Portland Police Bureau, at 1111 Southwest 2nd. Ave., Portland, Ore., July, 2023.
Caden Perry / OPB
Plans to change the way Portland polices its own police are moving forward after a legal hearing, but with some fits and starts.
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon on Thursday approved a plan that outlines the specifics of a new Community Board for Police Oversight. The board will investigate police shootings, in-custody deaths and other sensitive matters related to police misconduct.
The decision means Portland City Council can soon adopt code changes that will give the oversight board its framework, like how to focus its annual reports and what kind of training its members receive.
But Simon’s ruling won’t go into effect until Jan. 2, 2025. The postdated decision will put more of the oversight board’s future in the hands of Portland’s new, 12-member council that will be voted into office this November.
The move followed a lengthy hearing over how the new system will work and whether it reflects the will of the voters. The framework has faced similar criticisms before, including at a Portland City Council meeting last November.
Simon said he hoped that delaying the decision for the new council will instill more public confidence.
“I do believe it maximizes the likelihood of community acceptance,” Simon told the courtroom. Though he, at one point, acknowledged that “nobody’s fully satisfied with anything.”
With the delay, it’s unclear when the oversight board could actually stand up. Simon acknowledged the delay means the Portland city council can’t start picking people for its nominating committee – which is tasked with selecting oversight board members.
Juan Chavez, an attorney representing the Mental Health Alliance at the hearing, said he was still unpacking the implications of Simon’s ruling. He joined other critics Thursday in arguing some proposals for the board could render it toothless.
“We’re going to be in a whole new Portland in a couple months,” Chavez said. “But we’re banking on changes happening later, and I’m still not confident that will happen.”
Attorneys for the city weren’t immediately available for comment. They, and attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice, submitted their plans for the board July 30. The union representing rank-and-file officers, the Portland Police Association, also provided input.
The hearing Thursday saw hours of testimony. City and justice department attorneys had hoped to see it pass and move forward at full-speed. Assistant City Attorney Heidi Brown asked Simon to give the greenlight so city officials could start appointing the nominating committee.
“What voters asked for today was the charter amendments to create the oversight system,” Brown said in the hearing. “I feel like we do have the will of the voters before us.”
For much of the hearing, critics and advocates for greater police accountability raised concerns about the proposal, specifically the nominating committee itself. They argued it undercut voters’ original intentions to limit as much as possible any police influence.
That committee adds a layer of bureaucracy that was not contemplated when voters passed Measure 26-217 with 82% support in 2020. Unlike the oversight board, one-third of the committee would be comprised of people picked by police.
The plan also mandated oversight board members take a police ride-along and participate in the bureau’s community academy. That would discourage those who want to help hold police accountable but are uncomfortable in such situations, critics said.
The plan also empowered city councilors to remove oversight board members for, among other things, “objective demonstration of bias for or against the police.” Critics called that a vague, exploitable standard.
KC LeDell, of the Mental Health Alliance, rhetorically asked what qualified as “objective” bias: Would a person who posted “Black Lives Matter” on social media during the 2020 protests be considered biased?
“My concern is who is going to make that decision,” LeDell said. “The actual mechanics of this, there’s a perception (the Portland police union) is going to put their finger on the scale.”
City and justice department attorneys rebutted these concerns. They contended the ride-along language intended to ensure oversight board members had a full-picture of what day-to-day policing looks like.
At many turns, the government attorneys and Simon also defended the “objective demonstration of bias” language. They argued that it’s a high standard to clear and that a recently appointed independent monitor will be ensuring fairness.
The city and justice department attorneys also defended the nominating committee as rightfully giving police some input on what will end up being a highly influential disciplinary system for officers.
