THE LEGAL DRAMA over police reform in Portland—seemingly put to rest in August, when a federal judge finally approved the city’s nearly two-year-old settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice—has been revived.
On Wednesday, October 22, Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Amanda Fritz will ask their colleagues to push back against one of the more contentious elements in US District Court Judge Michael Simon’s ruling: an order that the city and feds, along with the Portland Police Association and community advocates, must return to court at least once a year to defend their progress.
Simon, reacting to community outcry after a public hearing in his courtroom earlier this year, had signaled his interest in the updates for months, trying and failing to reach a deal with the city before ordering them over the city’s strong objections. City attorneys have argued that Simon, in issuing that order, exceeded his authority and potentially usurped oversight of the reform deal from Portland City Council.
Hales and Fritz, according to a resolution filed on Friday, October 17, are asking their colleagues to appeal Simon’s entire ruling, but with the narrow goal of having the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “clarify” Simon’s role in overseeing the progress of reforms.
“This appeal does not challenge the settlement that four stakeholders—the US Department of Justice, the city, Portland Police Association, and Albina Ministerial Alliance [Coalition for Justice and Police Reform, or AMA]—agreed to,” Hales said in a statement. “The city and the police bureau are fully committed to the reforms outlined in the settlement agreement.”
The reforms in question were largely negotiated in late 2012, after the feds concluded a months-long investigation into the Portland Police Bureau, finding that Portland officers engaged in a pattern or practice of using unconstitutionally excessive force against people with mental illness.
Among the negotiated changes are speedier misconduct investigations, a new unit focused on mental health, force and conduct policies that prize de-escalation, limits on Taser use, and a consistent discipline guide. The city has also agreed to hire a compliance officer/community liaison to help oversee its progress in implementing those reforms. Fritz, in a statement, insisted the city council was intended to be the public backstop making sure everything’s going according to plan.
Advocates, however, already argue that the reforms don’t go far enough, absent more civilian oversight of the police bureau. And some say they’re deeply concerned about the implications of an appeal, no matter how narrowly crafted Hales and Fritz insist it is.
The AMA issued a statement fretting over a delay in seeing the reforms implemented and “condemning” the appeal for the message its members believe it sends.
“This is an attempt to backtrack and dilute and get rid of the limited oversight provided by the judgment entered by Judge Simon in August,” says the AMA’s chairman, Reverend LeRoy Haynes. “This move further reduces the community trust for reform and accountability of the Portland Police Bureau.”
Jason Renaud of the Mental Health Association of Portland—who’s already criticized Hales for failing to fund mental health facilities urged in the reform [“An Empty Mandate,” News, Feb 19]—also sent out blistering remarks scolding the city for keeping its legal apparatus in motion.
“Persons with mental illness have been admittedly harmed by Portland police,” Renaud writes, “and after three years of dawdling there is still no independent assurance anything has changed.”
Concerns about delays in seeing the broader package of reforms implemented aren’t unfounded, sources say. In the event the Ninth Circuit agrees with the city that the judge overreached when compelling the updates, and then sends the reform deal back to Simon for a fresh ruling, Simon could decide to reject the deal altogether and seek a bench trial.
But Hales and Fritz’s appeal is expected to pass handily. Commissioners Steve Novick and Nick Fish, both lawyers, told the Mercury they support Hales and Fritz—giving them at least four votes on the five-person council.
Fish says his vote will come with “some reluctance,” even though he thinks it’s smart to set the ground rules for oversight sooner rather than later. Novick, however, is less reserved. He likened Simon’s decision to a judge in a custody case asking divorced parents to return to court and provide evidence, almost as if “he were a party in the case.”
“Judge Simon is doing something legally wrong and very odd,” Novick says. “So I’m very comfortable supporting an appeal.”
