The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-02-12

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (15,265 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Good morning. I'll call the meeting of the labor and workforce development committee to order. It is Thursday, February 12th at 12 p.m. Diana, will you please call the roll?

Good afternoon. Dunphy. Here. Kanal here. Novick here. Green here. Smith, here.

Thank you. Today the committee will. Today the committee will consider an ordinance to create new classifications and establish compensation. Wages? Compensation ranges within the office of community based police accountability. Have a discussion on wage theft and hear public testimony on wage theft. Diana, please read the first item, please.

Item number one. Create three new classifications and establish compensation ranges for an investigator one, investigator two and oversight navigator within the office of community based police accountability.

Yes. Could I have resa williams and maureen darlington to come up? Thank you for coming this morning and giving us this presentation. Go first. Thank you.

Councilors I'll go first. Good afternoon. My name is resa williams. I'm the city's classification, compensation and pay equity manager. I'm joined by my colleague, maureen darlington, who is a lead classification and compensation analyst. And we also have some additional colleagues on hand, including kristen thorpe, who is with the office of community based police accountability. Today.

Thank you.

We'll pull up the slides. We do have a presentation for you today.

To give you one minute.

Diana. They have a presentation. Is it not coming up?

Our office doesn't run the slides.

Okay. Thank you.

There we go. I think it's loading. There we go. Are you able to see that? Okay, perfect. We're here today to request approval to move forward with the council ordinance to create three new classifications and establish compensation ranges for the office of community based police accountability, the unit that will function within the new oversight system. Next slide. The bureau of human resources classification and compensation team, also known as class comp, was engaged to create these new classifications, of course, within the new oversight system. So to provide an overview of the process, after the class comp team receives a formal request, we work with designated city staff to understand the work needed to meet the operational need. If there is a substantive body of work that falls outside of what already exists in our current structure, the class comp team will perform market research of other public sector agencies that have similar roles at the local and or national level, and then present our findings. This is an industry best practice. Today we are presenting compensation ranges from our market research of the three new classifications that do not currently exist in the city structure. Next slide. The operational need for the office of community based police accountability is to have positions in place to serve the local community and independently investigate sworn employees and their supervisors in the Portland police bureau. I'd like to provide a little background information for those watching the meeting this afternoon. These new classifications are represented in city code and foundational to the work of the ocpa. The ocpa was established by voters in November of 2020. It will replace the independent police review when that office sunsets. Next slide. There are two branches of the oversight system the office of community based police accountability and the community board for police accountability. The ocpa is the branch of the oversight system where city employees will perform their work. It will be overseen by a director and include a team of investigators to provide reports and information to the second branch. The cbpa is the branch comprised of community volunteers in code, the community board or the cbpa hires and oversees the ocpa director. It is the ocpa director who will hire employees into positions for the ocpa work unit. The three new classifications needed for the ocpa are. Oversight. Navigator ocpa, investigator one and an ocpa investigator two. Next slide. The first classification of oversight navigator will provide support to community members who file complaints, act as a primary contact for community members, explain city policies, procedures, and relevant codes and ordinances. They'll also provide information and refer community members to other services. They will also provide customer service to support all complaint intakes and do other work as required. This classification was a specific recommendation from the police accountability commission. This role will be the complainants main point of contact during an investigation from intake to conclusion. The recommended pay range for this classification is $58,968 annually to $79,539.20 annually, which aligns with our market study. Next slide. The second classification of ocpa investigator one will conduct administrative investigations on complaints received, collect and analyze evidence, data, interview witnesses, and involved parties. They review police and agency reports, prepare investigation reports and packets. Conduct additional research and present and participate in community board panel meetings to address any questions related to investigations. The recommended pay range for this classification is $71,136 to $100,068, and 88 and $0.80 annually, which also directly aligns with the results of our market study. Next slide. The third and final classification today is that of ocpa investigator two. This classification is designed to conduct intake of complaints, determine if allegations align with jurisdiction and merit by conducting research, completing preliminary investigative tasks, overseeing the ocpa investigator one. Preparing monthly intake reports, among other duties. The position reviews all complaints received by the oversight system to ensure they meet the foundational requirements for investigation, and if a case does not meet the requirements, the investigator two will assign it to the investigator one. They will also conduct investigations for more complex cases or cases that require a higher degree of experience. The recommended pay range for the investigator two classification is $92,310.40 to $117,270.40, which directly aligns also with our market study. Next slide. Now creating these classifications in and of itself has no budgetary impact, though the office is funded in accordance with code in section. Let's see, 35 2030 b which states council will adopt a budget at the conclusion of the budget cycle that is proportional to 5% of the currently adopted Portland police bureau annual operating budget. So, for example, my understanding is that this fiscal year 2025 to 2026, pbs's operating budget is about 288 million, and the budget oversight system, comprised of both the ocpa and the cbpa, is 14.8 million. The size and the structure of the office from a staffing perspective will be at the discretion of the director. Next slide. So for next steps, we're seeking council approval to create these three new classifications and associated pay ranges. We're starting now because this process takes several several weeks to complete from start to finish. We're aware that the ocpa director has not yet been hired. However, these new classifications must first be created and added to city systems before the new ocpa director can recruit and fill these roles when they're ready. Again, there is no direct budgetary impact for us to create these classifications, and we ask your support to move these forward. Thank you. That concludes our formal presentation.

Thank you. Do you know when the director is going to be hired?

I do not have a timeline on that, but I'll pause and ask if kristen thorpe is online. Who is with the office of or in prison? Oh.

Hi, christine. Could you come up and introduce yourself?

Aye, Morillo counselors and presenters. Thank you. My name is kristen thorpe. For the record, last night the kpa had their first meeting and have voted to engage with the do excuse me, with the recruitment for the director. So that process is going to be starting here in the next couple of weeks. There is no timeline yet because they still need to do their work, develop their recruitment plan and go forward. But we took a step towards a director last night with the board's thumbs up to start working on that work.

Thank you. Is there already a classification already in the system for the for the director?

Yes. Councilor director. One in the city's classification system.

And what is the. What is the range?

I do not have that information in front of me. We do have that available. My apologies.

If you could email me that and the rest of the council, they may have some idea, but I don't have any idea about it. And one of the things that as I was looking looking at the the two classifications, I thought they were the salaries were pretty low. I know you said you did it against some of the documented stuff that you had, but I thought with the kind of work that they're going to be doing, and particularly for the first one, I think it was 58 to to 90, and then the second one was 71 to 117.

Yes. So thank you. Councilor. Yeah, that's that's a great question. I will share that. We did base the pay scale, pay scale for I think what you're you may be referring to are the the investigators based on comparable markets, comparators. We're aware that the market is lower than the rates for ipr investigators at that currently exist in our system. There are also, I believe, internal affairs investigators in the police bureau. There are others, even within bhr that do investigations whose pay is different. And so for classifications, for example, if you're looking across to represented classes, right. We also have to keep in mind that those rates are subject to bargaining. And so market will not agree directly with those rates because they may have bargained different things that have added to that compensation. Right. So our best practice, our industry practice for classification and compensation, not just here at the city, but even just again, across the profession, is to base our decisions on market rates, research. That's the data that we can back and support. Anything beyond that, you know, can be reflected during bargaining.

