. Thank you. Mark, you're up first. Go ahead. Welcome.
30 Can you hear me?
31 Yes, sir.
32 Fantastic. Good afternoon council. My name is mark morris. I see him pronouns. And a member of the group Portland copwatch. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards the police bureau. That's free of brutality, corruption and racism. Just want to say again how grateful we are to the folks from our group for this ninth report on officer involved shootings and critical incidents. We wish they'd made more than seven recommendations, but we understand why they think it's unproductive to repeat themselves over and over and over again. On suggestions that the city seems unreceptive to, such as fixing the 48 hour rule problem that the league of women voters explains in their written testimony. If the city wants to learn as much as possible from deadly force incidents, it needs to understand what the involved officers perceptions were as soon as possible after they've used force. The longer they wait, the more information is lost and the bureau cannot possibly become the learning institution that it claims to be. Even if PPB is doing everything it can to be a learning institution, there's a separate and more problematic challenge to the city actually becoming a learning institution. Last night at the crc meeting, commander jeff bell took responsibility for the robert delgado and michael townsend case files being withheld from the group for this round of analysis. Initially, it sounded like it was the city attorney's decision, but commander bell cleared that up. While responding to questions, he said that the city attorney felt that a prior case had affected their ability to litigate a case. So he asked former ipr director caldwell if he could remove those two cases since they were still being litigated at the time. He said that he was not aware at the time of ayers recommendation. Recommendation from their 2010 review of the james chassy case, that outside review of critical incidents should not be dictated by the by the pace of resulting litigation, any resulting litigation. It's honorable if commander bell to take responsibility, but it sure sounds like the city attorney is making decisions that lead to a delay in accountability and, more importantly, an inexcusable delay in mitigating future harms done by police. At the league of women voters panel on challenges for Portland police and policing alternatives in February of 2023, doctor gina ronning, who at the time served on both the training advisory council and cog, stated PPB has external limitations which make it very difficult for them to become a learning institution, specifically, the role of the city attorney's office greatly controls the narratives and limits the ability of the PPB to become a more reflective, vulnerable, and truth telling agency. I missed yesterday's work session, but I just heard from mr. Janocko that the withholding of cases in active litigation from an external review will not happen again, with the caveat that drafts will be shown to the city attorney before publication to make sure there isn't anything problematic in the report. If this is indeed the case, then the public must still be informed of any censorship decisions made by the city attorney regarding these independent analyzes of documents that that are actually provided by the city. Our question for you all to think about is, what is the city attorney attempting to protect by withholding any information about a deadly force incident? While there's ongoing litigation, the city should lose these cases if they go to trial, just like it did in the michael townsend case. It's actually in the people's best interest for the city to lose these cases. Maybe it's time to reevaluate the city attorney's job description. Thank you. And if I might just have a few more seconds, please put a contract in place. Now for the ocpa is up and running for another report. And please also commission an independent report on the in-custody death of damon lamar johnson. Thank you.
33 Thank you for testifying.
34 Next up we have debbie aiona online.
35 Hi, debbie. Go ahead. And you are still on mute.
36 Okay, there we go. I'm debbie aiona, representing the league of women voters of Portland. The league has been involved in issues related to police oversight since the 1980s. The group's periodic reports and recommendations are valuable not only for the Portland police bureau and the city, but also for the public. The league submitted written comments and I will highlight a few of our recommendations today. As regular readers of these reports over the years, we find it troubling to see some of the same recommendations from prior prior reports repeated yet again. With that said, we urge the city to contract with the group to undertake a thorough accounting of past recommendations and their current implementation status. A clearer picture of what has been accomplished and what still needs to be addressed, will likely lead to more effective implementation of key recommendations. The most significant recurring recommendation relates to the importance of analyzing pre-shooting technical tactical decision making, correcting out of policy actions that occurred well in advance of the decision to fire a weapon has the potential to save lives by avoiding the use of deadly force altogether. The league urges the bureau to implement our group's recommendation one immediately, and report back to city council once it has begun. Following the recommended practice, we share our group's concern about delays caused by waiting for civil litigation to conclude and appreciate the interchange between chief day and mr. Gennaco. At the work session yesterday, it was encouraging to hear that there may be a suitable workaround that facilitates more timely reports in spite of pending litigation. Although the group did not repeat its concerns about the 48 hour rule that allows involved officers to delay administrative interviews, the practice continues to be part of the police union contract. This provision prevents the bureau from obtaining contemporaneous statements and is inconsistent with best investigative practices. With bargaining sessions underway, we urge the city to hold a public listening session, as it did in 2019, and solicit community input on this and other aspects of the contract. The league would like to thank ipr and the city for engaging the group in conducting this critical analysis. We agree wholeheartedly with councilors who expressed that the work session yesterday, a strong desire to continue this function into the future. Thank you very much.
37 Thank you. Debbie.
38 That completes testimony.
39 Thank you. Colleagues. I neglected to also note that our our friends from the Portland police bureau are also here to answer any specific questions or if there's any specific response to the report, you're also welcome to come up and do that. But your call either way. Any further conversation questions or concerns from I see councilor Kanal.
40 Thank you. Chair Dunphy. President Dunphy, I just wanted to say thank you again to everyone that was involved in putting this together and for the report and presentation. That's why our group, I-pr pbh two different service areas, city operations and public safety, and the city attorney's office. I wanted to just take the chance to say a couple of things that didn't come up yesterday because of the testimony we I wanted to to first off, highlight that many of the testifiers brought up that we should extend the group contract in a obviously in a budgetarily friendly way. And so I do want to encourage the administration to to do that if there is a need to change, you know, at any point, then I would love to have an off ramp for that as opposed to sort of an abruptness of it's just going to expire. But as I mentioned yesterday, I think the group is is one of the best contracts we have. As someone who's fairly skeptical of city contracting in general, I also want to note, you know, the importance of doing this is to do due diligence for all the cases, but in particular the ones where where people died. And in this particular case, tai tran, cobid henriksen and brandon keck did die. And we need to make sure that we recognize that and also look into robert delgado and michael townsend, which were the two that were withheld. And of course, the I appreciate the comment about the in-custody death of damien lamar johnson being somewhat outside of the scope, perhaps, but not something we could commission. Independent review of the item on tracking recommendations is a good one. I actually think that doing this would be a very good thing for PPB and public trust, because PPB receives a ton of recommendations not just from the group, but from other contractors, crc and pccep. And if we do this where it's not a list of recommendations not implemented, but a status of all recommendations, I think people would see that the majority of them actually are implemented, and I think the majority might be underselling it, actually. And that would would, I think, build public trust. And finally, I just wanted to say thanks to the folks who wrote in as well and to our group, you have significantly more than the minimum qualifications to do your work. And I think it's important that someone up here says that after yesterday's work session. And I wanted to be sure that that that came up. Thanks.
41 Thank you. Councilor Kanal vice president Clark.
42 Thank you. Council president. I would just echo councilor Kanal comment about continuing a contract or finding a way to continue to work with our. I really appreciate the work that you did and the very thorough conversation we had last night. It was a great give and take. I just want to reiterate, my takeaway last night was that the Portland police bureau is what I consider a progressive bureau, even though you called it. We're at graduate level, but I really appreciate the observations that you made that led me to have that takeaway with that council president. I would move that we adopt this report.
43 Council vice president makes a motion. Second, do we need a second on this to. All right. And councilor Kanal seconds colleagues, any discussion on adoption of the report seeing none. Can we please call the roll?
44 Avalos. Sorry, was that.
45 Can you do that one more time, please, counselor?
46 Me?
47 Yeah.
48 You. Oh, hi.
49 Thank you.
50 Smith I. Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney I Ryan.
51 Hi.
52 Koyama Lane.
53 Hi.
54 Hi, maria. I Novick I Clark. I Green I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I the report is accepted with 12 yes votes.
55 Thank you all for your hard work. And thank you for two days in a row of coming to city council. Can we please read items 11 and 12 together?
56 Item 11 add code to establish a city data and privacy office ad code. Chapter 3.39. Item 12. 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.
57 Thank you very much, colleagues. I've called item 11 and 12 up together. Item 11 is a resolution. We will be voting on this today. Item 12 is an ordinance. It will be moving to second reading at the end of the hearing today. But we will be taking testimony as one but separate voting actions. Christhopher herr is with the council policy analyst for the community and public safety committee. Christopher, please give us a staff report.
58 Good afternoon. Council president and council for the record christhopher herr council operations policy analyst I serve as staff to the community and public safety committee. The ordinance before you document number 2025 480 and the resolution before you document number 2025 481, were considered in the community and public safety committee. On December 9th, the ordinance was referred to council with a recommendation that it be passed, and the resolution was referred with a recommendation that it be adopted as amended. The ordinance adds city code chapter 3.39, as shown in exhibit a, to create an independent city data and privacy office led by a chief data officer who reports to the city administrator. Chapter 3.39 establishes the office as the central authority for citywide data governance, responsible for developing and enforcing a comprehensive data governance framework to ensure data usability, integrity and compliance with city data policies. The ordinance requires the city data and privacy office here henceforth referred to as the office, to collaborate with the bureau of technology services bts to support enterprise data management and software solutions. Consistent with best practices. The office will work with all city bureaus and programs to provide guidance, training, and technical assistance to support compliance with established data governance standards. In addition, the ordinance assigns the office oversight responsibility for data privacy and surveillance related activities across the city. This includes reviewing city programs and pilot projects that involve sensitive data surveillance technologies, artificial intelligence systems, large language models, and other automated systems, and ensuring that privacy impact assessments are completed prior to the deployment of new programs or significant changes to existing programs. The ordinance further directs the office to advise city council on the development of city code consistent with this chapter, including provisions related to title 34 digital justice, and to provide guidance on planning, policy development, public engagement, and budgeting efforts that involve surveillance technologies and data privacy considerations. Finally, the ordinance requires the office to conduct audits of city bureaus and vendors regarding data governance and privacy practices, recommend corrective actions for noncompliance as appropriate, and submit an annual report to city council on the city's acquisition and use of covered technologies. Compliance with data governance and privacy standards, and recommended policy updates to advance city values and community needs. The resolution directs the city administrator to establish a city data and privacy office, as shown in exhibit a. The resolution affirms the creation of the office under city code, chapter 339, and directs the city administrator to develop a proposal to transition city staff and functions related to data governance and privacy into the office. The proposal must address staffing, interim and long term resourcing strategies, the chief data officer position, and ongoing support for bts data platforms and data management projects. The resolution requires the appointment or hiring of a chief data officer prior to submission of the proposal, which must be presented to council or a relevant committee within 60 days of the resolution's passage, or by March 31st, 2026, whichever is later. For purposes of the resolution's timeline, the office is considered established once the proposal is heard by council or a relevant committee. Upon establishment. The resolution consolidates responsibility for data governance, privacy, oversight and the city's surveillance technology inventory, with in the office designating it as the city's central authority on these matters. The office is directed to coordinate with the office of equity and human rights, the bureau of technology services, and the city information security officer to ensure alignment with equity considerations, information technology planning, and citywide information security and compliance standards. The resolution further directs the office, in coordination with relevant city entities, to conduct a comprehensive inventory and risk assessment of sensitive city data. This work includes inventory data flows to external systems and vendors clarifying the city's definition of sensitive data, reviewing open data and public facing technologies for privacy risks, identifying practices that enable tracking or profiling inconsistent with the city values, assessing over collection and retention risks, and evaluating the adequacy adequacy of existing contractual policy and technical safeguards. The office must deliver a written report to council within specified timelines, outlining progress and findings using the results of this inventory. The resolution requires the development of a unified set of recommendations and proposed code changes. These recommendations will address citywide data minimization standards, enhance contractual and technical protections, vendor accountability, and penalties for noncompliance, safeguards related to law enforcement, data sharing, and limitations on the use of automated decision making technologies. The resolution also emphasizes transparency, oversight, and community protections by expanding reporting and review requirements for surveillance technologies, requiring city led privacy, review of sensitive data programs, and directing targeted community outreach and engagement. Finally, the resolution provides that the resulting recommendations and code changes proposed by the corresponding ordinance be made publicly available for review and comment prior to council consideration, and establishes the resolutions directives as binding city policy under city code. The committee adopted an amendment to the resolution prior to moving the item to full council on December 9th. The effects of the amendments on the original resolution are summarized in the committee staff summary posted online. The full impact statements on the ordinance and resolution include financial and budgetary impacts and analysis. Eight individuals provided verbal testimony in committee and nine individuals provided written testimony prior to council agenda posting. General themes of the testimony included concerns regarding public surveillance and data collection, and the need for increased transparency and oversight, concerns about the risk of personal data exposure, and the potential use of data to build behavioral or preference based profiles, particularly under the current federal administration. Concerns regarding certain small city technologies that may be unintentionally used for surveillance and the associated risk to residents, especially those in vulnerable or historically targeted communities. Interest in city lobbyists advocating for similar data privacy legislation at the state level requests that data submitted by residents to the city be treated as confidential, unless confidentiality is expressly waived. Comparisons to data privacy laws in other west coast states. This concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
59 Thank you christopher. This came out of the community and public safety committee and is also co-sponsored by councilors Novick and Morillo. I don't know who was up at caps that way, so I'm going to just first turn to councilor Novick and see if you have any additional comments.
