Portland Copwatch Testimony on
US Dept of Justice/City of Portland Settlement (Section 11)
11. OVERSIGHT OF THE AGREEMENT / CONCLUSION
Summary: The Court should make clear what the terms of the Agreement mean so that
determining "substantial compliance" can be done objectively by reviewing the Court record, not
subjectively reading the Agreement.
The most important part of any legal contract, especially one affecting an entire governmental entity,
is how it is enforced. As we have outlined elsewhere, the City has already varied from the terms of
the Agreement in several ways:
--failing to create "walk-in/drop-in" centers for people with mental illness in the timeline set forth
(section 7);
--failing to establish a process for collecting demographic data on police encounters in the timeline
set forth (section 9);
--revising Bureau policies without doubling back to the community with a revised draft (sections 6 & 8);
--changing the names of two mental health related bodies (section 7);
--setting the 180 day timeline for investigations as "aspirational" instead of mandatory (section 4) [we agree with this change though it varies from the
Agreement]; and
--agreeing to change the procedure to pick the Community Oversight Advisory Board (background section) [another change we support].
If the City and the DOJ continue to decide which items are mandatory and which items are just
"guidelines," it leaves the community in a difficult position of not knowing what to expect from the
process.
The City will soon set about to hire a Compliance Officer/Community Liaison to oversee the
implementation. The COCL has tremendous responsibilities and abilities to collect and synthesize
data (paragraphs 161-165 and others), but has no power before the federal court when
recommending changes to the Agreement (paragraph 164), nor is it even clear whether the COCL
will be able to address the court directly if his/her reports are used to prove or disprove compliance
(paragraph 184). We hope the court will clearly lay out expectations on hearing from the COCL
directly.
We also hope it will be clear that though the Agreement calls for the COCL to chair the COAB,
he/she is not a voting member and is there to facilitate and ensure "efficient operation of the
COAB" (paragraph 144).
We welcome the data on lawsuit payouts being included in the COCL's semi-annual reviews, but
urge that term "settlement" be replaced with "settlement, judgment, and jury award" (paragraph 173-
e-v). After the James Chasse settlement in 2010, very few lawsuit payouts have been brought up
publicly to Council, likely because they are being entered as judgments and are thus not subject to
Council review. (City law requires any payment over $5000 to be agreed to by a majority of
Council.)*-41
It is commendable to have the police present their annual report in each of the City's precincts
(paragraph 150), but there need to be civil rights or oversight organizations involved to augment any
claims they make about force, "biased-free policing" and people's rights and responsibilities when
stopped by police. Ideally, police would be interested in ensuring people know their rights (such as
the rights to remain silent and ask for an attorney), but the reality is that they are trained to
circumvent those rights to solve crimes and gather information. This is made clear in the above-
mentioned Portland Tribune article on "stop-and-pat-downs" (section 9), in which the officers berate "white hipsters [who]
frequently tell black guys 'You don't have to talk to the cops.'"
We earlier raised concerns about some of the questionable personnel decisions being made by the
Bureau, such as the hiring of Officer Burton in the Mobile Crisis Unit (section 7). Similarly, the City has hired a controversial person
previously involved in state mental health work to assist the Compliance Coordinator.*-42 The Mayor has chosen to replace his former liaison to the Police
Bureau, a community activist with years of experience, with an active duty police officer.*-43 We hope that both the process and outcome of hiring the COCL and
putting the COAB into place will have more thoughtful results.
Our organization has a long history of following police conduct and suggesting ways to improve
both police behavior and oversight. We believe our presence on the COAB would be a great benefit
to the implementation of this Settlement Agreement. However, if the COAB is going to be relegated
to looking at the Agreement as the maximum expected change-- a ceiling, rather than a floor-- and if
its job will be limited to interpreting the Agreement as it is written, our organization cannot in good
conscience even apply to participate.
That is why we are asking the court to lay out expectations for "substantial compliance," direct the
parties to negotiate a new side agreement under paragraph 187 to fix the problematic parts of the
Agreement listed in our testimony, and give guidance to help make true steps toward a Bureau free
from corruption, brutality and racism.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Dan Handelman
on behalf of
Portland Copwatch
Footnotes:
*-41- City Code
3.15.020[F][4][b]
Back to text
*-42- "Portland police hire former head of Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board who resigned
under cloud," Oregonlive,
December 19, 2013
Back to text
*-43- "Hales Hires Police Officer as Policy Director Overseeing Police
Bureau," Portland MercuryBlog, October 28, 2013
Back to text
DOJ Letter
of Findings (September 12, 2012)
DOJ / City of
Portland Settlment Agreement (November 14, 2012)
Back to top
|