Okay. Thank you. And and I'll look over here just but I just have another question. I know you said that that you looked at comparable investigators and even the comparable investigators at our at the city right now. They make a lot more than this. I'm concerned because I want us to get off the ground. Well, and I'm concerned about retention and our ability to retain the best and the brightest to do this kind of work. This is a new system, and I want us to get the the best quality folks who have the the experience to be able to do this. And I'm not questioning your your ability to to identify initially what the rates should be, but it is. Were you telling me that there is some room because there will be. They'll be they'll be bargained that they have an opportunity to increase the pay.

That is correct.

Okay. Okay. So councilor Kanal my I don't have hands over here, so I have to I have to cheat off of the council president's. Go ahead. Answer your question. Ask your question.

Thank you. First, let me say thank you for the work that you've all done on this. I appreciate the work. I really appreciate two specific things I wanted to call out. Not every system has an investigator on an investigator two structure. There are other systems, both here and in other cities, that try to combine those into a single pay scale that has issues associated not only with supervision, responsibility, but with path to to development and with retention as a result. So I'm really grateful that that was kept in this process. Another thing I wanted to say, and this is partially your work and partially the work of the police accountability commission, is the complaint navigator process. This is so vital. It is a little different than the work of the coordinator in the ipr system, which I believe has the working title. I can't remember the exact name of it, but there intake specialist at ipr right now, this is a more complex position. And so I'm really grateful that that got kept in. And it's it's going to be very different as a person who files a complaint to go through that, with the benefit of having a navigator throughout the process, not just at the time of intake as the current system does. I share many of the the questions that that councilor Smith has, and I want to just kind of walk through here. There are no job descriptions attached to this. Do you have the job descriptions for these roles at this time?

We have classification specifications, so the class spec is just the broad overview of the work. This is what is foundational to the structure. And then the expectation is that after the director is hired they can, you know, refine the details of the job description when they're ready to create positions. So to answer your question, in general, yes, there's the foundational classification, but actual details of each position description will be developed.

Okay. Where are the class specs. They're not attached to this this legislative item.

I will make sure we get those forwarded that that was probably just an oversight on my part. But yes, we do have them.

And I want to stress that this is not about bhr, but there are a lot of things that have been oversights through this process of setting this up in terms of information not being provided. So I'm going to ask some questions with that in mind. Right now, ipr staff make between 87 and 129. This is $1,000 per year. And investigators two is 95 to $141,000 a year. Independent affairs investigators make between 88 and 130. That's sorry. That was last year's 90 and $133,000. Whereas we're talking about starting 71 to 117. So there is a significant reduction there. We have created a system through a bargaining agreement that is designed to move represented employees, asked me, represented employees and ipr into this new system. And as far as I'm aware, they would be taking a pay cut. And I think the acm representatives who wrote in written testimony back that up as well. And that seems to contradict the ideals that the council voted for. I'll note that was an 11 to 1 vote. I was the one because I didn't believe it was should be required. But I have said from the beginning, I do believe we should try to move people over and I will encourage that throughout. So I'm curious as to the impact that you foresee happening there. And I'm also curious if the class spec. So let me let me ask first the impact, and I'll follow up about the comparison of the class specs.

I will pause. I'm going to turn to my colleague who's here from the labor relations team, who can speak to more of the specifics about what was bargained and agreed upon. Generally, that's outside of the scope of class and comp, daryl.

Thank you. Could you introduce yourself?

Yes. I'm gerrell gaddis, labor relations manager here at the city. Thank you. To speak. Oh, to speak on when we negotiated the contract. There's language in the contract that provides anyone that comes over from the current system. They will not have a reduction in pay if they come over and accept a new position.

So for the ipr investigators who make up somewhere between 117,200 and $70 a year and 129,733, which is the difference between the maximum in this proposal and the maximum in their current pay scale. What happens there? And similarly for the investigator ones who have a different cap of 100,129.

Any individual who comes over from the current existing one will not take a reduction in pay.

So that we can exceed this maximum to retain.

That's correct.

Okay. Does that also create pay equity issues for new applicants then?

I don't know that we would have to go through that process when a new applicant come in to review their qualifications to make that determination. And that's the area of the recent them would be.

Let me let me maybe phrase that a little more specifically. If there's an ipr investigator, let's say it's an investigator, one who's making somewhere between 100 and $129,000 a year, so higher than what an ocpa investigator one is allowed to make under this classification. But within their current scale, they would apply. And if they get the position, they would move over. Let's say it's at 120,000. And now there's another person who applies because there will be more than one investigator, another person who applies from the outside, who has an equal number of years of experience. It's just not at ipr. They would still be capped at 100,000 a year. Right. Pay equity would not be able to have that new person exceed the maximum in this proposal. Is that correct?

That's accurate.

Okay. Does that not create pay equity concerns when we're comparing two people's experiences, finding them to be equal. Just one happens to be an ipr and one doesn't. And they're we're capping someone at 100,000 and allowing the other person to go up to 129,000.

I probably couldn't answer that question. I will refer to research on that pay equity portion.

But yeah, the questions that you're asking are good ones. So I want to acknowledge that. And I also recognize that it's challenging for us to be very specific about these things, because the classifications still need to get created. We already have verification that these new classifications, once approved, will then go through the bargaining process. So right now, what we're really just trying to do is set the foundation. That will then be a part of conversations and negotiations for bargaining. The outcome of those negotiations could be that things like wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining. So, you know, to your point, all of those specifics and details are ones we would expect to be outlined in a collective bargaining agreement, and that such issues would be addressed to know how to align pay and what impacts in your city may have and all of those details. So I in terms of a pay equity issue, I think it just depends on what is agreed upon in the future.

So and kristen's here and so I think it's appropriate to note that once we have a director, we're going to be trying to staff this thing up as quickly as possible. Right. Because we have settlement agreement related deadlines to meet, we have a need to create a transition out from ipr, which has been lingering for many, many years now, waiting for that that transition out. So it took two and a half years for cpw to get a contract. I know that's an outlier on the high end, but it could take. My concern is that we're going to be hiring people in not bringing in new. It's the exact opposite problem that I expected, actually, when I started this line of questioning that we're going to end up with no incentive for new people to apply because of the underpayment here, but that we would be able to retain ipr people in the transition because they can keep their pay. And so I'm concerned about the impact on on recruitment there. And there's unfortunately nobody I can ask that within the space because we haven't hired the director yet, but that that's the concern that I'm seeing here. Can I ask you, does the is the class spec specific enough to include whether or not these folks will be on call, or may have an on call component of their position? And I have to ask it of you because I don't have the document.

That would come down to the position description.

Okay. The reason I ask is because internal affairs investigators in our current system do have to be on call with the possibility of having to respond to something like a death in custody or an officer involved shooting rapidly. Ipr investigators don't necessarily have that role. In fact, my understanding is it's actually the director and deputy director who go to those situations when they arise. And my understanding is that the ocpa would would be closer in the investigators would have to investigate that, because under the charter and we've been citing code a lot, but it's actually in the charter that is a a type of investigation that the ocpa can do. So given that. And that usually comes with a pay bump, that helps to explain why internal affairs investigators make about 3000 2800 on the low end and up to 4000 more. That's one of the reasons why they do make more than ipr investigators do. And so I'm wondering how, given that ocpa investigators are likely to make have more of a role in that regard, why they're being paid 16,000 less on the on the low end of the scale and 29,000 less on the high end of the scale.

