SOMETIMES outrage works.
Last week, Portland City Council took up three proposed changes to police oversight in the city. As tends to happen with these things, most of those changes were met with derision from the public.
During a marathon hearing lasting more than five hours, the council listened to person after person tearing the proposals to shredsâparticularly a contentious item that would modify the cityâs 2012 police reform settlement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and create a watered-down citizen oversight group.
Now, it looks like change is on the way. Two of the three proposed policies will have been substantively altered when they come before council again on Wednesday afternoon. Hereâs a rundown of where things stand.
Citizen Oversight: Tabled
The cityâs settlement with the DOJâa response to a pattern of police abusesâcreated a âcommunity oversight advisory boardâ (COAB), made up of advocates, experts, and police officers. It had authority to âindependently assessâ the cityâs progress at police reform, but it was plagued with issues from the start. Late last year, the decision was made to let it die off.
Now, Wheelerâs office, the DOJ, and a number of others have drafted a replacement: the Portland Commission on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP). And, man, people hate it.
Last week, commissioners heard concerns that the group would be too small, too beholden to the mayor, too limited in terms of its say in the settlement agreement, and too secretive (many meetings wouldnât be held publicly). Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Chloe Eudaly secured changes designed to increase the PCCEPâs size, allow for more council input into the groupâs makeup, and make the group more transparent, but it wasnât enough to silence critics.
So Wheelerâs going to delay the vote.
âWe feel that the PCCEP as currently constructed addressed many of the criticisms that were raised, but we do believe there are some other things that we can look at,â says Wheeler spokesperson Michael Cox. âWeâre working on specifics to address some of the concerns we heard.â
The delay likely wonât last long. Cox says tweaks will involve how much influence the PCCEP has and increasing the number of public meetings.
48-Hour Rule: Replaced
One huge reason former Mayor Charlie Hales won enough votes to approve a controversial police union contract last October was the repeal of the â48-hour rule,â which gave cops at least two days after a shooting to collect their thoughts before speaking with internal investigators.
In March, a memo from Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill unraveled that progress. Underhill believes Oregon case law grants immunity to cops from criminal prosecution if theyâre forced to give a statement to internal affairs. As a result, the Portland Police Bureau has been holding off on taking those statementsâa big concern for police accountability advocates.
To address this, Wheeler first proposed challenging Underhillâs opinion in court. Under that plan, the city would pass a policy that officers be interviewed within two days of a shooting, but wait for a judgeâs blessing before enforcing those rules (which could take a year or more).
In the face of last weekâs testimony, that changed. Commissioner Nick Fish tells the Mercury he became convinced thereâs not actually much risk in forcing a cop to speak with internal affairs right away. So he and Wheeler are planning to introduce a new ordinance ensuring that cops give statements promptly, even as the city seeks a judgeâs blessing.
âBased on the case law, we think our approach is constitutional, and we also think we have very little risk,â Fish said Monday.
Independent Police Review Authority: Unchanged
The least controversial change seems primed to sail through.
This ordinance would allow investigators with the cityâs Independent Police Review (IPR) to issue conclusions as to whether an officer has broken city rules. Currently, those staffers conduct investigations, but arenât able to opine as to whether wrongdoing actually occurredâthat falls to the supervisor of the officer under investigation.
This would give IPR a say. And, for once, no oneâs upset.