Staff at Portland's Independent Police Review (IPR) typically work out of a ground-level office at City Hall, but on Wednesday afternoon, they were setting up tents just feet from where they normally report to work.

Wednesday marked the start of a three-day strike by IPR’s 11 union-represented employees. Despite wind and periodic bursts of heavy rain, staff camped out at City Hall as part of an overnight protest.

“We’re here to stay,” Gayla Jennings, an IPR coordinator, told the Mercury. “We’ll be back on the picket line tomorrow at 8 am.” The staff are part of the American Federation of State, Federal, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 189-005.

Jennings said for months, IPR has tried to negotiate a new labor contract with the city. “To date, we only have one tentative agreement and it's around something not as critical as the economics or transition plan,” Jennings said.

Central to the mediation discussions is whether IPR union members’ positions will be made permanent under a new police accountability office, according to a 10-day strike notice letter AFSCME council representative Karly Edwards sent to the city on October 22. The city’s labor negotiators claim they can’t guarantee jobs for the IPR employees because staffing decisions must go through the new police oversight office’s director, who hasn’t been hired yet. 

AFSCME says the charter isn’t as prescriptive as the city is claiming. 

Though job placement tops the list of concerns among IPR staff, they say the strike wasn't triggered by one single issue. The two parties held mediation sessions last week, and another on Tuesday, right before the strike.

“It’s my hope that we reach a full resolution of this dispute and Tentative Agreement of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before that date,” the letter said.

The strike has made waves within City Hall. Portland City Council abruptly canceled its November 5 meeting after the city and the AFSCME failed to reach an agreement over the status of  Independent Police Review employees represented by the union. 

City Councilor Eric Zimmerman has led a charge to help the employees maintain their jobs, twice requesting councilors sign onto his proposal to add a resolution to the Council agenda before the strike. 

"As you know, we are in negotiation with [IPR] right now, given the charter amendments and the reforms that are happening with independent police review," Zimmerman said Tuesday during a Community and Public Safety Committee meeting. "There's been a challenging, and I think problematic, legal opinion that says that these folks are not guaranteed to work in the new system."

Zimmerman's requests did not pass the nine-vote threshold necessary to move forward. He could still bring it to a committee for consideration and vote. City Councilors Angelita Morillo, Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, and Tiffany Koyama Lane say the moves appear to be part of a political gambit to sow discord among labor unions and the pro-labor progressive wing of the Council, particularly as the city stands up a new police accountability office with broader disciplinary power.

“I don’t understand why Councilor Zimmerman is trying to pit labor against progressive councilors who care about labor, following our City Charter, and police accountability,” Koyama Lane said. She added that regardless of political games, she and her colleagues support workers' rights to fair contract negotiations.

“It is really important that we’re keeping these workers at the center here, and not making this about some other larger statement,” Koyama Lane said.

AFSCME representatives say the IPR workers have already been doing the work and should maintain similar roles in the new office.

“Workers are standing strong, going out on strike for concrete language ensuring job security in the new community review board system,” a November 5 press release said. “As current investigators and administrative staff, they are the most experienced and qualified people to continue to provide the accountability and transparency our city demands.”

Mediation documents show how the city and AFSCME are negotiating over the transition, including a requirement that the city provide at least six months’ notice to the union prior to hiring for new roles, giving all current IPR employees interviews with the new director before opening to external applicants, and priority for similar positions within the city.

IPR will be dissolved

The IPR members’ jobs are on the line due to a new, civilian-led police oversight division that will replace the current IPR. 

Voters approved the new Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA) via a November 2020 ballot measure, with 82 percent voting in favor. The CBPA is a 21-member board tasked with reviewing investigations into misconduct by sworn Portland Police Bureau (PPB) officers and supervisors, taking disciplinary action when appropriate, and recommending Police Bureau policy reforms. In other words, it has more teeth than the current IPR office. The IPR can only investigate and make recommendations to PPB’s Internal Affairs Division about whether or not a PPB employee violated a policy.

Just like the current IPR system, the new office will rely on a team of professional investigators who look into complaints and then send their findings to the Board. IPR and its union argue the current staff are the most qualified to work in the new office, because they’re already doing the same type of investigative work the new office will undertake.

In union negotiations, the city argues that making the IPR positions permanent could violate a section of the new city charter that went into effect in January. According to the city code, the new CBPA director is responsible for hiring staff. But the director is not in place yet, and city councilors are hesitant to breach Portland’s new government rules.

“Holding to a charter is incredibly important,” Koyama Lane said. “Especially when we have a president in the White House who is working to undermine the Constitution. Our city charter is equivalent to our city constitution.”

Wednesday’s Council meeting was canceled after three city councilors—Candace Avalos, Steve Novick, and Olivia Clark—filed absences in advance, and four others—Eric Zimmerman, Dan Ryan, Jamie Dunphy, and Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney—said they would not cross the picket line held outside City Hall. That led to a lack of quorum and cancellation of the meeting.

It’s unclear who or what prompted the four councilors to take the stance they did. It also raises an issue of how the City Council can continue its normal work to address the challenges voters are asking for. Other functions voters elected city councilors to do are currently on hold, including the city administrator’s monthly report to City Council, approval of a $675,000 bodily-injury settlement, city fleet maintenance funding, property acquisition, and a city code adjustment seeking to add an impact fee for property owners who lease their properties for detention centers in the city.