Councilor Kanal. And I totally agree with you. I'm with you on this. I think for this conversation, we should have had a dca here, and I think that tracy warren should have been down here to she is the dca over over this particular position, and she happens to be the former hr director. So she could answer a lot of these questions off the top of your head. So if you all don't have the answers to this, just write them down and we'll send questions over because it was very detailed what you were asking them. But maybe this might help you out today if we wanted to expand and the the current classifications that you've put forward, could we in this committee add an amendment to bump it up? Because understanding what you're talking about, the two years that it takes to become labor, because for me, that was one of the main questions to me. And my staff talked about this is this is ridiculous to me that these wages and please, I don't disrespect your your experience of doing class comp and understanding that folks were they're being paid something different. Right now. My fear is that good people who may want to new people who may want to come in and apply that they want, they won't, and we won't get the same kind of quality of applicants. If we're waiting for class comp for two years to change this, I just wanted to know if we could actually amend this ourselves right here, because there is no there is no contract. And if that is something that we could do from the diocese, I don't know. I wish tracy was here.

And I'll just note, chair Smith, that I did. Actually, my team did reach out yesterday to dca warren's office because we saw this and had concerns. I'm hoping she is. You know, obviously scheduling is difficult and she's a very busy person. So I'm not implying anything here, but I do. I did give a heads up. I would love to have this conversation. I have a backup suggestion depending. I'm not sure if it is the best call to make an amendment on the fly here and get into the the pennies, that level of detail. But I I'm I'm interested in the answer to that question but I have another suggestion as well.

Okay. Who who who could answer that.

Well I thank you very much. I appreciate those questions. Again, we base our research recommendations even when we're following up with various union partners who have questions about compensation. We always tie it back to market data. So I you know, I want to start there, and I don't take offense at the additional line of questioning. I'd like to go back to councilor Kanal councilor Kanal question about on call duty and shifts. Yes, I stand corrected. It is actually in the class bags that the investigator one and two are being designed to work on call shifts. And so again, there is an opportunity there knowing that that work needs to be covered, that that's something that can also be addressed in terms of the pay question. Councilor Smith, I would have to defer to the city attorney's office about can you submit an amendment or do something different? However, what I will say is that I know that there is tremendous interest in cooperation to move these classifications and positions forward just as expeditiously as possible. And so that's why we have labor relations here with us today. We're here, kristen is here. And I've seen other instances where we have done special agreements to move certain things forward outside of, you know, the larger, full, complete bargaining process. So, for example, things like a letter of agreement or a memorandum of agreement or understanding with our labor partners. Again, I'm not an expert in that portion of bargaining, but I know that there are pathways for those things to happen. So for us, for me, if I level set again, a starting point is the is creation of the classifications. Okay. That's just the construct. No positions don't have to be filled yet. There's time for that. A director still needs to be hired so there is more time.

Okay, so what you're saying is let us get the classifications in and then you can amend as you will afterwards. Is that.

I, I believe you heard that. Yeah. Accurate. That that would be my suggestion. But again I defer to those who have much more knowledge and expertise in other areas than I.

So just to.

Clarify.

So.

Because this came up with the director question, a director one gets paid between 160,700 and $84 a year and $233,729 a year. Just so, 160 to 233 and change in either case. So there is room. If the concern was, is there room to operate before we start to have someone making more than their their supervisor or their supervisor supervisor? I think that might have been the underlying question. So there is room there. I'm concerned that with the on call aspect of this, that we're and I want to step back for a second because this is not bhr fault, and this predates kristen's hiring as well. But we have seen the with the cbpa specifically and the ocpa this this new oversight system, the delay, delay, delay. Oh my god, under the gun. Have to make a decision right now. Delay, delay delay and then do it again. And that's been completely independent of bhr. I want to be very clear. It has nothing to do with anybody up here. But this has been something ideally this would have been figured out a while ago in a way that that would have been affecting the bargaining conversation, but because it happened in the other order, we have actually changed the market that bhr should be studying, because the bargaining agreement we approved means that a large part of our initial hiring will likely be from existing city of Portland staff in at least ipr, possibly depending on the pay scale internal affairs as well. I doubt that's going to happen because internal affairs folks would be taking a pay cut as well. I'm also curious about if the steps are limited, so if that person coming in at $120,000 is coming in at at something below the top step, are they able to advance because that would involve a pay increase? I know their pay can't go down, but that pay increase would be above the maximum for the classification they're now in that. I don't know if that made sense. Can you answer that? And I know you know a lot about this. Yeah.

No no that does make sense. What we did was just simply made sure that they wouldn't take a reduction in pay. And that's what we focused on in bargaining with the unions and management and our bargaining team.

Thank you. So just to clarify, that means that they could not get a step up. So if you come in just a week away from getting your next step, you come in above the the top pay for the new classification. But within your scale for the old classification, you're in at ei or ipr, that when you hit that next step, you cannot get the pay increase you would have gotten if you stayed at ipr. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. So these are these are concerns that that I have here. The other piece of this is that I don't know how who all was brought in on this subject, but I know I wasn't, you know, made aware of this. It's very hard for me to both at one side say I haven't seen the class spec and be asked to vote yes on something where that's really important to it, and on the other hand, say we have we need to do something rapidly. That's, that's going on the, the pay scale side that doesn't have a, a relationship with the market that we've defined in our previous action, which is, I think, largely ipr, not to mention limiting the scope of who we could recruit from outside by by having them make less. So I am concerned about that. I have been reached out to by, you know, people who've served on the crc, people who are in the the union leadership at afscme. And we're talking about potentially over a $10,000 pay cut for people who would be coming from ia if they were to look at it. No cap on the increase for people from ipr and a limitation, just because the pay is is lower for people coming from the from the outside who have not worked in Portland before. And I understand that that market might pay a little bit less in general, but that's sort of where I'm at. I have a ton of other questions. I want to stop here because I've gone on for a while. Right.

And we do. We do have a time limit. I see dca warren just walked in. Could do you.

I've just been waiting 20 minutes. That's all.

I know. But I want to clear up these questions first. That councilor Kanal was asking. We have some concerns about the pay ranges and simply we believe. I believe, and I think councilor Kanal believes that they're too low. Can we expand those in this, in this vote?

So for the record, tracy warren, deputy city administrator for city operations, interesting question. Councilor. I'm not sure I would look for legal opinion on that. I think you could make a suggestion. The class comp team could go back and do some more work on it prior to referring it to the full council. What I would share is that the class comp team is using typical best practice for setting compensation, and that is that you do a market analysis and set the pay to the surrounding market. What we have currently in our compensation structure represents wages that have been negotiated over time by mutual agreement with our labor partners. So, you know, typical practices, we set the compensation. Once a union is recognized, there is then a process to negotiate and set wages based on that negotiation process with our labor partners by mutual agreement. And then it comes back to council through ratification of that agreement.

Okay. Do you see where I'm going to? I'm going to let councilor Green talk about. But the issue is if you're looking at pay equity issues and you already have a set of folks who are already making a certain wage, wouldn't you think that's where you would start? Especially if it's in the it's the same scope of work, but under a different name.