60 Thank you, mr. President. Yes. One thing I want to underscore and thank you, christopher, for your detailed staff summary. It's important to note that this is a frontline, staff driven proposal that folks doing data issues around the city were concerned about and sort of brought forward over the last couple of years. It's also a realignment in line with the other core efficiency realignments have been put in place by the mayor over the past year. What the city staff said is that there was not a consistent there. We didn't have consistency around the city about what our procedures were for collecting and storing and protecting the privacy of data, and there should be a single city office that's in charge of that citywide. So I wanted to make that point. I also wanted to make the point that, you know, part of the goal here is to have an office that makes sure that there's procedures in place across the city and contract language across the city that ensures that data isn't doesn't wind up in the hands of ice. That data isn't misused by private entities for private gain. And make sure that we, you know, have provisions in our contracts with vendors that are designed for that. I also want to mention that there's a number of there's a friendly amendment package to go along with the resolution and ordinance. During the caps committee, councilor Zimmerman raised some good points about the ordinance resolution. After conversations with him, we moved a segment of the ordinance relating to privacy impact assessments to the resolution. We also removed some specific language, like the word audit, to ensure we weren't stepping on the auditor's toes. We've also continued to work with the administration after committee to refine the timeline of the resolution and ordinance, and to clarify a few issues about the implementation plan that should come after package. These changes are reflected in the amount of both their offices, and I think that we in the administration are both good with where we ended up. And finally we heard from some community advocates there should be some community feedback included in the office to ensure over surveilled communities have a chance to comment. We've added some language about improved community input to the resolution in section 1a3. So that's what I have to say. We have zach ward of my staff, along with susie dorchester of councilor Morillo staff, to give a brief presentation.
61 And councilor Morillo you're online, do you have any opening remarks you wanted to give before we jump into a staff brief presentation?
62 Yeah. Thank you so much, council president, and apologies to anyone watching. For me being camera off today. I'm just really sick. It's not indicative of my attention to this meeting and I really care about this data privacy policy. I think councilor Novick laid it out very beautifully, so I don't have too much more to add. I will be happy to take friendly amendments proposed by councilor Zimmerman. I think those language tweaks were really helpful and clarified the language and intention of the policy. I, I guess the only thing I want to add is that while the city has never really had a centralized data privacy office before in a way that makes sure that all of our bureaus are working in unison, that we all have the same practices. And once your data is collected, it's much harder to control what is actually going out, who it's going to. And as councilor Novick noted, part of the reason this policy was inspired was because of the data encroachment that we've seen ice in the federal government using against not only American citizens and activists, but also the immigrants that we are trying to protect. So I think that this is a very timely policy. I think that we have to be creative with the ways that we choose to protect our community members, and data privacy is going to be the 21st century of fighting fascism. Frankly, the way that data is tracked and used to surveil people is going to impact whether or not people can actually exercise their rights. So that's why this policy is very important to me. I appreciate you all being there to learn more about it today, and I hope that we can get it through. My staff are there to help answer questions, and kristen johnson, my financial analyst, is also there to answer questions too. Thank you.
63 Thank you. And susie and zach, were you planning on presenting or is are you just for responses? Are you okay? Colleagues, before we get into questions, I'd like to let them do their presentation. If folks are getting in the queue to testify or to to ask questions, I'm planning doing technical clarifying questions. We have public testimony and then we can move to discussion. So if you have technical or clarifying questions, feel free to stay in the queue. Susie and zach take it away, please.
64 All right. For the record, my name is zach ward. I'm councilor Novick policy analyst. If we could bring up the slides, that would be really great. We'll just give sort of an abridged presentation similar to the one that we did in the committee, just to kind of highlight a few things that we didn't necessarily talk about there, but we think are really important to this issue. Next slide. Next slide. One more. So currently as things stand, technology changes faster than any city council or local government is really prepared to deal with. Look, just look at the advances in ai technology, ai technology, security cameras, all of those things. They're pushing the boundaries of what we can control every single day. And that's not even considering the things that are normal to a city functioning. So things like staff turnover, updated terms and contracting and other changes like that can really put our privacy at risk. Next slide. And that is something that we're seeing play out across the country every single day. If you check any news outlet, you're going to see a story about how some new vendor or new ai technology company or security company like floc cameras are pushing the boundaries of privacy in that city, and the city councils are struggling to keep up with those changes. So the issue of privacy and data security has become so serious that we really can't fix it. With one simple ordinance targeted at floc cameras or emails or anything like that. We need an office full of experts to help us understand how to tackle this problem effectively. Next slide. So the proposal to create a new city data and privacy office is really designed to accomplish three things for the city. It's to help improve data governance in a time when our data is extremely vulnerable to exploitation, especially from the federal government. It's there to develop a unified privacy framework for the city where we haven't had one before, and it's there to improve public trust and accountability with the community to make sure that we're taking care of their data properly. Next slide. So something we really wanted to highlight this time around is what exactly is data governance? And put simply, data governance is the practice of managing data as a strategic asset and ensuring that it is accurate, secure, ethically used and effectively used across the city. And it relies on finding the answers to a number of really key questions. So what data do we actually have? Why do we have it? Do we need it? Because one of the core tenets of data governance is preventing over collection of data. And then after that, who is responsible for protecting it? How should it be protected and shared and used? So the goal of this office is really to find the answer to those three questions and to make sure that those answers help keep portlanders safe. Next slide. And then why does data governance matter for city operations? Ultimately, it's the foundation upon all upon which all of these data related programs and goals rely. And so just a few kind of examples. It's key to protecting privacy and public trust to ensuring that everyone's data is safe and protected. It's there to ensure cybersecurity is being effectively used and help reduce risk across the city. Governance. It's there for asset management to better understand how all of our infrastructure and assets are being used, so that we can better strategize as a city. It's there to help put up guardrails against emerging emerging technology like ai and other things of that ilk. And it's just also there to help us make better decisions as a city, using our data to ensure that everything is being used effectively. Next slide. And so how can city data be exploited? There's a number of ways it can be exploited by a number of different actors. Ice is obviously the most timely one at this time, but there's also a number of private entities like data brokers, that can be a serious problem for protecting city data. Next slide. And how exactly and then why is data governance and privacy a problem. So I think in the face of all the risks that I've discussed, building this or excuse me. Yeah. Kind of putting together this office to help ensure better data governance is really the key way to help reduce risk and understand what we're collecting and why, how we can reduce inconsistencies in the disclosure and other unintentionally harmful practices we can provide, and coordinated guardrails against data aggregation. We can improve our privacy expertise as a city and close gaps where things might be exploited, and we can help centralize and law enforcement across the city and provide better accountability as a city. Next slide. And how exactly will this office help? Well, it will provide those centralized standards and centralized oversight for all of the data across the city. It'll create a purpose driven data collection and retention entity, and it will ensure public trust, transparency and accountability in a time when we really need it. Next slide. And just a quick sort of timeline of how this proposal was developed. There was an original data office proposal created back in 2023 and 2024 that really was built by frontline staff who were working on these issues every single day. And then in 2025, when our offices started looking at privacy and security issues across the city, we kind of identified the same problems that the city staff had been working on 2 or 3 years ago. And so we updated that plan. We brought it to the mayor's office in August of 2025, and started collaborating with the bureau's with the dcas to make sure that everything was looking and working properly. We integrated a bunch of their feedback in October and now are here in winter 2025, 2026 to get this ordinance and resolution package passed. And in the spring, the executive will create this initial transition plan that we're we've been talking about, give us the final budget estimates, all those sorts of things, and get this office established so it can start doing this really important work. Next slide. Next slide. Just a quick structure outline. So this would be housed within city operations this new office and would report to the dca of operations. It would be led by the citywide data officer. The name has been changed at the request of the administration, and it would have rulemaking authority to help establish data and privacy guidelines and practices across the bureaus. Next slide. Just a couple of notes. There's a number of other bureaus and offices that would be collaborating with with this new office, most specifically bts, the city attorney and procurement and the office of human equity and human rights are really important to this, as well as the public safety service area and a number of other areas across the city, including records. Pbot in the case of like traffic cameras, bts, which has a very strong data governance presence and a number of other offices. Next slide. And then last just kind of the budget impacts. So this proposal is not predicted to have any significant budget increase on its face value. And the dcas are here to speak more to that idea. But in 60 days after this has passed, the staff will produce a transition plan that will help establish this office, provide us with a better idea of everything that would be in it, everything that would be able to accomplish and just in time for the budget process. Next slide. And finally, just a little note on engagement. We received a number of pieces of public testimony, nine, I think written pieces, a letter from some major privacy organizations around the city, and a number of in-person testimony at the committee. Just a few of note is the aclu, pdx privacy don't shoot pdx. So we've done a lot of public engagement on this, and they're really happy with the things that we've produced, as well as frontline staff that are working on these issues. They're also very happy and excited to get started on the work of this office. So. That's it.
