Mayor Sam Adams is moving forward with his fight against an arbitrator's ruling ordering the reinstatement of Ron Frashour—the former Portland police officer who shot and killed Aaron Campbell—the Mercury has learned.

Adams, who cites a never-before-used state law, broke the news to police brass and city commissioners in private meetings this afternoon. The mayor has said several times after the arbitrator's March 30 ruling that the city would review its "narrow" options in hopes of mounting a challenge. He later issued a statement. (Update: The full Adams statement is on the jump.)

The City Attorney has determined under Oregon law 243.706(1) that the “City has sufficient legal grounds to challenge the reinstatement of Office Frashour.”

The City Attorney states, “This portion of the statute was adopted by the Oregon Legislature to limit the discretion of arbitrators and broaden the view of arbitrators decisions by the Employment Relations Board. [The Frashour] case is the type of case the statute was intended to address.”

Based on the City Attorney’s opinion, I will not implement the Arbitrator’s decision. If the Portland Police Association challenges my action, I will request that the ERB expedite their decision-making process on this matter.

Adams told me in his office that Police Chief Mike Reese disagrees with the decision, saying Reese feels the city should honor binding arbitration. Adams, however, said the police bureau is overseen by an elected official—him— and that "it's my decision to make as commissioner in charge."

At least one of Adams' council colleagues told the Mercury that he saw "no reason we could legitimately quarrel" with the order. Leonard was seen outside city council yesterday talking to the Portland Police Association president, Daryl Turner, and the union's now mostly retired lawyer, Will Aitchison.

Leonard still says he disagrees and questioned whether the city "should be devoting its time and energy to not uphold arbitration," but that "I respect that" decision. "He's the commissioner in charge."

More context to come. Update: Hit the jump! Update 5:18 PM: Now with even more updates!

Adams received a legal opinion this afternoon from City Attorney James Van Dyke that gave him the green light to proceed. Van Dyke's legal opinion lays out the same path forward the Mercury reported in the days after the arbitration ruling emerged. The city will refuse to rehire Frashour, and now it's up to the Portland Police Association to challenge the city in front of the Employment Relations Board.

Turner did not return a call seeking comment but did release a long and scathing statement that's pasted below, after Adams'. He ragged on the cost of the city's legal fight and accuses the mayor of making his decision "for political reasons, not legal ones, to pour salt into already painful wounds. This is not the sort of leadership we need from our police commissioner."

The law cited by Van Dyke says an arbitrator's ruling on deadly force cases "shall comply with public policy requirements," for the express offering another layer of review. Adams contends the law was drafted after the city lost a 1995 arbitration case over a 1993 police shooting by Officer Douglas Erickson.

The law, however, was contained in a 1995 bill, SB 750, carried by Republican lawmakers looking to put limits on collective bargaining rights in Oregon. (It was almost vetoed by Governor John Kitzhaber.) The Erickson case was unfolding in the midst of the debate over the bill, but much of the outrage behind the bill came after two Oregon State police officers were reinstated in a case of sexual misconduct.

It's still not clear that the ERB will agree that the arbitrator's ruling falls outside a force policy that Adams repeatedly told me was "more restrictive" than the state or other jurisdictions. A favorable ruling for Frashour by the state agency that oversees cops, exclusively reported by the Mercury last year, could also take on new importance. It was not considered by the arbitrator.

Adams says, if the ERB does side against the city, that he'll ask the city council to let him take his case to Oregon Court of Appeal.

"It's never been appealed to a court," he said of the state law he's citing. "It should be if the ERB doesn't follow clear legislative intent."

The Mercury also has obtained a version of the statement Reese was to send to the police bureau announcing the mayor's decision."I respectfully disagree with the mayor's decision," Reese wrote, saying it was "unclear at this point what the timeline is." Reese also said, however, that Adams "understands my position; reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues such as this."

Adams has one council supporter so far (I haven't formally checked in with Nick Fish or Amanda Fritz): Dan Saltzman.

"It's fair game to take it to the next level," he said, "because it looks like it's justified in ORS."

"This is not without potential cost," Adams said, noting Frashour was also ordered back pay. "But Portlanders want us to stand up for a principle of restrictive force."

Here's Adams' full statement:

As Police Commissioner, I have deep respect for the often dangerous and difficult work of the men and women of the Portland Police Bureau. I have been quick to praise the Bureau’s great work, even in the face of criticism. I have backed that praise with tangible support: I prevented deeper budget cuts than those faced by other City Bureaus, implemented new legal enforcement tools to keep illegal guns off our streets and approved a new training facility.

As Police Commissioner, I am also responsible for holding accountable those who fail to follow Bureau policies; one such policy is Portland’s procedures for the acceptable use of deadly force. Our standards for the allowed use of deadly force are more restrictive than national standards and the local standards of other police departments. Our policy and training requires Portland Police Officers to use restraint when we receive a call to check on a person’s well being, as was the case with Aaron Campbell. I believe Frashour violated our policy and training protocols regarding allowed use of deadly force.