Well, it so my understanding is it isn't the exact same scope of work. The scope of work has changed. The other piece is that, again, what we have represented in our compensation plan is based on years of negotiations of wages. And every time we go to a table, we are checking the market and we're using that as our baseline. And so when we're setting compensation range, we want to set it based on the baseline. So that's our starting point.

Thank you councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you colleagues. First of all well I'll start by saying thanks so much for bringing this forward. I'm eager for us to adopt a classification framework for us to move forward on the hiring of this colleagues. I will say, though, that I'm aware of no council procedural rule that says that we cannot amend ordinances if they are like there's no carve out for ordinance of this particular type. So yes, yes, we can change this. I don't know. I don't think it's the best way to do it. I think if we wanted to offer a different vision, I think the best way to do it would just sort of refer this back to the carrier's office and engage in another round of this. But there's there's no prohibition of us changing this ordinance under consideration. If the city attorney is here, he might have a different view. But I but I think that I know our council rules and procedures pretty well. What we need to keep in mind is whether it's best practice. I wanted to speak, though, to a different set of considerations, because I hear everything you're saying about the market comp study. This is a very standard practice. I think what I'm carrying is that I just came from a state of the economy report by eco northwest in the Portland metro chamber, which raised the single largest threat to our region being that of affordability. And mike wilkerson had pointed out that obviously there are some cost drivers that drive affordability concerns, in particular around housing prices and costs. And so he made the argument that what we really need to do is be adopting policies and making investments that raise the wage, that raise incomes for the people who live here. And so if the city is going to adopt a policy that moves the center of gravity for bargaining, the starting place for bargaining lower than what is essentially considered for the next nearest proximity of work for this, then we're we're moving against that direction. We need to be, I think, adopting policies that empower workers to to to get higher incomes so we can have our affordability crisis directed. And I know that places the city at a a balance sheet consideration there. But we are in a dynamic economy, and our ability to pay our bills is going to be a function of our growth and our spare income that flows through our economies. And that's, that's that comes from paychecks. Right. And so I say all that to say that we are going when we do our sort of market based analysis, it's necessarily backward looking because you look at what your recent comps are, this is the same thing that happens in real estate comprehensive pricing, comp based pricing. But eco northwest just told us this morning that we have been in a recession for all intents and purposes, since 2023, in the labor market in Portland, and we should not expect that to change anytime soon because we have serious macroeconomic headwinds. So that means that we should expect further drags on wages and total comp over the next couple of years in this metro region area. So I'm very uncomfortable with us adopting a framework that kind of tries to lower the band a little bit as a starting position for workers. I would very much support a procedure or a move today to perhaps refer this back to an office to adjust these pay scales. I don't think doing it on the fly is the right way to do it, but I do know that we have that power, so I'll just leave it there, okay?

Thank you, chair Smith. My questions have largely evolved since we started talking, and my colleagues had some really good questions. I'll share also that I worry about this. It just doesn't quite feel like we have landed this yet. I'm. Director warren, you said or dca warren you had said that the the the comparable scope of work isn't quite the same between what is being done now and what will be envisioned. But my understanding is that for the most part, it seems like the work is going to be more for these individuals, that we're actually going to be demanding more of them, and the scale and scope might be even greater. I worry. I also, you know, I'm interested, I guess, to know about the market comparisons and which parts of the market were compared. Rather, I mean, I imagine that a police investigator in west linn has a very different compensation than in pittsburgh or in seattle or in san francisco. And so I'm not and and we're kind of building something new. And so I'm not sure how directly comparable those comps would be. So it seems sort of surprising to me to just broadly see that the pay scale is. I mean, it seems just generally lower. So I'm not ready to support this today. I, I have some continuing lingering questions. I guess my question to, to you all is what was the what was the sort of scope of the market study specifically? I understand it's hard. It's not. It's never apples to apples. But who did we study? Was it really Portland metro or was it comparable sized cities? Was it I guess also, did it get to the sort of scope of the work meaning? In pittsburgh we paid them $50,000 and they were this effective, and they had this many successes as an employee versus in si. I don't know if it ever got to that. Sort of like, where does it do we get more for paying them more? Do we get less for paying them for paying folks less? I generally think that's probably the case. But yeah, there's my really mishmash question for you.

Yeah.

I'll, I'll let reesa williams the classification compensation and pay equity manager talk about the scope and the comparator areas and what is typically in a market analysis. I will just say off the bat, it is not measuring outcomes or successes as a way of setting pay. It is based on the numbers. So what are the base wages for those performing similar work? It's not exact but similar. And then we do labor. Not a cost of living, but a cost of labor adjustment for the different areas. So just kind of big picture.

Yeah. Thank you tracy. And yes, councilor Dunphy, president Dunphy, you are correct the way we like to describe it in the class comp world is there's a little bit of art and of science that goes into the work that's needed. And so when we do our market research, we do have to take a look at what are the requisite bodies of work, what exactly what type of work will they be doing? What is the role? Under what circumstances do they complete that work? What are the lines of authority? What's the structure? Who are they reporting up to. And so again we're asking to create these new classifications because there is nothing like it that exists. And when we did our market research, we did survey the local area and found there's really nothing locally that exists. So from there, we expanded our search to the national level. And just so that you were aware, we did find seven national comparators when we did our market research. And when we talk about comparators again, we consider the scope of work, the authority, the reporting structures, the environment under which work is performed. All of those are unique for this new oversight system. So for example, if we were to look at the city of san francisco, we know that there are differences in wages between city of Portland and city of san francisco. And so there is also something called a geographic differential that we do apply, so that the wages are commensurate with what they would be. It's a factor. It's a multiplier that we use to adjust wages up or down depending upon how they compare across regions or structures. So that's just a little bit of what I describe as some of the art and science. We do seek to match job duties at at least 70% by industry standards. That is what is considered comparable in the market. So that was part of the basis along with, you know, just expanding our search, saying, hey, to do this type of work, if we were to find someone out there who's worked under this environment, what could we reasonably expect to pay, right? What would be competitive at that scale? And so, yes, I do recognize that these these pay ranges do look lower when we look inward into our city structure. But again, as dca warren clarified, those differences have come from additional layers of bargaining and and increases that have occurred through bargaining over the years. And so to apply that as a differential that does fall outside of what our normal practice is. And so again, I'm just restating that so that we know there's a difference in the data that we use for class comp versus for additional wages. And and increases that may be applied to our compensation ranges at the city.

Thank you. So one of the things I was going to suggest is that we move this to the next meeting on the 26th or the 28th of February, in lieu of talking to our city attorney. But I see that heidi is here, and, daryl, can you let heidi sit there? Thank you. The original question. Heidi, could you introduce yourself?

Yes. Thank you. Councilor heidi brown with the city attorney's office. Good afternoon.

So the question I think that most of us have here is that these positions and classifications appear to be lower than the current positions from the ipr. And what could we add today? And that was the question. And, or if we wanted folks to go back and relook at this again, what could we do legally so that we don't go to contract jail?

So if you want to amend the classification compensation range, you can make amendments in your committee. As councilor Green was mentioning, I was listening and trying to get down here. So you can do that if you want to. You could also, as you've been discussing, ask it to go back with hr and for them to come back with a different compensation pay range for this classification that is more in alignment with the direction that you if you have consensus on this committee that you're you're giving them.