65 So okay. Thank you. Colleagues. We are now moving into technical or clarifying questions before we move to public testimony. These folks will also be available for our council discussion. But starting with vice president Clark.
66 Thank you, council president. I do have some questions. Actually. This presentation is answered. Some of my questions a great presentation. I know you'll all be shocked. I'm probably the least tech savvy person up here, but I do read governing magazine. I do get the tech report and it's sort of overwhelming what's going on out there. So I'm really glad to see that you that you're on top of this and this proposal has come forward. However, can you talk a little bit about the resources that you expect to be realigned and how this is going to be paid for? That's my first question.
67 Yeah. So susie councilor, Morillo policy advisor, for the record, I think we would start by inviting up donnie oliveira and dc warren, if they would like to come and speak to that.
68 Yeah.
69 Okay.
70 Chair. Good afternoon. Councilors dc warren for city operations.
71 Dca oliveras community economic development.
72 So donny and I have been discussing how we might support one another in helping to implement putting together a proposal that would ultimately come before council that gives you all enough details around what might be the long term cost impacts. Ideally, that proposal would provide you with options that talks about what would you get for negligible budget amount with trade offs between resources within the city versus if you wanted to expand the office more, what that would look like, so that you could have that in a budget conversation? Donny and I have discussed that we would work together to find a resource to put together the report, who would obviously need to collaborate with others.
73 So can I. So does that mean that you're looking at realigning resources that already exist in the bureaus? Do I hear you saying that?
74 That's correct.
75 Okay, great. That sounds great. Can you talk a little bit more? As long as you're up here about your vision for the makeup of that office, or is that premature?
76 Yes. So the goal would be for the staff person that we would hire to do the proposal on an interim basis to tell us what the design would need to be in the report that's presented to council, so that you all are fully informed about the budget implications that you would need to make to support that office.
77 And, councilor Clark, I might also add that we appreciate the amendments that exist now that are helping to shape the proposal to allow us to do that contemplation so that we bring back to you all some specifics on how that would work. As a person who's been a part of multiple staff transitions, both as a director and as dca, there's a lot of hidden costs and machinations that need to happen to make this thing land well, and I think we just want a little bit of time to to do that work. But to answer your question directly, yes, there are staff within the city that are are already doing the work that we think would logically move. We want to make sure we understand the implications of that, noting that there's, you know, there's work to be done to that's already being done that can be moved.
78 Well, great. I think this sort of aligns with the sort of new government asset management approach as well. One last question. Can you tease out a little bit more where the ai falls inside here, what you're thinking about in terms of ai.
79 So our bureau of technology services has developed a policy. It has not yet been finalized. You all and your staff, I believe, are given an opportunity to look at that. I think that there is opportunities for our technology services folks to work with the data and privacy office and collaboration to talk about how those two things overlap. But I don't know that it would necessarily the governance of ai would sit in this office.
80 Interesting. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, council president.
81 Thank you, vice president Clark. Councilor Smith.
82 Council president. Thank you. Susie. So you say that the presentation that that you brought forward. That this position would have rulemaking authority. What guardrails prevent new rules from becoming unfunded, mandates that bureaus can't afford to comply with?
83 Yeah. So that's a great question. And I think the dca's can also jump in as well as a general governance matter. But I think that this is, you know, a critique that could be levied against any rulemaking authority across the city. You know, when executing an a law, a resolution or an ordinance, there's essentially a soft power and more formal power, right. And rulemaking authority would be more on the formal power side of things. And essentially that is the responsibility of the city administrator to ensure, as you know, the key actor in ultimately signing off on rules that are developed in concert with staff to ensure that there are not those unfunded mandates. There's also something that has so far not really been taken advantage of, but there's this opportunity for rulemaking processes to flow through council. So there are public comment periods on rules. So perhaps there can be council hearings on rules, council discussions on rules under development. The dca's do a fantastic job of sharing rules when they're being drafted, and they're under consideration within the administration and being discussed in the public. But perhaps council can take a more formal authority on that front to ensure, hey, this draft rule is in fact seeming to me to be an unfunded mandate. Let's talk about this a little bit more.
84 So how many staff do you project to be in this office?
85 Dc oliver and warren, would you want to jump in on this or do you want me to take first?
86 What what I would say that hasn't even been evaluated yet from an administration standpoint of what would the makeup of a department look like this in the true budget implications of actually creating this new office that will be charged with these responsibilities? So staff would have to come back to council as part of our budgeting process as well, to really just lay that out to council as it relates to what a potential new office like this would look and operate.
87 Yeah, I understand that. It's very difficult for me to sit here and listen to a presentation without some sort of framework of what I'm voting for in terms of data processing, because I find it very hard to believe that we don't have anybody monitoring our data right now. I find it very hard to believe that bts is not doing some of this work already. And before you come before us asking us to approve an ordinance, it's like I'm giving you an open check by allowing you to have this ordinance in this data, new information officer come online and you're not going to tell me how many people are going to be in the office, what they're going to be over and how they're going to how they're going to, you know, do their rulemaking authority or any of those things. I mean, I get it. I want us to have this, but it feels like this is an emergency. And I feel like one. You said it's not going to cost any new money. I don't believe that any time you do a new a new office, it's going to cost more money. So, I mean, just humor me. Give me something. Don't say it's not going to cost any money because it is. And you can't tell me how many people you're going to take from other offices. So I have no idea. I like it in theory that this. We have this. We'll have a one stop shopping place. But are you suggesting that this is going to be the office that determines where all of our cameras information comes from? Because don't we have other czech places? Because when we did our investment policy, I asked the treasurer, I said someone took money from our Portland housing bureau and they stole it. Cybersecurity. Someone took money from our transportation department. Cybersecurity. So are you saying right now we don't we're unprotected right now, and we have to create this new department?
88 Yes. So that's a great question. Actually a series of questions. So I'll try to address them in turn. But I appreciate that. So just upfront as a philosophical matter. So you know, we have this division of authority between the executive and legislative branches. And I think that council thus far has been in the habit and for better or worse, of issuing legislative mandates and saying, executive side, go forth and execute. And I think that is consistent with a plain reading of executive legislative authority division. And I think that in this case, if we didn't have any additional information, we just had a mandate, a product of staff expertise, external expertise. And we just said, executive side, please go forth and execute and present a report to us and implementation report, which is contemplated by the resolution, which will prompt discussion among councilors. But then also let's talk about it again during budget. This is something else that's in the resolution. We will have two bites at the apple at least to discuss this.
89 Why don't we wait until the budget to pass this. Why do we put this out here right now.
90 Yeah. So and this is what I was getting to, which is essentially that ultimately, you know, council is empowered to recognize that something is important. It warrants a legislative mandate that there are resources already that can be leveraged. And this is the key piece that differentiates this proposal from every other proposal that we've had in council so far. You know, protect Portland initiative was wonderful. But, you know, that didn't have an implementation plan ready to go when we were voting the protect Portland resolution, for example, there wasn't a, you know, detailed line by line implementation plan. And that's fine. That's great. That's part of division of authority. But what's great about this proposal is that because this has been discussed so extensively by staff over the last two years, we do have a vague sense, more than vague sense of which positions we would be pulling. How many, which, you know, donnie and sarah morrissey, former dca, sarah morrissey, when they were conducting their preliminary analysis following staff vetting of their proposal at every stage, every level of the government. They identified a number of positions, some vacant, some occupied, that would be suitable for this office, that would be aligned with its purpose. And those positions, with one notable exception, I believe, are still in the same position today, meaning the vacant ones a year ago are vacant today. So all of those realignment possibilities are still available to us. So I don't want to suggest that we don't have any sense of how many positions could be pulled. The key is that the implementation report provided by the executive will give us a full menu of the extent of the possibilities. So there could be dozens of positions available to us, but maybe we only want an iteration where we pull 6 or 5. And what would the cost be the pros and cons of each approach? It's going to be a menu of options.
91 And I don't mean to take up the time, because you said in your presentation that in 23 and 24, there was a lot of frontline activity on this. And so I'm not understanding what that is. Are you saying was that coming from the council at that time, because we came here in 25 and you said we've had a lot of conversations. This is the first conversation I had about this.
92 Yeah. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Do you.
93 Want a council member not put this forward or they were not able to put it forward for whatever reason?
94 It was actually a staff driven proposal back in 2014.
95 No, I mean, in 23, 24, did they bring it to council?
96 It was a staff driven proposal that was brought forward to council during the budget process, I believe, and I think maybe donnie can.
97 And it was denied. Yeah. Because it didn't go.
98 Yeah.
99 That's what you're saying.
100 Councilor Smith. I go back a little bit, just do a little history real quick. There was directed from the former council as a resolution to create a citywide data governance committee that bts was the coordinator for, that created a website that has a deliverable simultaneous to that is like there needs to be a central office to really manage that, because it was herding cats for one bureau to try to get other bureaus to participate. No judgment, just that's how it was, right? So at that time, in the development of the budget, we contemplated what would it look like as a part of this change of government to create this new office? There was a proposal. We had staff do some work. It looked at different staff across the city. It was not comprehensive. It was just a starting place, similar to what susie and zach have been conveying today. It didn't make it into the budget because there's a lot of moving parts. We had a new form of government, new budget process, but the the bones of the concept were good. And I think we're trying to offer is we'd like to build on that and come back to you all with an implementation plan that we think we can deliver on. So this isn't new work. And the last thing I want to just acknowledge is you pointed out something that's absolutely astute. There's a bunch of work happening across the city around data management, data governance, but it's sort of a thousand points of light. We'd like to have one centralized area to help coordinate, strategize, to provide some continuity so our communities understand how we're managing data, as opposed to each bureau kind of doing it differently right now. And they might be doing it well. But the point is we need that coordination.
101 But what I'm afraid of is the mayor's going to drop his 2627 budget. We passed this right now. He's going to drop a budget and he's going to be cutting. He said. We had $130 million worth of gap. And here we are creating a new department. And when the mayor drops his budget, you all have an unfunded mandate. You can't tell me how much it costs, how many people are going to be there. And then the mayor looks at this as a part of his infrastructure, and he cuts it out because he's not going to be able to see how much it's going to cost or what it's going to do. He's not going to keep unfunded mandates in his budget. And so then he cuts it. So that's why I'm saying why are we it just seems like it's backwards. Does the mayor support this?
102 Councilor Smith, can I offer one more piece of information just to give you a range of what we might be looking at by way of options. So, you know, on the low end. Right. If we were to use existing resources and realigning them, you'd probably be looking at something like 200 k for the technology tools that are needed to support that group. If you're talking about adding resources, you could be upwards to 1.5 to $2 million for the office. So it it really does depend on when we bring the proposal forward, what level of support you all want to put into an office.
103 So it's cybersecurity going to be under this office.
104 It it is not. So I want to be really clear that our bureau of technology services has an information security department. They have a manager who leads that work. I believe they are online or available closely if we need to ask them specific questions. But the city is protecting our data. I think the challenge that folks are talking about is that we have different data practices across the city that we want to combine into one office so that it can be managed from a centralized focus point that's not related to our data platforms where the data is housed.
