From: Former members of the Police Accountability Commission To: Deputy City Attorneys Heidi Brown, Sarah Ames, Lisa Rogers and Mayoral Advisor Stephanie Howard CC: Portland City Council, members of the media, and the community July 22, 2024 Deputy City Attorneys Brown, Ames and Rogers and Ms. Howard: We appreciate that you took our previous communication seriously and used it as a basis for conversation on Monday, July 15. However, many of the issues we raised did not lead to direct, meaningful, or thorough responses from the City. __Here are the issues that were raised and the remaining concerns we suggest the City fix along with its partners the DOJ and the bargaining units. We also included issues that were identified when the new "redline" was released about 28 hours before Monday's meeting. * COMPLAINT NAVIGATORS: The new text indicates navigators will be assigned at intake but only for "full investigations." Regardless of how the complaint is handled, including if it is dismissed, sent for informal resolution, or mediated, the Navigators should be available in order to keep the community's needs front and center. * JURISDICTION: The City continues to imply that the staff of the OCPA and members of the CBPA will investigate and dispose of cases in a way that can't be defended to an arbitrator. This is one reason the City's plan calls for most cases are being routed to Internal Affairs. The strong counter-argument is that many community members who feel harmed, and whose decision to complain begins the process, will be confused and disappointed in an independent system where their complaint might be investigated by police. This will likely lead to people deciding not to file complaints. We encourage the City to re-think limiting jurisdiction, and/or not requiring the Board to get Council approval to expand their scope "as they see fit." * BIAS: There is plenty of language in code requiring Board members to make reasonable decisions, including "promptly, fairly, and impartially," "fair, reasonable, objective, and consistent with applicable laws, rules, policies, and procedures." There is no need for language about being biased for or against the police. -->Here is an updated story about the problems in Boulder, CO: https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/03/11/boulder-police-oversight-panel-lawsuit-city-argues- free-speech-limits-on-panel-member-were-justified-in-new-motion/ * VOTING REQUIREMENTS: We raised the concern that the City is requiring a majority of _members_ to vote in order to pass matters before the Board. But if a quorum is just 11 members, in theory as few as six people could vote to adopt something. The PAC agreed to remove voting thresholds from the code, deciding that the CBPA can use the lenses of equity and other values to decide what are the best guidelines. The Code should not require that 11 people have to vote to adopt a recommendation, which would mean that when only 11 people attend a meeting all 11 would have to vote in favor. * POLICE DESIGNEES: The City should reduce the number of police designees who are on the nominating committee which recommends both Board members and candidates for the Director. * PUBLIC HEARINGS/OUTCOMES: The hearings and/or their outcomes should be considered as potentially able to be conducted in public based on the state law allowing such information to be released when it is in the public interest (ORS 181A.674 [4]). * NO POLICE ON STAFF: The City skipped over this item when reading the letter on Monday, and will greatly affect some people's ability to trust the system. * USE RESEARCH, NOT CITY "PET PEEVES" TO GUIDE POLICY: The PAC used research from various other jurisdictions and its own experiences with the current system to make recommendations. The issue of whether to have two findings or four comes from experiences including an officer who wanted an "Exonerated" finding instead of an "Insufficient Evidence" one. It matters to someone whether a finding was not sustained because it was (a) proven to be incorrect, (b) the officer did not violate policy or (c) whether there wasn't enough evidence. Using the multiple outcomes fits with the concept of Procedural Justice for both the community member and the police. * PANEL SIZES: It is illogical that the City wants to have only three Board members on routine cases but to require all 21 members (or at least 11 members) to hear deadly force cases. The members will be volunteers, and asking just a few of them-- seven as envisioned by PAC-- to read the 1000+ page files is reasonable. Asking 11-21 to spend all those person hours is not and will lead to poor outcomes. * PUBLIC INPUT: The City claimed that because the Board will make appearances at City Council, the public can have input into the system. That is not necessarily true, as public input was cut out for all Reports for many years. The PAC's concern was making sure there was feedback directly from the Community to the Board at the Board's meetings. * ACCESS TO INFORMATION: The language saying "notwithstanding any law or rule," the system will have access to information it needs, had the words "or rule" deleted, implying the City seeks to limit access by the new system. (35A.040 B4). This needs to be fixed. * GOVERNING BODY OR ADVISORY?: The city cut out the appeals, public meetings, and other aspects of PAC's proposal because the new Board will be a governing body, not an advisory one. Yet the word "governing" is crossed out and replaced with "advisory" in 35B.010 G2. * CHANGES TO DOJ AGREEMENT: The community did not get a chance to weigh in in proposed changes to the Agreement in November, where the City did not even present the proposal at City Council, though Council adopted it. The City must release the most current draft in a timely manner to allow for community feedback or risk the Court not finding the process fair, adequate or reasonable, even if they ok the substance. __These are areas where the City can be less descriptive to allow for flexibility in the system. * NO FORCED CLOSE QUARTERS: Community members on the Board should not be required to go on ride-alongs or attend community academy. The code should be rewritten to say "or equivalent educational opportunities" and a system can be created for those whose traumatic pasts might help the Board's perspective but might be excluded with the current requirements. * TRAINING ON BODY CAMERAS: Instead of using the exact language of how IPR and IA investigators are trained, required training for the Board and staff can say they will be trained in "widely accepted methods for reviewing body camera footage and other evidence" (35B.010 F12). __We believe we heard the City say they would consider making changes to these parts of the code the former PAC members identified: --NAMING NAMES: Whether officer names that are already public can be included in Board reports as they are in audits. --POLICY, NOT CRIMINAL: Clarify that the Board can investigate the possible violations of policy in cases where officers may have committed crimes (including and other than deadly force). --PAYMENTS: Clarify that the City Council sets policies for reimbursement/stipends for Board members and does not have to approve each payment. --EXECUTIVE DECISIONS: Reword the preliminary decision-making that happens at executive sessions to not say "majority consensus." __Other items: * LACK OF APPEALS: We need to think more about the idea that a complainant can file a statement with the Board between the Staff's preliminary findings and when the hearing takes place. The human connection that helps make decision making more compassionate and thorough is removed from what the City contends is state law. But could the officer or community member submit their statement in a video so they can at least be seen and heard? __Agree to disagree, and maybe ask Judge Simon to rule: * JURISDICTION OVER THE CHIEF: The Charter is very clear that the Board has jurisdiction over all officers and supervisors. We believe the City's claim that measure 26-228's restructuring of the City puts the Mayor solely in charge of the Chief's discipline is not accurate. The Mayor can hire and fire the Chief. Perhaps a compromise solution to our opposing views can be that the code allows the Board to investigate the Chief and impose discipline unless their proposed discipline is termination, in which case the Mayor would make the final decision. That will honor both Charter amendments. * CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: Though there are likely many examples of items in the code that do not adhere strictly to the Charter, the City claims they pulled out the continuous improvement recommendations (undesirable outcome reviews, systemic findings and audits for self-improvement) because they're not part of the Charter. That doesn't mean they can't be in code and certainly doesn't mean they are bad ideas. This again comes from our 20 months of research, outreach, and lived experiences. In addition, such reviews are already done by the Bureau itself.*-1 * LEGAL COUNSEL: Though there is clearly a potential for a conflict of interest when the City Attorney advises both the police and the police oversight system, the City is saying that the Board can hire legal counsel on a case-by-case basis rather than as permanent staff, meaning the City Attorney has to approve any request. This is another way the community will lose trust in the new system. Thank you Debbie Aiona Faythe Aiken Monica Arce Cameron Browne Dan Handelman Seemab Hussaini KC LeDell Lovisa Lloyd Katherine McDowell Charlie Michelle-Westley Tirsa Orellana Tim Pitts Angie Tomlinson former members of the Police Accountability Commission *1- From the Q1 2024 COCL report Executive Summary, page 4 of the PDF document: We ... found the entire chain-of-command, as well as the Force Inspector and analysts, ensured accurate and complete after-action reviews, regularly identified policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, and appropriately forwarded concerns through the proper channels for resolution.