Okay. And I'll just open this up. Councilor Kanal what is your sense on this? My sense is to to send it back.

Yeah, I.

Guess with a couple caveats. And so I understand like we're some of us are more interested in the broad strokes of, of this, and some of us are more willing to get into the deep weeds on this. And so I, I with no shame associated with either outcome on that. I don't know who else besides myself is interested in getting very deep into the weeds. Is anyone I'm seeing? A no, they're.

Not deep. Just I just see.

And so I think that that helps. I'm assuming that the facial expressions here indicate.

Professionals to do their to do what they know how to do best.

Yeah. So I think that's, that's for me part of the the question I agree that we're legally allowed and I appreciate the clarification to make an amendment, but I that's why I have some discomfort with that to to amend it live here. Just real quick to the the folks at bhr, I think you did what you were asked to do, exactly how you were asked to do it. And I'm very interested in what those seven comparators were, because I actually have this level of experience in looking at the other cities and things like that, and doing that research on this particular thing. But I think that we asked you to do the wrong thing. And I want to be clear about why that, because between the last, the last conversation we had in the bargaining process, we I think we changed the market. And I also think that, like, we have made decisions based on the idea in bargaining that in order to retain the top workers that we have at not only independent police review, but also internal affairs, that we needed to pay those rates. And that's not a class comp decision. I think you've very accurately pointed that out. That is a bargaining decision and a and a political decision as well at the end. And I think we're looking at these from both together. But that's not what we asked there. So I'm very cognizant of the idea that this is not necessarily a refutation of the work that you've done. I want to be just super clear about that. I just think we asked for the wrong thing through this process. I personally am very interested in getting into the weeds on this because of my background in this particular space and some of my staff as well. So I would be interested in that, but not live. So the caveat I would give and the motion I'll make is to refer it back to the mayor's office as well as my office, so that we can talk it out and and ensure that it captures that conversation.

Let me have councilor Novick. Let's hear from him. We have not heard from him to see what his what his sense is.

Thank you, madam chair. I just wanted to go back to something that, tracy, that you said earlier. I mean, the way you envision this playing out is if we adopted what's before us today, then at some subsequent point, you would expect once people are hired and they're member of a union, then they would try to try to negotiate something different as part of a union contract.

That's correct. That's typically how it happens. Is that then once the positions are recognized by a union, and in this case, we have prior negotiation language, right with afscme, once positions are recognized by the union, we would open up bargaining and we would start talking about the terms and conditions of our agreement. One of those things would be wages. Right. And I think one of the pieces that I could add to is that, you know, part of the reason that we see increased wages internally or increased premiums or increased other benefits, right, is that when you're bargaining, you are offering something in exchange for something else. And that's what increases rates or different benefits for employees within that agreement. When we're going out to market, we're not recognizing that difference. We're looking at solely from a compensation best practice. What is represented within the market, doing the similar work?

Thank you. And that's why I mean, to me, I'm okay with moving ahead with what we've got today, with the understanding that we would expect bargaining subsequently with the represented unit, rather than sort of trying to bargain it ourselves.

Thank you. Councilor Novick I, I am not because I don't think it's at a level playing field that this these positions, considering they already have people who are working with them already and they already have a baseline. And for us to be much lower than that baseline that we have right now, I know that you, miss williams, that you said that there was nothing comparable that you could look at based on the scope of work of this new group. But we do have the scope of work from the old group. And even if they are bargaining at this level, they need to to me, I think they need to maintain at that level. And the other piece is we've been collecting 5% for the last two years, correct. From the police budget into into this budget. So this this is not an issue around whether or not we have resources or is this the first year.

So so to be clear, by creating the classifications and setting the compensation, you're not committing to any fte associated with it. So you're not spending any money. You're just telling us what we can place people into when we get budget authority from you all, or position authority to start filling positions. But it is not a money issue.

Dca warren darryl said that if we hire some of those ipr folks, that they come in at the rate that they have currently right now.

That that is correct, because we have negotiated that in their collective bargaining agreement that there would be no wage loss. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we are increasing the pay range. So I want to separate the individuals from the compensation range. The compensation range is the framework for the the pay. But the individuals, we can bargain things to support them differently. So one of the pieces was if they were hired into these and it was a lower pay, they could be red circled so that they would not lose any pay.

Yeah. He said that they they would be. That right. That would be the process. But so, so. I see we have another bhr our new interim hr director. Mr. Zito, could you introduce yourself.

Good afternoon counselors. Yes. Thank you for acknowledging that. Ron zito, interim director for the bureau of human resources. I don't want to duplicate any conversation that may have already occurred, but I did want to just acknowledge that we did have an agreement with afscme, ipr that does stipulate that once the director new director is hired for the office of ocpa, that we would initiate bargaining within one month of that, and that would precede the hiring of any of these positions. And so I just from a timeline standpoint, I wanted to point out that we will have time to negotiate different rates, likely from what's being proposed here before those folks take seats in these new positions. So I just wanted to call out a timeline factor there.

So we do have an opportunity. We're not going to be waiting two years for these folks to get up to speed with the new contract. Right.

It is subject to two parties coming to an agreement, but what I can say is that I think there would be mutual interest from afscme and the city to prioritize wages as an initial topic of those negotiations.

Okay. Thank you so much, mr. Zito. And. Council president Dunphy, what's your sense? Are you ready to vote on this and go forward, or are you wanting to kick it back to the hr?

I'm not ready to support this at this point. I think there's some nuance that needs to be done before we can move it forward. And I don't think that it's the level of nuance that we should be trying to nail when it gets to the main council.

Yes. So it looks like. We we have a solid group of folks who want to send that back. Do I need to make a motion? Diana?

Yeah, she was making a motion.

I so.

You can do it by unanimous consent to refer it back to the mayor's office?

If that's not, I'd already.

Made a motion, but I didn't want it to go back to your office. Because you're not the chair and.

Technically can't because you weren't an originator. It can't go back to your office, but you can make a motion that it go back to the mayor's office and that they work with you to come up with a new.

The idea that this got. I just need to ask a clarification question. In this committee and in other committees, we've had people add themselves as co-sponsors of items live. Is there any rule against doing that?

That's a.

Question for the attorney's office.

I don't know if it's appropriate.

I just I'm just would like an answer to the question, though.

I think a better motion would be for you to return it to the mayor's office. Explicit instruction that they work with your office before bringing it back to council.

Can we do that with explicit instruction?

Yes.

And that's my motion.

Might I make a commitment to you?

Councilor Kanal like it to be in the motion. Thank you.

Yeah.

Your motion is not really a friendly motion because I. Look, the mayor's office brought it. They're not here. We have the dca here. They know that we want to have some input on this. And to specifically say that a particular councilor on this labor and workforce board is consulted is I don't think that's where we need to go right now.

Point of.

I apologize. You can't direct the executive to work with you, but you can. You can either bring something on your own or you can. What was the term suggest that I'm going to let heidi finish this.

All right. Thank you. Good afternoon again, heidi brown. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear that you can refer the refer this back, but it goes back to the mayor's office. Councilor Kanal. I think for or any of you, if you wanted to work on your own option or you wanted to work on an amendment and request that the executive branch work with you, you can certainly do that. I just just to keep the lines clear, that a direct direction come from the legislative branch, requiring the executive branch to work with them, I think crosses over the lines. I understand your concern.