105 So is it the video that that people see that the police have? I'm trying to figure out which data are you managing.
106 Yeah, I can also elaborate on this point a little bit, but I think that was a fantastic summary of it. But, you know, people who work in this space often characterize it in this way. So data governance, which again, is what zach talked us through, this idea of what do we have and why, how are we collecting it? Why? You know, that is essentially the foundation on which all operations in the city exist. So including cybersecurity. So I believe one of our slides said, you know, defining what needs protecting. So we can then proceed to build those defenses. So cybersecurity is all about preventing hacking, building defenses against certain threats. But in order to build those defenses you first need to define exactly what we want to protect. What kind of data do we even have? What is most worth protecting? What is most vulnerable? So these items work together.
107 Ice. You mentioned ice, right? And you said that ice or ice won't get our data. What kind of data are you talking about? If, if, if there are people in jail and ice wants to know who what people are in jail and when they're going to be out, what their names are. Is that what you're talking about?
108 Because we are starting to get into the more of the debate territory right now. We got we have eight people signed up for testimony. Still, I know I just want to get the.
109 Council president, but I'm just I don't understand what she's talking about. I really don't. And for something so important that we now need this, this thing that can't, that doesn't have a price tag on it and it's not describable what it is and it's not bts. So I have no idea what it is. Thank you.
110 Thank you, councilor and councilors again. Right now, I'd love to make sure we're getting technical questions out of the way and we can get into more meaty policy, philosophical conversations after we hear from the public. Councilor Green.
111 Thank you. I'm going to keep my questions narrowly focused on the technical question that I'm about to ask. Dca. Warren, are you guys contemplating any sort of technology that's part of the efficiency savings? I know a lot of large organizations might contemplate or, you know, dca, oliveira, maybe using some large language models or some ai tools. I know that I think dca is thinking about something in terms of like billing. Just curious if that's going to be part of the efficiency strategy.
112 So currently, the bureau of technology services is looking at how we can gain efficiencies by reducing licenses and applications and tools that are duplicative across the city. And then they also have like just a tier of things that they're looking through as part of the realignment, really to capture about 10% of the target out of the 20%. Originally, there was a budget note that was done in the last fiscal year that talked about when you make those savings, we'd be interested in hearing from you what you would like to reinvest in. And so our director, elise rosenberg, has been keeping a list of things that could be worth reinvesting in. Again, we are holding that list until there's an opportunity to have a fuller conversation around the trade offs, recognizing that we're going into a very constrained fiscal year.
113 Thank you, I appreciate that. That helps me understand about the trade offs in creating an office like this that might actually enable us to use those tools down the road. Thank you. I look forward to the testimony.
114 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Kanal.
115 I just wanted to quickly I know you said technical questions. We also usually float amendments here if we need to. I have an amendment that adds two words to the resolution council and in the number in the list of people who it's pre filed. You can see it as Kanal one on the on the resolution to the list of entities that the office of community engagement should partner with to do direct outreach efforts to underserved communities just to keep us in the loop. Literally two words council and and you can see it exactly there. But I wanted to float that in case testifiers wanted to comment on any of it.
116 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Novick.
117 I just wanted to point. Thank you, mr. President. I just wanted to point people to page one of the resolution and just clarify that what this envisions is that on March 31st or 60 days after the passage of this resolution, whichever is later, the administration shall come forward with a staffing plan, including identifying existing positions that will shift, positions may be reallocated, any new positions and budget proposals to be considered within the fy 2627 budget process. And what we envision is it says a proposal, but we're envisioning is, as dca, warren suggested, sort of some options of here's what the staffing plan could look like. Here's what the budget would look like. There's a low end version, there's a high end version. So that's what we're envisioning here, is that during the budget process in late March, we will get those options outlined.
118 Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Ryan.
119 Yes. Thank you, council president. I too am at home under the weather. Sorry, I'm not on camera. No one needs to see that. And I appreciate that. We have zoom options when we are in this state. I, I found the presentation to be helpful and it did answer some questions. I we all see the need. In fact, I've seen it for some time as it was reported that this is something that's already been in motion. This is nothing new and I support there for the problem we're trying to solve. Similar to councilor Smith, I have some of the same concerns and questions. I also recall if I'm dusting off my memory properly. Donnie oliveira your history with this would be that it was funded, wasn't it? Funded with ARPA dollars with smart cities initiative under the former bureau, which feels like years ago to me too. Does that where it started to evolve? I'm trying to dust off this journey that we've been on.
120 I thank you for the question, councilor. The smart cities program goes back a bit further than that. But to specifically specifically on the data, the ongoing staff that were funded through general fund had been moving towards sort of data privacy and best practices, and that the ARPA funds definitely provided more resources for us to dive in more thoroughly. So we were able to add more one time staff. But I would say the core work out of bts started before ARPA funding came around.
121 Okay, so I think my main question on this, I think all of you know, I get pretty into role clarity and I, I think that I was I heard just now that it would come back to us. I'm comfortable with the word resolution. Putting something in code is my technical question. Perhaps why is that necessary? And I think my big picture question is why? Why can't this be under bts? And I agree with councilor Smith that there's no way you're going to sell me on the fact that this is cost neutral and this won't have a big budget impact, so why can't this be under bts?
122 Yeah, so happy to speak to that a little bit. I mean, one certainly can do anything as a legislative body. But you know, what should one do in practice, what is best practice. And a number of cities, as a few councilors have spoken to directly or alluded to, have looked at the chief data officer role, established chief data offices, things of that nature. And increasingly the best practice is moving away from I mean, to the extent there's always been a mix of approaches, but we're really moving away more and more from combining the chief data officer role with the technology agency, whatever that may be in the locality. Ultimately, these are very compatible roles. They should work together in many things. Again, as I indicated to councilor Smith, data governance underlies everything that we do. Data is the lifeblood of the city, and we need to establish those processes in order to know how to proceed in every direction that we want to proceed. But ultimately, data governance has different incentives than technology offices. So if you look at how what is laid out in bts's chapter three codification, which I can speak to a little bit in a moment as well, because that also goes to why we would value codification for this office, which was one of your questions. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
123 I just don't know if my question was being answered, but that's okay. I appreciate what you were saying, but I'm not either interested in plugging and playing legislation from another city where maybe you have some peer relationships with. I'm asking that we already have this in motion. Something was already building here. We have a bts office. I'm not a big fan of creating new offices, when in fact we have to look at efficiencies currently in the enterprise. So I'm just trying to get to the bottom line of saying, why are councilors doing organizational development work when we have a city administrator, we have competent dcas that can give us a full proposal that could bring it back to us, that says this is actually budget neutral, here's the efficiencies, here's how this can fit into the 2627 budget. But I do not want to add more bureaucracy into this as much as efficiency. I think we all want that. I'm just not hearing clarity from the administration side. And I don't need any more from the legislative aides. I'd like to hear from the ca and the dca on what is the best path forward. This feels very like we're doing something micro to you at the moment.
124 Thank you, councilor Ryan. I'm happy to try and answer that. I think from my perspective, I am hoping for the opportunity for our office to put together a proposal that outlines options that council can consider in the budget process so that as we move forward, we know what we're moving forward with in the long run and how much we're investing to do that. I do believe, you know, I've worked quite a bit with councilor, Novick and councilor Morillo offices, and they have been very collaborative and reaching some of those understandings that that's how we would be able to support. I don't know if that answered it for you.
125 It said a lot, but I think I'm still aligned with councilor Smith that I'm not buying, that this will not become a new strain on the budget, and we don't have the clarity yet. I don't know why this is trying to be in code today. I get the urgency of the need. We have a team that's been building on this since 23 or 24. Data governance is always important. Of course we should have that in place. I just don't understand the action that we're trying to take that will expedite this today. And no one's really giving me clarity on that. So my technical question would be, why is this an ordinance today? And when you put up the map about how this is going to be put together, I don't think we answered those questions on how we're going to get to that type of efficiency.
126 Councilor this is donnie oliveira. Perhaps if we could take that as some gentle nudging as we contemplate the implementation plan, one scenario would be a cost neutral scenario. Just so you can see, right? Here's what it would look like. You know, concept a, concept b, whatever. But a third one, whatever the number ends up being would be explicit cost neutral. So you could.
127 Is very important because we all are facing the reality of our budget challenges. So thank you, donnie oliveira. I appreciate that very much.
128 Okay. Colleagues noting that it is 350, I got three councilors who have spoken before. I want to go to you guys real quickly and then I want to get public testimony. So, councilor Smith, please.
129 Thank you. I was trying to look on the internet to to look at other cities who have these data folks to kind of see what they did and how they did it. But when I went back to the resolution, it basically talked about the video that how we would keep certain video on there is that is that what this is specifically about? Video? But I heard heard tracy say that it's about all data. And just because I can't see it lined up, you guys have been working on it. And so you're intimately involved with it. So you you feel like you know it best. But just think about us sitting over here with a big gap, wanting us to approve an ordinance that makes us do something. I've never heard of such a thing. We don't even know what the budget is. But you want me to make it an ordinance, so I. It's hard. I like what you're doing. I'm all. I'm big on data privacy and protecting our employees data and the public's data. But it's hard to sit in this seat. I'm not against what you're doing, but it's hard to sit in this seat when I don't have any numbers. And you want me to blindly approve a law that we don't even know where we're going to pull the people from and how we're going to pull the people. It's almost like you have a, you know, I don't know what the urgency is. If there's some sort of what are you trying to solve for today, what's happening today that you think if we would have had a data officer wouldn't happen? Can you explain that?
130 Of course. Yeah, absolutely. So and this is something that the staff who have been advocating for this exact proposal have been speaking to now for over a year. Right. And this also goes to councilor Ryan's question and why I was speaking to best practice. It wasn't in service of plug and play. It was a product of the staff analysis. They concluded that it would be inappropriate to house this office and an office that should be created, according to staff analysis expert staff analysis in bts for a variety of reasons, one of which was comparison to other jurisdictions and their best practices. But yes, to answer your question directly of what are we trying to solve for here? This is something that the staff have been talking about fragmented data practices across the city, a lack of consistent standards. So policy flaws, what is the bare minimum that every single bureau needs to be doing to be doing best practice or close to it in protecting portlanders data. So things like that, establishing.
131 This protester data is that is that what you're trying to trying to.
132 Get all portlanders, even the protesters?
133 I'm going to leave it at this.
134 For clarity. Councilor Smith, when we talk about data, you know how the city has had multiple data breaches. It could be protesters. It could be portlanders. I think of like when the data collects people's gender, race, sexuality. Right. Sometimes when you have vendor contracts, that data is accidentally collected. It might not even be intentional. And so the city might not be protecting everyone's data for all of those things. And that's why it's important to make sure that we have. It's exactly because we as councilors who are not tech experts, do not understand the all encompassing nature of data privacy that we need a centralized data office that is going to do this. So the purpose is not to create something new, it's to consolidate the expertise that we already have at the city so that it's coordinated, rather than having every bureau have a random policy that they created on their own that is not working in, in concert with other people.