“We Know Better………..” Commissioner fritz
The first indicator that something was amiss, the city council only scheduled 15 minutes for discussion of the resolution to appeal a controversial decision by our challenged city attorney’s office, Item 1110. Fifteen minutes? They allowed an appeal of land building by a neighborhood association 90 minutes and it went on for 120; we all waited. About 4:00PM, 30 minutes late on a time certain item it started and it was obvious that the fix was in. Mayor hales and comm. fritz were co-sponsors of the appeal of Judge Simon’s authority, having the audacity to request that the four parties come before him once a year to tell him how things are going. He, the judge, made it very clear over and over at the hearing last year he did not have the ability to order the city to do anything, he could only decide if the settlement agreement was fair, and with this provision, decided to accept the agreement. He basically said, if you want my ok you must come and let me know how you are all doing, seems reasonable to me, and 21 other groups who told the council not to appeal and waste more time and money, just get to the business of fixing our police department. The four, (Fish was out and about) all voted for the notice of appeal. That should not be the end, they can, as they did in a case not long ago, file the notice and after thinking about it or hearing from us, did the right thing. In the present case they should withdraw the appeal. They are going to lose this appeal and anger the 9th Circuit and end up spending lots of your money and losing precious time in the process. Once again these 5 s–ts give the middle finger to the people of Portland, the conservatives are laughing at us, and the courts will soon be laughing too. This does not show a progressive city, it shows a group of people who are now so arrogant they cannot see their own corruption. The Portland Police must be drastically changed and you will not do it with 5 white shits sitting up there, get it together folks and run all three out of office next election in 2016. There are 3 of the council positions open, a majority and if you want, you can take control of the city council and make it accountable to the people; will you? Anybody serving on a Commission, committee, or advisory body of any sort should resign, stop trying to make it better with this group of politicians, you can’t! You should be on the phone calling and telling the 5 people on the council and the city attorney that this was a stupid decision and you will do what you can to see that all 3 running in 2016 visit the unemployment lines.
Absent from this latest round of public involvement in seeking civil rights protections were DoJ advocates. Where was their press release? Their absence of testimony is indication that judicial oversight is warranted. We heard DoJ litigators would ‘partner’ with The People as their lawyers massaged this plea deal into place. (A deal that was struck behind closed doors, and remained iron clad through all attempts at subsequent public influence.) –
Absent also (as usual) was supportive testimony from the police union and any who back the City Attorney’s plea to reduce the scope of oversight. Their influence is exercised prior to each dog-and-pony show at City Council, through back channels. Yesterday’s hearing mocks any ideation of a deliberative body … but it represents local authority’s systemic denial of democratic processes, no matter what provisions are in place. –
Note the supporting documentation for Item 1110. The Attorney contended public involvement was not required in developing this Ordinance … on the grounds that judicial oversight is a “narrow legal point.” The People countered by getting testimony into the record of the considerable turnout at February’s Federal hearing on the matter, to which Judge Simon then responded by adding a second day of oral testimony and almost a week for further written testimony. –
DoJ Findings (pg. 14) call for Portland to begin “persistent, continuing commitment to inclusion and transparency, as well as effective structures to facilitate continuing dialogue.” When the DoJ fails to show up to re-assert their intended remedy, it seems obvious that those who seek actual reform would turn to checks and balances offered by the judiciary. –
It also seems obvious to us that able City administrators would appreciate periodic review: it offers good resource management tools. The judge will help all parties establish timeline expectancies, so this remedy doesn’t drag out while more victims face ongoing harm. Meeting a court’s performance benchmarks would help prioritize tasks and constrain costs Chief Reese incurred in his unilateral, unsupervised implementation of his reading of the Agreement.
Amanda Fritz must still be in mourning. That’s got to be the reason for the short hearing and delays. Leaver her alone. Give her a free pass. Do it for the children. She isn’t covering up human trafficking and organized crime run brothels by scapegoating independent street walkers. She’s just confused by a biased report from Portland State University, the sanctuary for illegal aliens, who end up working in those brothels. Just because corrupt police selectively enforce laws in favor of corruption doesn’t mean that Amanda Fritz is corrupt. Or does it?
How does Amanda Fritz’ conspiring with the Mayor to evade the Court’s over seeing the progress of settled, mutually agreed upon reforms, square with her lip service in advocacy for homeless and mentally handicapped individuals? Dennis is so lovey-dovey with Amanda. What does he have to say about that?