I understand the point there. The concern I have is that this came out of nowhere. Right. And some of us have been working on this for years. And to have it be completely a surprise and be asked for us to vote on it without even seeing what the class spec is. There's no attachment here with the class spec, so I don't know how to guarantee. And if there's a procedural way to guarantee that there's some consultation. That's what I'm looking for here. And I asked my colleagues of the five of us, I'm the only one who wants to get that deep into it. I would have no problem with anyone else being involved in it to, you know, subject to public meetings, law, of course. But there's a concern I have here, which is that we've not been provided with the information necessary to exercise our authority under the charter to, to look at and vote on something. I understand it's not the budgetary authority. I agree with everything dca, warren said. But in terms of the policy setting, in terms of the implications here, and I'll just also note that that these positions will be filled before a contract is signed and that that starts off the new system. And there are a lot of different decisions we've been asked to make over the last year, plus that are trying to determine whether or not we should start the system before we figure this thing out or figure this thing out before we start the system. And so I think that's where I'm I'm trying. I think.

We hear you councilor Councilor. We hear you. Yes.

Point of clarification. Okay. So there's there's there's a couple of things being muddled here. There's the substantive debate about whether or not he should make this motion. And then there's the fact that when a member of this committee makes a motion, we we can't block that motion. We have to either vote, vote on it or not. We can't debate whether they can bring it or not, whether it's friendly or not. So so if the council wants to bring a motion, we need to we need to hear that.

And if if the clerk in the in in the the legal counsel is saying that we can't make someone work the maker of this, of this motion, we can't make them work with us. If they're saying that we can.

Then we need to debate the merits of the.

We don't have the time to do that right now. Councilor we don't have that time. I have another wage theft agenda item. We need to send this back to, to the mayor's office.

I amend my motion. Then I have a motion. Now. I'm trying to help here.

Can you pull it off the table? Can you do that.

Or not? But I'm happy to amend it.

Well. I don't think it's appropriate. And I want to move forward. And I want to move that. We we send this back to the mayor's office.

If you would please allow me to amend my motion to that. I would be happy to do that.

Why do an emotion? And we're all in agreement that it needs to go back to the mayor's office. Why do you have to put an amendment? Why do you always have to put a spin on something? Stop it. Let's let's let us get to the next item. We all agree that it should go back to the mayor's office. Quit always trying to wordsmith something to to make it go the way that you want it to go. We know that this was wrong. They should have. They just brought it to me last week. Yeah, and it was not right. And we we we got that. And I understand that. Let the mayor's office deal with it. And we will individually and as a committee, we will go and talk to the mayor's office. You don't have to put a motion on this. We're going to send this back to the mayor's office. So tell me, heidi, he has a motion on the floor, one that is not appropriate to add his name as one of the people who who actually, you know, revise it. I think we all need to have that same kind of. Access to the mayor.

And I understand that, councilor I, I do think with a motion on the floor that that does need to be considered. So I do think councilor Kanal could amend it to comply with sort of the legal concerns that I raised.

I'm trying.

To do and, and that way and then and then vote on that motion and then if there's another motion brought vote on that motion.

That would be great. And it would be great because this chair would like to move forward. Please amend your your motion. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah.

And I think we could move forward on it if we allowed for the procedure to be followed, instead of going through lectures on subjects that are outside of the rules, I will amend my.

Stop trying to boss up on me because I'm the chair.

I'm not. I think sergeant robert might be here to to boss up. I, I will amend my motion to refer this item back to the mayor's office, and I will speak to that motion by saying that I would ask the mayor, please consult with the people who are experts on it on this side of the dais before bringing it back as a request. And I'm speaking to it. It is not part of the motion. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do do we have a second on that second? Thank you. All right. To refer the ordinance back to the mayor, Dunphy. Aye, Morillo Kanal.

I and I sorry, I demoted general robert I.

Novick I.

Green Smith. I with five a's. The motion to refer the ordinance back to the office of the mayor and to please consult with the council has passed.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And. Just a note that when folks try to rush things through and not talk to us first, this is what you get. You get confusion on the dais. So I suggest that when the mayor's office brings something forward, number one, that they come here, and number two, that we get enough time so that we can appropriately ask you questions so that we don't have to go through what we just went through here, because the argument is not between us. It is how it was brought to us. And we noticed some things that were not right. We would have taken care of before we got to this point. Anyway. Diana, we have a discussion on wage theft. Can you.

Item number two, discussion on wage theft in Portland.

Thank you. Nakia hunter. Santino juarez. And jesus, how are you?

Good afternoon, chair Smith. I'm doing fine. How are you?

I am doing wonderful. Now that I'm able to talk to all of you. Thank you for coming. We've been working on this issue, and me and councilor Kanal have been heavily involved in, in trying to come up with an ordinance that would be appropriate for the city in regards to wage theft. We we had an opportunity to do a field trip in December where we we actually saw some actual wage theft. We can't bring that forward, but we will let our colleagues see that in a separate in a separate setting. But I thank you for going on that tour with me, councilor Kanal, because it really opened my eyes now more than ever. When we went on a public job site. It was not a city job site, but it was a public federal davis-bacon job job site and people were not being paid properly. So this is not an issue of whether or not we need to do this. It is when we're going to actually do it. So I'm going to start with you, nakia. First, could you we're just discussing now because we're going to on the 28th, we're going to bring the the ordinance back. But we just wanted to have some conversation with you and, and with the, with the committee about some of the things that are going on. That's, that's widespread in the city of Portland as it relates to wage theft.

Yes. Thank you. My name is nakia hunter. I'm a representative of the carpenters who build our state here in Oregon and southwest Washington. Thank you, chair and council members. The people across portland's district one, two, three, and four are hardworking communities who voted for leaders they believe would carry their interest into every vote, every conversation and every action. Yet many of those same workers are being harmed by one of the most widespread labor violations in Oregon wage theft. Every year, an estimated 88,000 to 128,000 Oregon workers are paid less than minimum wage. That alone costs workers between 283 million and $405 million each year, and that does not even count underpaid overtime, I mean unpaid overtime, misclassification or stolen tips. That is not a technical error. That is unlawful transfer of power from workers to those with more power. It hurts families, it destabilizes communities, and it weakens oregon's economy. And it is contradictory to the values this city says it stands for fairness, dignity of work and opportunity. Because too often when wage theft happens, responsibility gets passed around like a hot potato and the only one burned is the worker. Owners point to developers, developers point to contractors, contractors point to subcontractors, and the workers left chasing wages already earned. That is not accountability, that is avoidance. So I thank you for the conversations that you have begun to lay the foundation for the work that you are willing to do, to put implementations on the policies and expectations of this council and the people whom with which you choose to build the projects. Here in Oregon. We know that it is very unjust, it is very hard to calculate, and it is even harder to prove because the people are scared, they're scared, they're hungry, they're unable to pay their bills, which is adding to the houselessness and affordability crisis that we already are under. I thank you so much for taking the time to hear from other labor institutions and other people who are very passionate about this problem, and for putting together a plan that will help protect the working class. I thank you for having me today and I look forward to doing just that with you.