135 And colleagues. Again, I'll please ask. We are really a technical questions for the presenters are.
136 Voting today on this.
137 We will be voting on the resolution, not the ordinance.
138 Okay? Okay.
139 Yeah. Councilor, are you ready?
140 I'm waiting. I'm waiting for discussion. I'm ready for testimony.
141 Councilor. Kanal.
142 One quick question. It's not in the documents, but it was in your slides that the public safety service area has a role, I think. Zach, you were the one who mentioned it. Can you just briefly describe what that role is?
143 Yeah, I think a few years ago, council passed a resolution that helped create the surveillance technology inventory. So basically a list of all of the different surveillance technologies that are in the city. And that could be things like license plate readers, security.
144 Cameras, the capital c city government, or the lowercase c jurisdiction.
145 Capital c city, I believe. Okay. And most of those surveillance technologies are within the the public safety service areas. So they would have to be collaborators just because the things that this office would be examining are often in the public safety service area. Thanks.
146 Councilor. Ryan.
147 Sorry about that. Yeah, this is a technical question. I didn't get my question answered on y. Bts cannot be the authority.
148 I think a really important reason why it can't be the authority is because they do fundamentally different things. Bts is really about looking at cybersecurity. It's really about the technology itself, whereas this is the governance element. This is more about creating the rules, about what should be collected and what shouldn't be collected. What should we keep and for how long, what needs to be destroyed or discarded to keep everyone safe and to. For this to work most efficiently, they have to be in collaboration with each other, not one within the other.
149 And just to jump on to that very briefly, if you look at oh sorry, go ahead.
150 Yeah. So I heard that answer. I do think that an office bts can evolve to be what you said. They're not currently are there? What are the other cities that have a delineation between it and data privacy office where they separate them? What other cities did you study that have the two separate offices?
151 I'd be happy to provide an analysis of that. This is something that was also extensively studied by the staff that ultimately developed this proposal. So I don't have those details in front of me right now. But a jurisdictional comparison was something that, of course, was done as a part of this effort.
152 Okay. I would want that before I make a decision. Of course, you can understand that. So this is more about public safety ultimately then.
153 No, I would not say that at all. I would say that this is about data governance, where data is everything from an individual's gender and the decisions, whether we should collect identification, immigration status or things like that, to what type of data are automated license plate reader cameras collect and how we store that and how we protect that. So it's again, it's data governance is the governance of how we use the data that drives our city.
154 I appreciate that and I understand that and I want that. I want the same thing. I like this work. I didn't hear from anyone on the administration side. On why bts could not evolve to be the authority.
155 I am happy to answer. This is dc warren. I think that they could. However, what I would say is that I do think that we should align with best practice. So I think that there has been a lot of conversation around does it sit in bts? Does it sit outside of bts? And I think where we landed was if it sat in city operations, it would have a close connection with bts and therefore they could be close collaborators.
156 So you're saying we would have to add another office on top of that, because they can't evolve to play the role of data governance?
157 I'm not saying that. I am saying that they could. However, we should align to best practice.
158 I think everyone would agree with that statement. There's no one that would say we don't want to align with best practice, so thank you. I hope that donnie oliveira, when you give us the summaries of choices that you mentioned earlier, I think you labeled them as three choices. Could you give us some really thorough analysis about if this could be in bts and not create a whole nother office, because that will give us efficiencies alone just by keeping it in one office? And of course they should have the authority and of course they should be cat herders. And I do believe that offices and bureaus can evolve to take on new functions.
159 Sure, councilor will do. This is donnie oliveira. Just for the record, I want to clarify. I threw out three as an example. I don't actually want to make a statement as to how many exact options we may contemplate, but yes, understood.
160 That was fair. I just was going with the flow and what I heard. Appreciate it.
161 Thank you. Councilor keelan can we move to our testimony, please?
162 Thank you all. Right.
163 I'll call people up in panels. First up we have kate kay, sean patrick, jonas acres, kip silverman, marcus mundy. Please come on up and have a seat, folks. Okay? I see you online.
164 Should I go now?
165 Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks for being here.
166 Thanks for having me. Hello. Portland city councilors. My name is kate kay. I'm an independent journalist and researcher and north Portland district two resident. My comments today are made in my personal capacity, and they do not reflect my employer in any way. In my personal time, I have investigated Portland government's use of automated decision systems, surveillance tech and data, the expanding availability of data, coupled with today's advancing data processing techniques, means that even seemingly innocuous data use and sharing can have unexpected or unintended negative impacts. Portland has increased transparency and accountability around data and tech use through its surveillance, resolution, and privacy and information protection principles. But in my experiences researching city tech use, I have seen a scattered approach to privacy and some gaps between existing Portland data policy goals and actual tech procurement and policy implementations. A data and privacy office could deliver a more consistent and streamlined approach to data, policies, practices, staff and resources that keeps pace with rapidly evolving tech and data sharing. It might also facilitate a way to help the public keep up with information about our city's procurement of data centric tech, about data and tech policies and related activities. For instance, some are unaware of the current opportunity to comment on portland's directive for automated automatic license plate readers, a form of tech with important data related impacts. I was in the city council chambers in December when the proposals before you were first introduced. It was clear then, as it is today, that I that a diverse array of portlanders care deeply about how all our city bureaus manage information about us data privacy and government governance are not. Partizan issues. A data and privacy office could help Portland fortify data governance and management and help achieve existing data policy goals for privacy, transparency, accountability and community engagement. Please also see my more thorough written testimony and thanks very much for your consideration.
167 Thank you so much for being here.
168 Next up, sean.
169 Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Councilors. My name is sean patrick. I'm here representing pdx privacy, a local volunteer run nonprofit committed to the concept of privacy as a human right. We all know that every efficient business needs to manage data effectively. Anyone that has tried to run a business or manage a micro business, as I have, knows this to be true. But data can be both an asset and a liability. Managing it poorly carries real consequences. On the other hand, investing money in its proper management pays massive dividends in efficiency and avoided risk. Good data governance gives Portland the chance to run more effectively with less risk and better safety for its residents. That is money well spent and is why establishing the city data and privacy office just makes good sense. The cost of doing nothing in a rapidly changing data landscape is just too high, but the office itself is just a body. We also need to give it a heart and a mind, one that prioritizes the needs residents have right now. Make no mistake, data is powerful, especially with the advent of the rapidly changing field of ai analysis. It can reveal an intimate and detailed picture of our lives, of your lives, of our children's lives. Once that data has been extracted into data broker systems, it can be purchased by federal agencies like ice without a warrant, and once it is purchased, it will likely persist, possibly even forever. These are not hypothetical concerns. These are real dangers that real portlanders are facing right now. For some of them, in our immigrant communities, the consequences could be dire. We need to pass the privacy and data protection resolution to ensure that this new city data and privacy office protects the people of Portland in the way they deserve to be protected. To ensure that data risks are mapped effectively and the office has the credibility and focus it needs to effectively meet the challenges of tomorrow. To ensure that trump can't capitalize on the data streams that the city is currently managing in a haphazard, inefficient, bureau by bureau manner to ensure Portland can stay true to its values, even as the political landscape around us continues to change rapidly. And this impossible to predict era of ai and big data truly begins to take hold in our society. This is inexpensive, common sense legislation that demonstrates your commitment to meeting this unprecedented moment in American history with an intelligent, flexible, and fiscally responsible plan, one that utilizes existing resources and increases the efficiency of our government while meeting one of our city's most pressing urgencies. Thank you.
170 Thank you also.
171 Great timing.
172 Jonas.
173 Either.
174 Jonas.
175 Thank you council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. My name is jonas akers. I'm a cybersecurity professional. A lot of my career has been spent mathematically modeling uncertain flows of capital, especially in the face of cybersecurity risk. And it's been fascinating sitting here today and listening to this discussion, because this is a discussion that's very similar to the discussions that have been had in every large organization, public or private, for the past 20 or 30 years, especially the past decade, as these cybersecurity risks have only gotten bigger. And this this question of where do we put data governance is such a difficult one, and I can't tell you anybody actually knows the right answer to that. I can tell you that right now it is very normal to split up governance from the people who actually do operations. It's just such a different mindset. One of them is a very technical I want to be hands on keyboard. I want to go, you tell me the technologies we've got. I'll tell you how to secure that. But you have to start by telling me what we've got. And if you had a bad start, I can only give you so good of an ending to that story. There's another piece to this. A very important piece that's before we even buy the technology. What are we trying to buy? What do we negotiate? Right now, there are cyber criminal groups that specialize in exploiting municipalities. There are lawyers that make their money on the back end of that. And the data liability cases that follow. There are brokers who sell the information that gets leaked and they make money, and they increase the impact and the value and the frequency of these breaches. And your vendors know this, and they know about the liability from this. And the only thing they can do is shift it right back onto the city. You guys have to get good at this game, and you have to have a team that has their eye on the ball. And that's not just a technical question. That's that's a very policy driven question. What are we willing to have? What risks are we willing to assume? Do we want to have flock if we know that that's a third party vendor that has this kind of relationship with that data? That's not a technical question. That's a policy question. And that's why so many companies and so many, I believe, municipalities, I know a lot more about the companies, but they've split out this role. It's a very different mindset. And you want the same group of people applying that throughout the organization, because if every single department or every single bureau has to fight this battle on their own, it's divide and conquer and you will lose ten times out of ten. Now we talk about cost. How much is this going to cost? You're right. I mean, who the hell knows how much anything costs? But I can tell you that what will surely cost is the data breaches you're going to have. You can't model that cost, but you're going to have them. You've already been pilfered so many times. And until we get better at this, it's going to keep happening. What we have now is not cost flow neutral. You have costs. Think of every piece of data. As a kid out there who's ivy league education you're going to have to pay for someday. How much does it cost? Oh my god, it's more every year. It just gets worse. So I really hope you support this resolution. I really support you. I hope you support this ordinance. Thank you very much for your time.
176 Thank you very much.
177 Go ahead. Kip.
178 Oh, sorry. I didn't hear that. My name is kip silverman. I use he him pronouns and I'm entering my 28th year in Portland. I'm a resident of district two this year so far. Anyway, I worked as a senior technical strategist for xen when commissioner in 2017 spent four months doing a deep dive into understanding the city's technical environment, information platforms and other various aspects of how the bureau stored access and shared data. And as expected, things were messy. Technical solutions in a highly siloed and rather chaotic bureau management system led to every bureau having multiple independent systems with little consistent governance and little, if any, interoperability. What I also learned during this time was the city systems were not only generally not interoperable, but also at varying degrees of integrity and different support requirements, including a lot of outdated software and insecure implementations. I'm glad the councilors are bringing up this ordinance proposal, as we absolutely need better protection around our data and personal information. But as I stated previously in the caps committee, my concerns are that that will not be enough. We also need a project and governance and policy that will end of life. Older software and hardware systems integrate current systems and apply the same level of integrity and security across the board in an accelerated time frame. Some of the challenges we have have been already exploited, and as we are facing climate and other looming major catastrophic events, we are not nearly prepared for any sort of major emergency as we should be. All of these details will make recovering from a catastrophic event exponentially harder. And if we do not protect the data we currently have before it happens, we are at even greater risk to councilor Smith's point consolidating systems, reducing footprints and protecting individual privacy will actually free up millions of dollars that she was concerned about, if not tens of millions of dollars towards the future budget. I understand from some of the commentary that some of that effort might be happening now in bts, and I applaud that. But we also need policy to direct it to make sure it happens efficiently. Technical debt is an exponential problem. Each year that technical challenges go unaddressed, they become more challenging to solve and create far more risk. And it's more costly in many ways. Please move forward and vote yes on the resolution. And please support the ordinance as we figure out how everything ought to work. I also support splitting the governance and the implementation offices. Thank you for your time today.
