Two people who were hired to gather signatures for a Portland ballot initiative that would use clean energy funds to hire police say they were trained to mislead the public about the proposal. If true, the conduct would violate state elections rules, and could spell trouble for the petitioners and the company hired to lead the signature-gathering campaign.
The allegations come as those backing the initiative—which seeks to divert 25 percent of Portland’s Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) to the Portland Police Bureau—try to meet a tough deadline to get the proposal in front of voters this year.
The canvassers’ concerns have been echoed by Portlanders who have reported feeling deceived by the campaign. The Mercury independently confirmed that the people gathering signatures for the effort are telling voters the proposal is intended to address general “public safety” concerns, including long 911 wait times. But the actual text of the ballot initiative tells a different story.
At least one person has already detailed their concerns in a state ethics complaint, and the Mercury has heard from several others who are looking into filing complaints with the city of Portland or the Oregon Secretary of State.
Petitioners for the Enhanced Community Safety Initiative must collect 40,437 signatures by July 6 in order to qualify for the November ballot. The effort, which received big-ticket donations from the likes of Portland’s police union, Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle, and auto/real estate magnate Jeff Swickard, barely made it through two legal challenges earlier this year. Despite launching the initiative last fall, petitioners didn’t get the green light to begin collecting signatures until May 4.
Initiative backers hired a Washington, DC-based company, FieldWorks, to train and manage paid canvassers to collect signatures for the campaign (dubbed “Safer Portland”) to get the initiative on the ballot.
The former signature gatherers, one of whom has already filed an ethics complaint with the state, said FieldWorks trainers instructed them to emphasize the petition’s general “public safety” benefits, with a particular focus on non-police emergency services. Canvassers were asked to follow a script, which says the policy will “speed up unacceptably long 911 response times” and add staff “so police can better coordinate with mental health co-response programs.”
The script also includes a set of talking points, which makes the claim that the measure prioritizes recruiting officers from Portland who “reflect the communities they serve—diverse in background, trained in cultural competency, and committed to building trust neighborhood by neighborhood.” The script also claims the initiative would help “hire additional 911 dispatchers, as well as non-emergency mental health care response.” The text of the measure does not contain language pertaining to either of these claims.
The Mercury independently confirmed that canvassers are primarily focusing on the supposed effect the proposal would have on 911 response times, and inaccurately saying the petition includes funding for emergency responders other than police.
The petition’s actual text, which is what would go into law if voters approved the measure in November, solely focuses on hiring sworn police officers. The petition proposes to change the city’s charter language to include a requirement that the city fund the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) enough to allow for at least two sworn police personnel per 1,000 Portland residents. Using current population data, this would require hiring more than 400 additional sworn officers.
Though 911 response times could theoretically improve if PPB hired more officers, the petition text does not reference hiring 911 dispatchers or any other public safety support staff. It also doesn’t mention the supposed commitment to hiring diverse, culturally competent police officers.
The proposal would be funded through “surplus” PCEF revenue. PCEF, adopted by voters in 2018, charges large retailers 1 percent of their sales in Portland. The program, which is meant to fund carbon reduction and climate justice projects in the city, was expected to generate roughly $30 to $60 million annually. But it has far exceeded expectations, bringing in about $200 million a year instead. The fund has ramped up its programming accordingly, with about $1.5 billion allocated through 2029.
People who worked on the campaign say canvassers are trained to highlight PCEF’s supposed excess funds, implying the police funding proposal wouldn’t take money away from clean energy projects. Canvassers tout improved public safety with “no new taxes.”
Brian Gardner, who briefly canvassed for the Safer Portland initiative last month, said he flagged potential ethical concerns soon after beginning training. But Gardner decided he’d had enough after a FieldWorks trainer allegedly instructed him and other employees to use a binder clip to hide the word “police” on the signature page.
He described this incident and others in a complaint filed with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office, officially requesting the state’s Elections Division investigate the campaign. In Gardner’s opinion, the binder clip suggestion was made “specifically to deceive potential signers, because the campaign was concerned that they would be less likely to sign if they saw the word police.”
It’s unclear if the alleged binder clip obfuscation is actually taking place in the field. But even if the idea was merely proposed, it would raise concerns.
Gardner told the Mercury he has worked in different political and advocacy roles over the past 20 years, including gathering signatures for several other petitions.
“I’ve never before had people try to obfuscate the point of a ballot initiative that they’re trying to get people to sign,” he said.
Jakob Evans, who also worked on the Safer Portland campaign, described similar misgivings about FieldWorks’ instructions. Evans told the Mercury he was direct with potential signers about the petition, and told them the initiative sought to hire more cops. He was ultimately fired for “not properly making use of the script or talking points.”
Tess Seger, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State, told the Mercury her office is “currently reviewing [Gardner’s] complaint, but have not yet determined whether we will open an investigation.”
Deborah Scroggin, the city of Portland’s elections division manager, indicated the city has heard from people concerned about the petition campaign. Scroggin told the Mercury the city is “carefully monitoring and referring all complaints” to the state for review.
Oregon administrative rules prohibit people gathering signatures for a petition from “knowingly making any false statement regarding the contents, meaning, or effect of the petition to any person who signs it, attempts to sign it, is requested to sign it or requests information concerning it.” Someone found to have violated this rule may have to pay a fine, starting at $2,500 for their first offense. Oregon law deems most violations directly perpetrated by a subcontractor (the person collecting signatures) the responsibility of the contractor (FieldWorks, in this case).
FieldWorks did not respond to the Mercury’s request for comment.
Safer Portland Campaign Manager Cameron Smith told the Mercury that the complaint is “clearly from an individual who is against fixing the very real problem that Portland’s police staffing is half the national average.”
Smith said if the measure is approved, it would have certain effects that may not be explicitly called out in the ballot text (like improving 911 response times). He also described the ballot title as “clear and direct,” and claimed every signature gatherer carries a copy of the title and measure so voters can take a look.
The campaign may expect their canvassers to communicate clearly with potential signees. But some Portland voters who have interacted with signature gatherers say their conversations were anything but direct.
Portlander Brian Eno told the Mercury he was approached by someone collecting signatures for the campaign last weekend. Eno said the canvasser solely focused on the petition’s supposed goal to improve 911 response times, which was a mission that resonated with him. Later, Eno found out more about the ballot measure, and was dismayed about his experience.
“I would’ve never signed this if I had known it was about providing additional resources for hiring cops,” Eno said.
Eno said he is attempting to get his signature stricken from the petition.
Evans theorized that an important part of the signature-gathering process is to prime people for the November election. If people have a certain, more positive, perception of the policy now, they may be more likely to vote for it if it’s on the ballot in the fall.
“Once it’s on the ballot, in order for it to pass, the campaign that’s happening right now will have to have been successful at changing public opinion,” he said. “If people are thinking, ‘This measure is the measure that lets them hire more cops,’ instead of thinking what FieldWorks and Safer Portland want them to think… that will hurt its success once it’s actually on the ballot.”