Thank you. Nakia santino.

All right.

Thank you guys for allowing me to come back and be here with you guys again. I just can't stress the importance of this topic and the urgency that we need to move this along forward. Chair Loretta Smith, councilman Member Kanal you guys brought up that project, and I just wanted to inform you that we tried to follow up with the developer, home forward, about what's happening on their project, and there was no phone call back. We went to the general contractor. We brought up the the incident with him. He said simply that it is not his problem that the subcontractor is filling out everything correctly. Then he shrugged us off, me and nakia personally and told us, go call boley. So I guess we'll wait three years before something ever happens for those workers. And as you guys know that as Portland, you guys, as the other cities in the metro, look to this chamber right here as leader, as an example. And I believe personally implementing this ordinance, a transparency ordinance, not only takes us in a step in the right direction for the construction industry, but I believe that it can benefit our city in three ways that I just want to make clear. Make a suggestion, if I can one. By letting this transparency ordinance come to pass, we are making a public declaration that contractors that use labor brokers and have a bad track record, and for having shady practices is something that our community will no longer stand for. And as my partner nakia likes to say, satan, not today. I believe a laborer is worthy of his wage. And secondly, by using Portland maps, which minimizes the amount of work that the city has to do, and that can happen. And all this can happen right during the permitting process. All that information can be laid out ahead of time and front. And Portland maps is a system that is already in place. It's already being used, and there's no need to hire someone else to go hunt down the information. It is simply updating the information as needed. Not only that, but it can be a source of generating income. Contractors that fail to violate and be in compliance. They can receive fines, right? If they continue to do it. Depending on the variety of what this this chamber decides, contractors that constantly violate it can pay fines and be in danger of losing their permit or their license, which in return this ordinance can become a self-funding mechanism. Lastly, I just want to say, as I'm talking about this, you know, as a working class person, my name is tina, by the way. I don't think I said that, but as someone that works in the city of Portland and I think I don't say this just for myself, but a lot of people in the middle class and the working class, we've lost hope in politics and political leaders. And I talk to people all the time, workers that tell me what's the point. And this transparency ordinance makes a huge statement for people that look and work just like me. Let's I think let's it's time to show Portland that there's actual leaders man that care you know thank you guys.

Thank you tino councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah I just wanted to to thanks for thank you for your leadership on this issue. Both of you. My office is standing ready to assist in any any analysis, any anything you need to help move this along. I'm very eager to see this come to to pass. Don't want to reproduce work of course, but just want to help you all out. So let me know. I'm ready to. I'm ready to work.

Thank you. Jesus.

Good afternoon, chair Smith, vice chair Green and all you other wonderful people up there. I am I'm here on behalf of all carpenters working in your state. Growing up, everyone knew that Oregon was a state of opportunity, the opportunity to get a good job, the opportunity to get a decent wage, to raise a family. Opportunities still exist here in Oregon, but it's a little different now as you focus on those job sites. Opportunity is is in favor of the labor brokers, an opportunity for wage theft with no penalties, an opportunity to extort our community's workforce again with no penalties. When the issue was brought to many city councils, no one believed us or decided to meet with us so we could show them the proof. Meanwhile, many families continue to suffer. We are here to assist and collaborate with all of you because there is a solution. We can make it so that there is more transparency on every project that is going on in Portland, and make it so that people profiting the most of these projects will think twice about coming to our city and taking advantage of our workforce. Now, all you elected officials, protectors of our communities, workforce have an opportunity to make Oregon what it once was and give back the opportunity to our workforce, to our communities workforce. Thank you.

Thank you. Just jesus, could you walk us through the most common scheme that you're seeing, how workers are getting recruited, strung along and then denied pay?

Yes, ma'am. So typically not well, nowadays you don't work directly for the contractor that is listed on the project. And this is this can go anywhere from the wood frame, the concrete, wood framing, drywall, you name it. So what they do is they have groups of workers that come in and and do the work as a subcontractor, third tier subcontractors, we call them, which are run by a labor broker. So that labor broker will come in, do the work. He gets paid in a check and pays the workers in cash if they get paid. When when we've asked workers, do you get paid in check or cash? They started to say check, not in cash anymore. We're like, well, things are looking a little better, right? But when, when, when we really got into the conversation, those checks are personal checks with no deductions on them. And those checks are not coming from their employer. They're coming from a totally different company that who knows who owns them. Right? And on top of that, the check that the personal check that these workers are receiving, they have to go to a certain check cashing store to cash them because the labor brokers are affiliated with that check cashing store. It's a huge scheme. And we really we really urge all of you to, to help us help you and put something in place because this needs to stop. I mean, it wasn't like that. I moved here in 98 and was working in construction. It wasn't like that.

Right.

And now this is very common on almost every project that we visit.

So, tino, you raised some serious concerns about intimidation and retaliation. What does the city need to put in place so workers can report wage theft, safety without fear of losing income or risking harm?

I think, for one, I think we're moving in the right direction. Of course, Oregon passed a law, sb 426, that definitely is going to move in that right direction. But I believe what needs to happen and a lot is that the the labor brokers or the subcontractors or these third tier contractors, they have no fear. They're not afraid of a penalty. Some of them, right. One of them, they'll get popped and they'll open up another ccp and another name. And sometimes bully is so slow that they're not even getting by the time they get up to them. The guys are already out of state. They're moving, they're on, they're moving on to the next one. And so I think having this transparency ordinance one, what it does and what it can do is shines a light and it minimizes contractors, general contractors from choosing these types of subcontractors that use them and practices. And so I think the best thing to do is one, in the permitting process, shine light on it at first thing, don't let it even happen. That's the best thing to do. Minimize where these labor brokers can thrive in. It's like a cancer if you keep feeding the cancer, right? We keep going. It's going to keep growing. Let's get ahead of it before it even happens. Because like, it's really it's it's sad in a sense because just like and nakia was with me, we literally get shrugged off sometimes. And these, these contractors, they have no fear. It's it's not my problem. Go tell someone else. Go call the proper authorities. There's no laws or there's no teeth and nothing right in our state. There's no teeth. We need teeth. We need ordinances, things that penalizes contractors for doing this. So it makes them think twice before they even do it, you know?

Thank you. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, madam chair. Are we talking about making the the base of the the general contractors liable for the wage theft by these third tier contractors?

I believe, in sb 426, that it allows the general contractor and the owner to be liable for these lost wages. And and so that's a one way definitely to do it because the general contractors and I just say this, for example, we know and there are certain players right. There are certain general contractors in our city. And we can I can name them if you want, but it's a totally it's up to this man. He's he'll, he'll but anyways but there are certain ones that they use certain players. So these gc's they know the game. They know what's happening. And so I think by doing that, holding them alive, one, one we're not here trying to charge or raise the property for anybody, right. Or create barriers for anyone. We want. We want to build, we want things to go. But by doing this, it makes the gc think twice on who he's going to use that. Hey, I'm not going to use that guy because I know what he's known for and I know what can happen. And it minimizes that kind of issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, madam chair. I just want to put this out here for the committee and rest of our body as we're thinking about when we finally do adopt your policy, is that the primary complaint that we're going to hear, which is going to be pure hatred? And I'm just going to say it right now, is going to say that in this economic climate, we can't afford to regulate this kind of way because we're already having a hard time building it. I want to say that what we're seeing here is the rank and file workers get squeezed so we can create a profit margin for these, for these gcs, and for the kind of third party people that they use. So it's not like we're saving any money by using this really illegal form of wage theft. We're just making a paycheck for, for a very bad part of our economy. And we need to have the courage to stand up and put an end to it. And I think that this body can do that. Yeah.