179 Marcus.
180 All right. President Dunphy, vice president Clark, esteemed members of the council and yeah, ca lee, thank you all for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is marcus mundy. I'm the executive director of the coalition of communities of color, c.c.c. And of all things. I'm also a registered lobbyist with the city of Portland for c.c.c. I'm here to express our strong support for resolution 2020 5-4 80 regarding everything you heard, establishing the city data and privacy office put forth by the forward looking councilors, Morillo and Novick. This resolution addresses many of the concerns of c.c.c. Our 20 members and our community based partners, particularly at a time when our communities face countless threats to their safety and privacy, when some of our most personal and sensitive information lives in and flows through public systems, there must be a robust and well resourced infrastructure to ensure these data are being protected, stored, shared and used with the highest levels of coordination, responsibility and above all, ethics. Our member orgs, urban league verde, even our c.c.c. Staff over the years have worked on these issues with the city city group face recognition data privacy efforts before and even our partners like our close partners like suma, they work on these issues real time. So this resolution we especially need in this current moment, our communities are being profiled and targeted, and data plays a big part in perpetuating this violence. We find ourselves in a context where the federal government's overreach is a clear and present danger, where the infrastructure for surveillance is being well resourced, and where the misuse and erasure of administrative data by the federal government is virtually ubiquitous. This risk is more acute than ever. There was an article today in the Washington post about the question that councilor Smith asked, and isis tools and their use of those tools. Researchers and lived experience accounts have been warning us for decades that these harmful practices disproportionately and negatively impact communities of color, low income communities, and immigrant communities the most severely. We must rely on our local governments to be good stewards of data. In Portland, as a sanctuary city is well positioned to live up to this commitment by modeling strong data governance practices and policies that address these concerns, we know firsthand how important data governance is to our communities. For the past two and a half years, c.c.c. Has been stewarding a community led process to build a data system that houses community data and centers lived experiences critical for decision making. Over 20 community based organizations have participated in the process, which has led to the co-creation of a data charter, essentially a document that lays out a community centered data governance approach. Staff from the city have been with us throughout this process, supporting us with their expertise and providing critical guidance on data governance. This two and a half year process is an expression of trust building. With the establishment of this city data and privacy office, the city can further the tenets of this work and make tangible commitments to building trust with communities. Thank you for your time, your service and your consideration of this matter and allowing me to speed read today. Thank you, thank you.
181 Next up we have jeff landel. Doug, alex h d aurora and alan hippolito. Jeff.
182 Should I be?
183 Yeah go ahead. Jeff.
184 Hi, my name is jeff. I'm a data privacy analyst and digital security educator living in district three. I'm here to ask council to pass the data privacy ordinance and resolution under consideration today. I've worked on cyber security and surveillance policy and legislation for about ten years in dc, including during the first trump administration. And I think most or all of us can agree that with our current federal administration, there is a lot of necessary discussion about radical changes we need to make in order to protect ourselves. But I'm also really excited here to see council debating good old fashioned, boring governance. Distributed throughout the city of Portland. Are individuals working within their departments on privacy and data governance practices and policies, and this is, frankly, a really difficult area where technological and legal expertise overlap. Data governance is hard, and having a centralized office, particularly one that is not attached to any technological technology procurement processes, means that people working for the city of Portland will have a one stop shop for all their data governance needs. We need an agency that can allow different departments to stop reinventing the wheel each time. They need a new or revised policy or procedure. Santa clara county, new york city, san jose, seattle and a number of other cities are already leading on this by creating some form of data governance and data privacy offices, and I would really encourage council members to reach out to and talk to some of the staff in those cities. If you're able and have the time to learn about the ways that centralizing data governance and privacy practices like these can lead to better policies, better practices, stronger privacy, and build out staff expertise, while also reducing a lot of duplication of work and research. Thank you so much to council for taking my testimony, and to the council clerk for enabling remote participation in the session.
185 Thank you very much.
186 Corey.
187 Good afternoon, president Dunphy, vice president, clerk and councilors. My name is corey sullivan. I'm a resident of district three. I'm here today in strong support of the city. Data and privacy ordinance 3.39 39 and privacy and data protection resolution. I work professionally in application security and data risk. My job is to understand where sensitive data flows, how it leaks, and what happens when systems are designed without clear ownership and oversight. From that perspective, portland's current approach to data privacy is a structural problem, not a values problem. Right now, each bureau is effectively responsible for managing its own data privacy, compliance, and risk assessment. That means no single group has a complete picture of where city data goes, who has access to it, or how it could be reused in the future. In security, we call those blind spots. And blind spots are where harm happens. This matters because data is rarely dangerous in isolation. It becomes dangerous when it's aggregated, shared, sold or repurposed across the country. We've seen data collected for everyday operations later used for immigration enforcement, protest, monitoring, surveillance, reproductive health investigations. Once this data exists and leaves its original context, control is extremely difficult to regain. These risks do not fall evenly. Immigrant communities, communities of color, and people who are already overpoliced and surveilled bear the greatest consequences when data is misused. Portland has made important commitments to privacy, civil liberties and transparency. But commitments without centralized enforcement and accountability are not enough to protect people in practice. Creating a city data and privacy office directly addresses this gap. It establishes clear ownership, enables a citywide data inventory and risk map. It makes privacy and data protection a primary responsibility, rather than a secondary task added onto an already overwhelmed bureaus. This is how modern organizations manage data responsibly. Finally, as ai and automated systems become embedded in government tools, privacy review and transparency are no longer optional. Systems that can generate detailed patterns of life must be evaluated before harm occurs, not after. This legislation creates a framework for Portland to stay ahead of those risks, rather than reacting once damage has already been done. For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask the council to vote yes on both the city data privacy ordinance 3.39 and privacy and data protection resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration.
188 Thank you very much.
189 Nate.
190 Thank you, Portland city council. My name is nate. I run a small Portland based information security consulting business. My background is in penetration testing, security testing and red teaming. But I'm here to talk today about why having a centralized data privacy office isn't just about technical cybersecurity stuff, but is instead about overall data governance and what that means. I've worked with a lot of procurement officers, contracting officers. Those individuals have their hands full ensuring that they're abiding by their local, state, local, federal regulations, etc. Similarly, as a technical guy, my I have a full time job just trying to understand how the computer works, right? A separate but empowered group of experts is needed to ensure that, you know, contracts or technical controls aren't protecting the wrong things or don't have massive privacy or governance vulnerabilities the cdo creates that. I'll give a couple examples of how this has gone wrong in the past 2024. Government accountability office report gave an example of a federal agency who worked with a contractor, and then that contractor put government data in the cloud in a in a cloud vendors computers hidden somewhere in that complex chain of contracts was a clause that gave the cloud service provider ownership of government data, and then that federal government agency had to pay a bunch of unexpected money to regain control of their data. Obviously, the federal government has deep pockets, but for a city, such an unexpected expense could be catastrophic. A second example is we live in a world where, unfortunately, vendor promises turn out to not be true. Illinois state law prevents license plate data from being shared with out-of-state agencies for the purpose of investigating abortion or immigration purposes in 2025. Just six months ago or so, the state audited the systems of a certain license plate reader company and found they were violating the law as a means of reassuring customers. That company said, we do not have a contractual relationship with us. Department of homeland security agencies. According to the state attorney general, the company leadership themselves were unaware of a pilot program in which that data was going exactly to those same agencies. Vendor statements and reassurances need to be routinely audited, not just from a technical perspective of is there encryption actually good, but also from a perspective of data governance. A vendor can look a city council or in this case, a state attorney general, straight in the eye and say, we don't have a contract to share your government, your with your data and then turn around and do a non-contractual pilot program to do that exact same thing. This was not a technical cybersecurity problem. It was a governance problem that wouldn't have been caught by technical cybersecurity controls. This having a centralized city data and privacy office creates a structure to coordinate and manage this. Chicago, la, seattle, all cities which have data governance officers or privacy officers above their or in coordinating with their technical folks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
191 Thank you very much, ellen.
192 Elana ippolito and palabras su amigo el rey de espana. Es una estar aqui. Hoy con ustedes con su mi gente. Ja me voy inglés. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is alan ippolito. In the words of your friend and mine. Espana. It's a blessing to be here with you today. I wasn't planning on testifying today, but I've heard a lot of really good stuff about division of labor. Didn't expect to hear about pentesting today, so I'm rather excited about that. I work for suma. We're a Portland based nonprofit that spun off from verde. We use technology to fight poverty, racism, and climate change. Our suma app is an open source e-commerce marketplace where low income customers buy essential expenses, where funders support these households, and where vendors sell to low income customers. We think about privacy, security, and community engagement every day. We try to protect. We try to limit the data that comes into our database. We try to protect our data from external hostile actors. We try to segregate our data within the platform so that a breacher can't form a complete data profile on an individual, user, or group of users. So we think about this stuff a lot. So the I want to re-emphasize the division of labor here, the people who build our platform or acquire our tech, who build our app, are not the people that analyze its security vulnerabilities. And they're not the people who train the rest of our staff on how to protect the platform from indirect attacks. Through what? When we're using google drive or zoom or dropbox or slack or front or what have you. These are different people doing different things. I wouldn't ask our engineers to give a training to our staff about the right way to do toofar, and I wouldn't ask them even to evaluate that. We would hire very different people to do that stuff. And we're a tiny company of ten people. And then for some of the questions that have come up from different folks about the history right there is, I would call your attention to at first a 2017 data and society report that really highlighted how your most vulnerable community members, low income people, people of color, those with disability are acutely aware of the risks of their privacy and very skeptical of the institutions that they trust to be stewards of it, to be able to do so. And then lastly, I just want to read one bit of testimony from way back when we were talking about facial recognition technology back in 2020. We came before here and we said that Portland, as a government, like many other jurisdictions, is challenged as a government to make tech policy to govern in the basic sense of promoting health, safety, welfare, etc. You have to make quick decisions in the face of rapid change. You did not have a well designed system or practice to govern how you would respond to that change. And to me, that's what we're talking about here is not this agency, that agency, this councilor, that councilor, but something more coordinated that community members can see and engage. And I would submit that that would be quite an evolution for bts to do grassroots privacy dialogs with the most vulnerable portlanders. Thank you.
