The intention of Question 6 is whether to entirely strike Item 90 from the Agreement, or since it's already ignored and the parties have agreed informally between themselves to not pursue it, can Item 90 be left in the Agreement as written.
"nice" Dan Handleman. Nice.

who made this guy the spokesperson for popo watchdogging in this town?

I dont recall any election or appoinment process.

Seems like dan oughta get a new gig not pretending to care.
Question 9 boldly asks whether the IPR & CRC, which DoJ investigators termed Portland's 'self-defeating accountability system,' can be left intact and now deemed a "fair, reasonable, and adequate process by which citizens can ... have confidence that complaints will be
adequately investigated and resolved." Should political pressure be sufficient to replace police self-exoneration with truly independent oversight (dismantling the failed IPR), the City can claim this would trigger non-compliance with the Agreement.

Renaud's point on soft language, allowing the parties to walk away from delivery of health care to victims, reveals the need for multi-jurisdictional remedy. To leave cops in charge of assessment and delivery of care, with no back end to provide that care? That's a cul de sac where vulnerable people will contend with a criminal justice system, walled off from restorative remedy.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.