The City Attorney has determined under Oregon law 243.706(1) that the “City has sufficient legal grounds to challenge the reinstatement of Office Frashour.”

The City Attorney states, “This portion of the statute was adopted by the Oregon Legislature to limit the discretion of arbitrators and broaden the view of arbitrators decisions by the Employment Relations Board. [The Frashour] case is the type of case the statute was intended to address.”

Based on the City Attorney’s opinion, I will not implement the Arbitrator’s decision. If the Portland Police Association challenges my action, I will request that the ERB expedite their decision-making process on this matter.

I consulted with the City Attorney, outside counsel and the Police Chief extensively on this matter. I also listened to Officer Frashour’s union representative’s extensive statements and spoke with Campbell’s family briefly. Their collective input was invaluable as I made this decision, and I thank them for sharing their thoughts.

Here's Turner's statement:

On Friday, March 30, 2012, the Portland Police Association and the City of Portland received Arbitrator Jane Wilkinson’s decision to reinstate Officer Ron Frashour as a Portland police officer. Arbitrator Wilkinson’s decision marked the fifth time an independent body has ruled on Officer Frashour’s conduct. Preceding Arbitrator Wilkinson were reviews conducted by a Multnomah County Grand Jury, the Oregon Employment Department, the United States Department of Justice, and Oregon’s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. All five of the reviews cleared Officer Frashour of any misconduct.

Arbitrator Wilkinson is a nationally-recognized arbitrator who was hand-selected by the City. Her decision was particularly thorough. She presided over 18 days of hearings in which 30 witnesses testified, including expert witnesses for both the City and the PPA. She reviewed thousands of pages of exhibits, including the Bureau’s complete investigation, and heard directly from Police Chief Mike Reese.

In finding that Officer Frashour violated no Bureau rules, Arbitrator Wilkinson relied upon a large body of case law and the facts, not media supposition or rumors. Arbitrator Wilkinson thoroughly analyzed all of the arguments raised by the City, who was represented in the case by the largest employer-side labor law firm in the country.
Arbitrator Wilkinson’s decision should be the end of this matter. The City and the PPA have agreed to use arbitration instead of the courts to resolve contract disputes, and since the first City-PPA contract more than 40 years ago, have agreed that arbitration is “final and binding.” You have signed one of those agreements and have participated in the negotiations of others. For those many years, the City and the PPA have accepted the results of all arbitration decisions, win or lose. There’s a powerful public interest in arbitration; it is a process that brings quick and inexpensive resolutions to labor disputes, and allows the City, its residents, and the PPA to efficiently resolve labor issues and focus more on the critical issue of fighting crime.

We now know that you want to undo this process, and will “appeal” a decision you have previously agreed would be “final and binding.” We understand your political motivation for doing so. After all, within days of the January 29, 2010, incident at the Sandy Terrace Apartments, you were publicly condemning OfficerFrashour, even though no internal investigation had yet been conducted, a grand jury had not been convened, and the Bureau’s criminal investigation was still ongoing. That the facts subsequently developed by those investigations showed Officer Frashour violated no rules has clearly not shaken your resolve to cling to your previous, hastily-reached and politically motivated judgment.
The path upon which you are embarking is an expensive one. It is expensive monetarily; the $750,000 of taxpayer money you are spending on legal fees in the arbitration process is obscenely high in these budget times and is unprecedented in the City’s history.

Your decision is also expensive in more profound, non-monetary ways. By appealing the Arbitrator’s decision, you are breaking your word that arbitration would be “final and binding.” From the very beginning the Portland Police Association trusted the integrity of the arbitration process. If the Arbitrator had upheld Officer Frashour’s termination,  the Portland Police Association would have honored it.  As a labor organization, we hold honor and integrity as cornerstones of our existence.  As Mayor and the Police Commissioner, honor and integrity should be your cornerstones.   Instead, by appealing the arbitrator’s decision, you have put your own political agenda ahead of the truth-seeking process that is at the heart of the arbitration process.

We all agree that this was a tragic situation. Mr. Campbell convinced family members, eyewitnesses, and responding officers that he was in possession of a gun. Tragically, after saying he wanted to commit “suicide by police,” he sought and succeeded in forcing a deadly confrontation with police. As the Police Commissioner, you had a moral and civic obligation to conduct a full and thorough investigation based on the facts before coming to any conclusion. The snap judgments you expressed to the community and the media immediately after the incident were made without all of the facts and did not serve the best interests of the community.

Your decision to appeal the Arbitrator’s decision continues to harm the community. Just as there could be some sense of closure for everyone involved, you have decided for political reasons, not legal ones, to pour salt into already painful wounds. This is not the sort of leadership we need from our police commissioner.