193 Thank you very much.
194 Last call for alex de aurora. Testimony is completed.
195 Great colleagues, we are going to now move into debate and discussion. Councilor Green I'm sorry, councilor Green, before you start, I just want to let folks know our city attorneys pointed out that in the resolution that we were going to vote on today, it makes reference to the code that we will be adopting. And so we will not be voting today on either item. We will be moving it to next week to have those votes of the resolution and the ordinance at the same time.
196 That's really important clarification and thanks for that.
197 Yeah.
198 Thanks. Council president, I'm going to speak in favor of the ordinance and the resolution today. And I think there's three buckets of reasons why I think that we should adopt this. I'm going to speak to the need. I'm going to speak to the the what and why, like the sort of why a chief data officer role. And then on the question of what the appropriate scope of legislation is as to the need, I'm looking at an Oregonian article published today that references that yesterday, 15 unnamed sources in the white house said that after minneapolis, Oregon, was next. And you know what they did in minneapolis? They went around and they found people in communities to pick up on the street and kidnap and terrorize based upon data that had no governance controls over it. And I was at a vigil last night at the veterans administration hospital mourning the loss of alex pretty. And there were hundreds of our constituents there. And max, congresswoman maxine dexter was there. There was many of us there. And they said, what are we doing? What are we doing to take action? And I said, I have colleagues who are bringing forward very important legislation to this dais that's going to do what we can at the local level. And we have we have a federal legislator here as well, who made some great votes on defunding ice. That's what we're doing. But we you need to continue to press us. So I would say the reason why we need to take up an ordinance as soon as possible is so we can get this out of the way and we can create the structure that we need so that when we go into the budget, we're not debating whether it's a good policy. We're debating on how to fund that policy implementation. We will have three weeks in the budget cycle to react to the mayor's budget. That's not time to create policy. This is the appropriate time to do it. So that's that's on the urgency. The other aspect of the urgency is we're we heard from jonas recently that we're facing a structural fiscal crisis, and that it's going to take a five year plan to suss out. And a big part of solving that is going to involve the disciplined asset management approach to it procurement, as you mentioned. Councilor, and I'm glad that you're a reader of governing magazine. I am too. Last I know well, you know that I'm a supporting your asset management approach. It's the reason why last April April 2024, two aprils ago, there was a great article that spoke to that made the case for having a chief data officer in local government as a response to generative ai and all the technological innovations that we have. And I can send that link to everyone. If, you know, if you don't want to take the words of the good staffers who did this, if you don't trust them, maybe you'll trust governing magazine. And I'll also note that deloitte, which was you may have heard of this firm. It's I think they're a pretty small management consulting firm. They published an article actually just a few days ago that basically puts puts to rest the question of whether you need a chief, a data governance office. They say this has already been settled. Every large corporation is pursuing this because they see that it adds value. Also in large governments. They see it. They're pursuing it for the same reason. What they're asking is how, you know, how do you structure your your your data governance office? What does that look like? And that's the that's actually a good thing to work through. And that's what the sponsors of this legislation have asked the bureaucracy to do and help us understand. So I think, you know, for folks that are not convinced on why we need to have it or why we need to have it now, if you want to take an evidence based approach to policy making, look to deloitte, looked at governing magazine. They've done the work for us. The staff who've brought this forward in 2024 have done the work for us, and these staffers have done excellent work supporting these these councilors. I'll also just speak from lived experience because we do that a lot here. When I was a senior policy person at the bonneville power administration, one of my additional duties was to work on sort of a skunkworks team to create a data governance office. We didn't have one in bpa, and we made the case to management in a very, very constrained fiscal space where we were facing intense pressure from our customers. We were getting ready to sign 20 year contracts. That's not that's not a period where you want to say, we're going to add new costs to our balance sheet without a lot of thought into it. And the executives said, yes, let's do this. Let's create a new office, because we see the we see the opportunity to manage our assets better and to to hire up people with like really good data skills. And we saved a lot of, you know, we created a lot of value in that. And we signed those contracts. We're in the middle of being signed. But the point is, is this is not novel. This is not new. Large organizations, for profit or otherwise are doing this. And I just want to applaud my colleagues for taking the initiative to lead on this, because I think we need it right now. And, you know, frankly, I don't know why we're not doing an emergency ordinance on it, but but, you know, it's fine. Thanks so much. I've made my case.
199 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Koyama Lane.
200 Thank you, council president. And thank you, councilor Green, for all of that. That was helpful. Colleagues, I'm in strong support of both the resolution resolution and ordinance to in creating the city data and privacy office. Creating this office is vitally important. It signals that we as a body, as the council, it signals as the city as a whole understands the responsibility it has to be careful and professional stewards of portlanders data. And I don't think I need to spell out why the government should be not collecting information it doesn't need. We have to ensure that the information that we do collect does not expose our constituents to any unnecessary risk. And it's irresponsible to think that someone, somewhere, is just doing this is going to protect our data. So I believe that at the core of it, it's about common sense standards, making sure that, you know, we don't have people's home addresses, sexual orientation, immigration status, social security numbers, just sitting in unsecured spreadsheets, and that we're not collecting information that we don't have to when maybe someone's just trying to register for a community program. I mean, like, I want staff to think through and apply it across the city, have someone who's asking, okay, what information is really needed when someone signing up for parks and rec zumba class, and there are security measures and considerations that many of us wouldn't think about, I'm actually reminded from a few years ago, when my school had picture day scheduled on one of the high holy days, and first important school activities and events should never be on religious holidays. But when the school secretary realized that this was this had happened, made a list of all the kids who had missed picture day for makeups and, you know, was trying to be helpful. And then there was a teacher that was like, whoa, hold up. You have just made a list of like many of the Jewish children in our school. I don't think you realize what you just did. And we were like, nope, let's rethink that. And while many of us hadn't made that connection, we were really grateful that a teacher did notice that and made us think, like, let's think about the kind of lists that we're making. And the school secretary shift that approach. But even if lists and data are being gathered in a way that aren't intentionally trying to hurt anyone, we still need to make sure that we're being very careful and mindful. I also appreciate that the ordinance recognizes that data and privacy are equity issues. The harm caused by poor data practices are not evenly distributed, and marginalized communities are oftentimes the most impacted. And that's why it's really important that this office, if created, which I hope it is, is closely works with and coordinates with the office of equity and human rights and bts the bureau of technology services. So that equity is really centered in data governance. And lastly, this issue is very personal for me. My members of my family were incarcerated here in the united states in world war two camps, and government data from the census played a direct role in making that injustice possible. So just a reminder that data collected for ordinary purposes can later be used to cause real harm. So creating a city data and privacy office is a really critical step towards protecting our residents and also building public trust. I really hope my colleagues support this legislation.
201 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Smith.
202 Thank you. Council president. Could I ask dca aloe vera to come back up? I think I've been convinced that we do need a data privacy person, but I need to find out. I haven't been given any examples of something that's happened here at the city of Portland that would we're solving for something right now, and I can't figure out what one thing or 2 or 3 things that the councilors have identified as we're trying to solve for is that for it's that they're prophetic in trying to prevent it from happening. But there's something that has happened here, and I need to get some meat on this bone to tell me why it's important. I do think it's important, but the size and the magnitude, that's a that's a time for another day. I wish we would have been directing the city administrator to do a report on why it's necessary and give us and how how big it could be first, before we did an ordinance on it. But I just do you have any examples of things that have happened or tracy has any examples?
203 Yeah. Donnie oliveira for the record.
204 Deputy city administrator for community economic development, councilor Smith, I think you actually, in your question, sort of answered it is this isn't designed to be reactionary. It's designed to present the guiding principles, the strategies, the governance of how all of our bureaus will go forward in the event that there's, you know, a problem, how we react to it. But more specifically, it is sort of those those side guards and side rails about what not to do had to have what the best practices are. So we are contemplating that preventative measure that you actually alluded to in your question. But there have been times when city bureaus have contemplated buying technology or software that maybe was in the best interest of our communities, and if we had an office and thankfully we had staff in the city that were able to react to it. But a governance office would allow us to contemplate those sorts of purchases before making that decision with the best information available so that you all could, you know, and administrator can make good decisions for our communities. So I guess I'd say this is designed to both provide support but also structure around our our data usage.
205 We're not without any guardrails right now. I don't want people to think that we're just a government. We have no guardrails and we're just out here.
206 But as some of the testimony alluded to, technology comes at us so fast. Every time we think we're on top of it, a new idea comes out or existing tools get modified to put to more nefarious uses. I think we're just trying to get ourselves in place to have the right structure, to be more preventative.
207 Yeah. Okay, I can respect that.
208 And, councilor Smith, we can have our I.t. Bureau speak to what has happened in the past as it relates to data for the city as well.
209 Is our it people here?
210 Oh, hi. Hello.
211 Hi. Thank you.
212 Thank you.
213 Hi, there. I apologize, I have no voice, but I'll do the best I can. I'm elise rosenberg, for the record. I'm the chief information officer.
214 Hi, elise. I've only talked to you on the phone.
215 I know, it's nice to see you in person, councilor.
216 Thank you.
217 Yeah. Thank you. So, you know, we're also in support of having data governance and some of the great work we've been able to do in partnership with the data governance committees that have existed, have been around exactly what this body has been talking about, trying to coalesce the collection of data in a way that is more secure and more supportable, and also allows all of you to get some of those decision making items that you need. So, for example, we've worked together on social vulnerability indexes with water and with bts to help with things like affordability, using some of the data sets we already have, coalescing those together, using data governance principles to try to do those things in a better way. Certainly, we can also have a better security and better, better supportability around those types of principles as well. I don't want to, and I'm happy to talk to any of your offices about some of the security challenges that we've had every, every government does. But I think there's a lot of opportunity from an efficiency and from a data informed decision making component here as well, that we can we can do better together if we can partner between technology services and data platform investments and the better governance of those data, treating data as more of a citywide asset than a bureau asset in service to community. Sorry for the voice.
218 No, I appreciate it. Thank you. That's that's what I needed to know. And I'm glad you told that to me because as you know, we tried to get several different software and you told us that we couldn't do that because of this. And I appreciated that because I didn't know. But I appreciated having that that 30,000 foot look and understanding what we could and could not do. So that was very helpful. And that's the last that's the last question. I have council president, but I do want to thank marcus mundy for sending me that article from the new york times about the tools that ice arsenal track suspects and stuff like that, that that's really helpful. So thank you so much.
219 And oh, great. Perfect. Colleagues, I just want to note we have we have a hard out at 5:00. We have 17 minutes 16 minutes as it changed. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
220 Thank you. Council president and council president I do have some questions. They weren't technical so I did not ask them before. But do you mind if we call back up dca warren.
