BREAKING: Renaud Runs For Saltzman’s Seat

Jason Renaud went to high school with James Chasse—the 42-year-old man with schizophrenia who died in police custody back in 2006. Renaud has announced today that he plans to run for Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s seat on a police accountability platform, in the primary next spring. Here’s a Q&A with Renaud.

• RENAUD: AT THE CORNER WHERE HIS FRIEND, JAMES CHASSE, WAS BEATEN BY POLICE IN 2006 BEFORE HE DIED

Why are you running?
“I’ve been watching city politics for a long time, and have become more active over the last three years in watching how the city has responded to the death in custody of James Chasse. It’s just very disappointing. The city has been so passive in its response to this, where a more proactive approach would have bought victories to many different people.”

What’s your experience?
“My background is in helping people survive addictions and mental illness. A lot of people have said why aren’t you running for the county, with that background, but I think many of these issues are the primary interest of the city. For example, why do people abuse children? Because they are drunk and addicted. [District Attorney] Mike Schrunk said last week, 90 percent of property crimes are committed by people who have drug and alcohol issues. And just simple issues like the police pension fund—it seems like the majority of people applying to that are there because of mental illness, what they call stress-related disabilities.”

But you’re an advocate, not a politician.
“I am. And what we’ve been watching most closely is the James Chasse issue. I’ve spent the last three years informing the community about what happened to James Chasse, and that has had a great net benefit. State laws and county laws have all been changed because of what happened to James, and because of our work to talk about that.”

So why can’t you continue working as an advocate?
“I am interested in the role of police commissioner. I think a person who is articulate and assertive and who can speak to the community about the importance of policing, but also speak to the police bureau about the importance of providing good civilian oversight is what’s needed right now.”

And you think Dan Saltzman isn’t fulfilling that role?
“I think he’s missed the opportunity to do good work, to help the community feel safe, to explain his decisions to police officers, and to the public. We’ve invited him to speak publicly about his decision to impose such limited discipline on Officers Kyle Nice and Christopher Humphreys over the Chasse incident, and he has declined.”

But he recently suspended Officer Chris Humphreys.
“Actually, what he did was leave Chris Humphreys on the street, to commit another violation of police policy, and now Chris Humphreys is claiming a stress disability, and there’s a serious conflict between the union and Saltzman, because he over-reached, and disciplined Humphreys outside an agreement between the union and the chief. It sounds like the appropriate discipline was already worked out—that they had already decided to put him on desk duty.”

Why do you say “over-reached?”
“Well, I’ve heard there was an agreement already in place—to investigate the incident, to take Officer Humphreys off the street for the duration of the investigation. Saltzman overruled that, and now he’s lost the respect of officers all over the city.”

Why do you think Saltzman overruled the chief?
“Chasse. Because he failed to act assertively, quickly, and appropriately over Chasse. It’s a makeup call, and Westerman called him on it. Dan’s at fault, here. I’m proud of Chris Humphreys, because he has done the right thing. He has recognized that he’s no longer fit to work as a police officer, and he has claimed stress disability.”

Do you think Saltzman lost face by backing down to the union’s demands and reinstating Humphreys?
“I think it takes a person who is willing to engage in a structured discussion to be successful in these relationships. If we have a contract with the police union, we need to abide by it, but the city has been captivated by the lack of response to what happened to James Chasse, and as inexcusable as the violence was, the lack of discipline by the city was inexcusable and it breeds cynicism all round.”

So, Chris Humphreys is mentally ill?
“Yes. That’s what a claim for stress disability is—it’s a claim of a mental health issue. But there’s a long history of stress claims by police officers to avoid discipline. I plan to go to the city auditor on December 4th, and ask her to open a formal investigation into whether officers have used the disability claims process to avoid discipline. The community has questions as to whether this is a legitimate case of stress or not, because it’s occurring at the same time as a disciplinary question for Chris Humphreys.”

“Now, as an advocate for people with mental illness, I hope he gets all the protection he needs and is able to get well. Of course, if he’s hiding behind a stress disability claim to avoid discipline, that’s despicable and an insult to everyone in this community working on mental illness and addiction issues. When you’ve provided safe harbor for people, to see the potential abuse of that safe harbor is really low.”

But why run for office? You hardly seem like typical candidate material.
“I feel compelled to do this. There’s so many situations where these kinds of issues have come up. I didn’t intend to be a politician, so I didn’t polish my resume for the last 30 years—I’ve worked with nonprofits for the last 17 years, I grew up in Portland, I went to school here, I’ve had a family here, my interests are that the city be a safe and pleasant place for its inhabitants.”

What do you do for a living, now?
“I work as a researcher for Compassion and Choices, a national legal and medical nonprofit that helps people understand their choices at the end of their life.

Do you really want to win?
“Yes. It’s not worth running if you don’t want to win. It’s an uphill battle—Dan’s an incumbent, and I’m going to run a publicly-funded campaign, but I’m trying to shape the campaign and keep the candidates accountable.”

It sounds like you don’t want to win.
“I think I’m a realist, and I understand that this is an uphill battle, but I think there are victories to be won along the way.”

Are you a single-issue candidate?
“No. Over the first month of the campaign, we’ll be producing a set of position papers outlining my positions on a series of issues, but it would be premature and arrogant of me to outline my positions now, without taking this wonderful opportunity to meet with Portlanders and ask them what they think. What do I know about rivers? I like them, but after half an hour of sitting down with [Urban Greenspaces Institute director] Mike Houck, I’ll know everything there is to know about rivers. As a parent, I have a perspective on public schools, but after half an hour sitting down with [schools superintendent] Carol Smith I’ll know more.”

And you’re employing Patrick Nolen to help run your campaign?
“Well, Patrick is a tenacious advocate, and he understands issues that I want to talk about. My campaign is going to be a little bit about opening up the doors for alternative advocates—people whose voices aren’t necessarily heard very well at city hall, although Sam is doing a pretty good job at doing that—opening up those conversations.”

Speaking of Adams, where do you stand on the recall?
“I think the first and second recall haven’t made a case, and I’d like to hear that. To void an election is a serious process, and as far as I can tell, they don’t have public opinion behind them, or anything but a handful of business interests.”

Why are you talking to the Mercury, not just going straight to the Oregonian to announce your candidacy?
“We’ll be talking not just to the Mercury but to the Alliance, Indymedia, the Portland Observer, the Skanner, Street Roots and other news sources, non-mainstream journalists. The Mercury has done a good job of capturing some interest in city hall and in drawing in some people who maybe wouldn’t have a political interest, otherwise.”

Okay, so I know we’ve touched on this, but Dan Saltzman is a wealthy, well-connected incumbent. It seems to me that he’s almost unbeatable. Why bother running against him?
“I think this is an opportunity to talk about the issues at hand—to keep the people who eventually do win accountable, and to be ready to serve if called. And I’ve heard that Dan’s a good guy, but I couldn’t think of anything he’s ever actually done.”

What about the children’s levy?
“I think of the children’s levy as a team and not an individual effort.”