221 Mona, please. Welcome back.
222 Thank you.
223 Thank you. I know there was a robust discussion about cost before and we don't have the costs. We don't know what this is going to look like. Understood. But I'm trying to understand the range of what we're doing. Right. If we were just passing a resolution asking you all to do something and then coming back and then putting this in code, I would have fewer concerns. Frankly, I think we need to do this. I'm really grateful to the carriers for bringing this forward. This is something our city needs to move in the direction of. But the fact that we're being asked to establish code now is difficult for me when we don't even have a range. So I'm wondering if you can help me with a little bit of context around if we have a a cost neutral proposal? What does that mean in terms of work that doesn't get done? Or if we have a minimal proposal that's not cost neutral, that maintains all of the current work, but doesn't get as expansive as we could. What is the range of costs that you've seen in other locations for that? I'm I want to understand if we don't go full meal deal, it'd be great if we could, but we're looking at the budget reality that we are right now in, let's say, 20, 27, 28. So not next year, but once we already have an office up and running, what should I expect in terms of range of cost or type of work that wouldn't be done?
224 Absolutely. Council councilor Pirtle-guiney. So it's it's difficult to say. I think, you know, we're using the word cost neutral, but when we talk about that, we're talking about trade offs and priorities for the organization. Right. So you are choosing that you will not do some other work to do this work. And those are conversations we have all the time. Right, as we're setting the budget. And so I think what we were looking at initially is that we would have one resource available to do the proposal, who would give the baseline as.
225 One resource. Do you mean one staff member?
226 One staff person? Correct. Who would put together the proposal that would outline costs? You know, when we've.
227 Somebody presumably on our it team somewhere within city government already whose work would be distributed to their colleagues.
228 We were talking about a partnership between cetsa and cosa and that we would likely work with dca oliveira for staff who are already doing similar work. Okay, and ask them to absorb this work that does, you know, have some pieces that they are doing that is not a part of this work, is my understanding that we would have to figure out how to cover. And then I would say what we've looked at, and I think I spoke to this a little bit earlier when councilor Smith was asking her questions. But on the low end, right, if you were to just take existing staff, you would have the priorities trade off, but you would need to add some tools. So likely you're talking around 200 k, and then if you add the appropriate staff in both the bureau of technology services for the data platform as well as for the office itself, you're probably upwards of 1.5 to 2 million.
229 And the 200,000 is a one time technology per purchase. The 1.5 to 2 million is ongoing annual cost for staffing.
230 Ongoing 2000 is ongoing as well, because you would have to contract for that technology. It's a subscription.
231 Okay. So we're talking about. You said 2000 or 200,000 for 200. Okay. So somewhere between 1.7 and 2.2 million for a low end office on an annual basis.
232 I apologize that 1.5 to 2 includes the 200,000.
233 Okay. Got it. Thank you. And I'm not sure if this is a question for you or for the city administrator, but I'm wondering how this fits into the realignment work that is happening elsewhere in the city. Is this complementary? Does this make the it alignment that we're looking at more complicated? Does it make it easier? How does this fit with that work that we've already directed the administration to do?
234 So there there is not currently included. The standing up a separate data office is not currently included as part of the realignment. However, as part of the technology services realignment, they are looking at folks who do data work as part of the it footprint across the city. So long way to say it's currently out of scope of the project.
235 But it sounds like perhaps doing it at the same time is helpful compared to doing it. After that, realignment already happens.
236 May I? Sorry, this is councilor Morillo. I'm not sure how to get folks attention while I'm online, so I apologize for intervening here, but and I think warren is doing a great job explaining this, but I believe the data platform is a separate issue. It's not contemplated in the original proposal. And the the staff proposal has already examined the question about whether or not we're asking staff not to do certain work to do other work. Staff is already doing this work. I would request that we have my staff, susie and kristen johnson, come up to help answer some of these questions, just because they've been so intimately involved in the policy making and. Councilor with the staff. They worked with the staff who did the original proposal, and I think it would really help clarify some of these questions.
237 Councilor I hear that, but there are some things that the administration will specifically be implementing that I'm trying to understand. Also, along with the presentation that we got from your staff.
238 Yes, but I think that my staff can more specifically speak to some of your questions.
239 Okay. Right now I'm asking about realignment at the city and what I, what I think I heard dca warren and I'm looking to the city administrator. It's nodding also is that this is not it's neither here nor there. Whether this happens along with the realignment. But the realignment does look at some it staff who are doing data security work. So doing this at the same time might be more efficient. Than waiting for one or the other. And and right now if we pass this proposal it will be similar timing. Is that accurate?
240 If if you were to pass the resolution that requests a proposal, then we would align it with the budget process just as we are. The overall realignment.
241 Okay. Thank you. I may have another question for you. I'm not sure. I do have a question that I think is probably best for the carriers. So I'm looking councilor Novick to you and councilor Morillo. A couple of folks have mentioned some of the data sharing that the city already does, which is something that has been on my mind a lot. And part of the resolution reads that this will ensure any bureau operating or contracting for automatic license plate readers or alpr or other traffic enforcement systems that collect or process license plate data, prepare written, publicly available annual reports on the use of the alpr. My office has been working for a couple of months now with some community stakeholders who have requested that we take action on alpr specifically, and is in conversations with a few of our service areas on separate legislation that would look at specifically strengthening our standards for alpr data retention and use. In the short term, I am knowing that and knowing that we have other colleagues who have talked about other places where they are interested in moving on data protection specifically, I know it's something that a lot of people are interested in. Can you clarify whether anything in this ordinance or resolution would in any way limit, preempt or constrain council's ability from considering more detailed or more protective data privacy policies around alpr or any other technology in the future.
242 I don't see I don't see how it would. I mean, I think that establishing the data office will have an entity in place that will help, you know, help council think about how to achieve those those ends. So no, this isn't I mean, this isn't going to preempt anything that council might want to do, but it will ensure there's an office that can help us figure out what to do. I think.
243 Council is still retaining our policy making authority in this area. Many of us care about this area a lot. We're creating an office that will help with the implementation and be experts.
244 Yes.
245 Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Councilor Morillo did you have anything you wanted to add to councilor Novick response.
246 Yeah, I completely agree with councilor Novick response. I would never want to create anything that would preempt the authority of council to legislate. I think that's already done enough in this structure. So I think it's important to make sure that especially, you know, that's a policy that we had discussed earlier. I think it's incredibly important to regulate how data is being used and license plate readers are. So no, I don't believe that this policy would. And going back to some of your first questions, the data platform that has this million dollar price tag is separate from the realignment and separate from our proposal. We don't need to spend $1 million on the platform to advance this specific proposal. It would help in the long run, as staff have noted, and that's why it was discussed and how to fund it and the resolution's implementation report. But that is not part of what is in the resolution or the ordinance. So I just want to be very clear about that.
247 Thanks, councilor. I was trying to get at what the potential staff needs would be and what we were looking at in terms of either a needed cost or the amount of staff time directed to something else that we might need to use. And I think I got the answer on that at a little over $1 million of staff time, that's either being moved from other places, letting go of other things, being hired, or to the point that I know a few people have made doing this work already, but in a more coordinated way, and that's helpful for me to understand.
248 That's not correct. It's not $1 million. That's the data platform.
249 Okay, maybe I'll ask for some clarification from folks in the room, because what I heard was that the data platform was 200,000, and then the staff time was between 1.3 and 1.8.
250 Yeah. And if my staff could be given the opportunity to clarify, I would also appreciate that. Kristen johnson I don't know if you're online or in the room, but I would appreciate it if you could come up. Now.
251 Council president, I look to you on whether you're okay with more folks answering this. I know you want to shut things down, and I.
252 Yeah, we got four minutes until we.
253 Are shutting down. Kristen, are you able to very quickly. We got three four more councilors in the queue still.
254 Thank you, christine johnson, for the record. Councilor Morillo policy aide I just want to share that. As donnie oliveira mentioned earlier, there are some good bones here that were started previously in the smart cities, and those bones included sort of two tiers of what could happen a data privacy office and then some more data platforming around data informed decision making. In reviewing and working with the staff, wanting to reach a budget neutral approach where our resolution in offering right now is just around the data privacy office, the part that has the 200,000 or million dollar price tag is sort of a part two of this contemplation that we are not pushing forward today. We have reviewed the information that was in that report, gone back. And we have we can conclude that there are scenarios in which this can be budget neutral, and you can staff it up and have it be the full spectrum, and it could be something much more intensive. And that's why we look forward to the implementation study, because there is a universe where this is budget neutral and a universe where it is something additive.
255 Thank you. Understood. And I think again, what I'm trying to get to is if we actually are going to do this, we don't just have an office by name. There have to be people there. And how many people is it? And I think I heard the answer to that question. Council president, I have one other question, if you don't mind. I think this is for the city administrator. We are talking about an office, but I don't actually know if we specify anywhere if this is an office, if this is a team, I hope we're not creating a whole new bureau. Are we specifying anywhere what this becomes? Do you have a preconceived idea of what this is? What what level of span are we potentially creating here that we don't actually know what we're creating yet?
256 Council has the ability to create a bureau. Us as staff don't have that capability of creating a bureau. When we're looking at this and this particular item, what we're looking at is an office that will sit in some area of the portfolio of administration that will be responsible for this service to the city. And that's ultimately what we're looking at now as it relates to the wording within the resolution itself. It doesn't I don't know if it goes to that form of detail to actually define that for the administration. What I would look forward to be able to do if council is passing this resolution, is to be able to come back to council with an idea. Is it best for this to be an office? Is it best to be a division within the city? Or if we're going to go full fledged with this, is it best for it to be a bureau within the city's structure? But we have not contemplated fully to that degree what that level will be. Pulling resources from other bureaus to be able to create that. We can do that right now as we go through the analysis phase of this, but sooner or later, we'll have to make a determination of what the physical structure of this new service to the city will be.
257 Okay.
258 I think what I'm hearing is probably less than a bureau, definitely more than a team, maybe an office, maybe a division.
259 Yes.
260 Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you, council president.
261 Okay, folks, we are at 5:00.
262 Councilor Kanal correctly pointed out that his amendment needs to be voted on today. Otherwise we have to move the ordinance to a third reading.
263 He mein Novick one on the ordinance.
264 Novick one on the. Yes.
265 So I'm going to move that.
266 Right.
267 Because otherwise.
268 I would take that as a.
269 Friendly amendment.
270 I don't think.
271 It's two words.
272 I think we have to we still have to vote.
273 Okay.
274 So the amendment is Novick one.
275 To the ordinance.
276 To the ordinance. Oh, right.
277 The resolution.
278 Is there a second I.
279 Second keelan looks concerned.
280 Sorry. Just want to clarify. This is Novick one with no no.
281 Novick one to the ordinance.
282 Novick one. Okay. All right. Great. And then who moved that, please?
283 One of us did.
284 Kanal did.
285 I moved it, I think. Novick seconded.
286 I second. Okay okay okay.
287 Great. Thanks.
288 Almost by.
289 Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I kwame Koyama Lane I maria. I Novick.
290 I think I oh councilor Kanal drink for catching that I.
291 Clark I.
292 Green I.
293 Zimmerman Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent.
294 Okay counselors Ryan and Morillo. I am unfortunately going to have to have you go first when we hear this item next week. We are after time. It is 501. Apologies, colleagues. With that, I am going to adjourn the meeting of the city council.