Thank you. And then a finer point on that, councilor Green, could you give could you give the example when we were on this site, what were the the workers supposed to be paid was?

Well, I believe councilor Smith, I believe it was right around 50, I think it was 52 or $54 an hour. And that was not the case.

And they were only getting like 20 to.

$25 an hour or so, and they still haven't got paid. I stay in contact with these. We all do. We stay in contact with these workers and see how things are going for them, and they haven't got paid.

And how the general contractors are getting away from it is because they have these third party folks that are paying them, and so they're keeping that other $25. And so they're making money. They've added a, as you say, a capital stack for themselves. So thank you, councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, madam chair. And it's been a really great experience getting to work with you on this, as well as everyone up here. It's a a really high priority and a really big part of our responsibility that if we're putting city dollars towards a project that we we own, maybe not. If something happens once and it goes wrong, it's understandable. We might not know everything. People make mistakes and there's something. But when there's a pattern of this and if city dollars are going towards it, that's a problem that we have responsibility over. And so I understand we're talking about contractors can blame subcontractors and all that and that that may happen, but we can't do that. And so I think it's really vital that we start with the places we're putting our city dollars. As you've mentioned, council chair Smith and and really work to ensure that we're not putting it towards people that are robbing people, because that is the key here. This is theft. This is we talk about property crime being very high in Portland, and it is this is a type of property crime. And it's the actually the largest type of theft in the united states, greater than all the rest put together. And so when we look at what to do about it, we'll have these example ordinances and things like that that have been adopted in other places. I'm looking forward to to looking at those and seeing what applies to Portland and collaborating with everyone on this committee about it. But I wanted to also add in a couple other things. We had an example of a person who was making ten, $12 an hour, lured away to a prevailing wage job, where it might be 60 something dollars an hour officially, but they're getting paid 30 something, so they're being underpaid. But it looks better than the greater level of exploitation they were already facing. And so it makes sense to move over in theory, because, as was pointed out, as you mentioned, that there are people who we met, people who said they didn't even know what they were getting paid because they hadn't been paid yet, and those who were personal checks, there were a lot of different ways that it manifests. When eight years ago, I took a pay cut to work at a place that offered a bonus structure that would have made it not a pay cut, and then they denied bonuses by using some creative accounting to move another location's expenses onto the location I worked at, and look like I was not eligible for a bonus. That didn't just affect me, that affected my coworkers as well. And I can tell you the $668 that they they owed me for the first couple of months before we kind of caught on to it would have really helped with with rent. And it was in the puget sound. It was eight years ago. And I think about that very frequently, but I was at least still getting paid the base wage. And so for it to be happening in the context of not getting any pay is particularly egregious. The other piece of it that I think is worth bringing up here is that a lot of these workers are being threatened with with immigration enforcement for speaking out about the things that that are happening to them. And there is a very clear nexus between labor exploitation and the kinds of violent immigration enforcement we've seen around this country, including here in Portland. So these are really important things that are coming together. And there's not we can't solve all of it, but we own a piece of the problem, the part that relates to our city dollars being spent. And I'm looking forward to to starting to address that. I'm particularly bothered by the fact that that was a home forward project, that that's not something that I want to hear. And it's, I think, home forward. We have other concerns about the properties they built and how they're managed afterwards that we need to address as well. But we are I don't want to get too far afield, but there are some things that we need to look at for that agency beyond this. And I think it can start with this type of work, anything that we fund. And that doesn't just mean the one the projects we're going to own at the end. Thanks.

Correct. Diana, do we have any testimony?

This is not an item that takes testimony, but the following item. Will we do?

Yes. So after we finish with this, I want to give you all a chance to say wrap up. I don't see I have any more questions from the committee, but we're going to wrap this up and just we can start with you, nakia. Thank you. Let me know what you want me to know before we actually start this ordinance.

I would just like that you bring your best self to the conversations. Bring the self of you that would never settle for taking a hard day's work and zero pay. Bring the constituents that you speak for, that you sit in those seats and represent their livelihoods. Matter at the words you choose, at how strong those words accountability levels out. It's very important to pay attention to the deals that are given, not just the properties, but the development agreements put in there. Your expectations for a robust, clear, transparent building that you're not willing to take the lowest bidder if the lowest bidders are rfis or or if I might be messing up the abcs. But if the bid is bid at its lowest, and the repairs to the project over and over again continue to make it spike higher than building it right the first time would have wouldn't be doing it right. The best path to have gone down, if we're willing to give oregon's property to people who say that they bring the best intentions to Oregon, let's hold them accountable to deliver the best, and not just in words and fluff. So I thank you for the work that you're willing to do and the great product that will come from it.

Thank you. And that would bring much change orders coming through when they don't do that. Yes.

So thank you for one for allowing me to be here. I think nakia said it the best already. I just say as we're here and we're talking, and anyone that hears or listens to this outside, you know, we don't come here and speak on the behalf of any organization. We come here and we talk. This is what's happening for workers, for people that are coming here. You're talking people like myself that, you know, a college wasn't in shop, father wasn't around getting my bags on and going to work, trying to get things going for my girlfriend that I got pregnant is, is that's who we're we're talking for people just like that. And as I say that, you know, to anyone that hears this, that thinks that this is a partizan issue or something, this is a worker issue. And that's what we come here on the behalf, on the working class, the people that build our city, that come here, that dude. I remember standing in this project before it was even built. And look at it now, you know. And so that's just all I want to say. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you. Jesus.

Yeah, well they sucked up all the good talking points, but no, I just want to thank you all for, for, you know, taking the time and and really looking into this and knowing, recognizing that it is an issue. We're here to support you 100% in whatever needs to be done. I mean, every, every day for us is, is is easy to get out there on those job sites and find victims of wage theft or any other kind of crimes of extortion or anything like that. We're just we just want to make that clear that there's not going to be any extra foot work on your side. We're we're here to support and we're here to to make people whole and, and keep construction going on in, in this state in a positive way and a good way where people can, can, can afford to actually live in these places that they're building. I mean, we're here, we're here for the whole thing. So if any of you need anything, please reach out and we'll be more than glad to assist.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Do we have any other parting comments? Councilor Green?

Mitch Green: Yeah, I've said this before in this committee and I thank you for doing this for us. Is this is exactly how I imagined our committee structure to work, especially especially a labor committee, is to have direct conversations with organized laborers, organized members of the working class. So thanks for being being in dialog with us. And I just want to say all power to the working class.

Thank you, thank you.

Ditto ditto ditto. Thank you. Diana, can you read the next item.

Item number three public comment on wage theft in Portland. We have one person signed up, benjamin gilbert. You can come up to the desk and begin your testimony. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is benjamin gilbert. I am a volunteer lobbyist with the Portland dsa. I learned about this just because I happen to be nearby and scanned the agenda. But I know from talking to friends and colleagues who are in unions that this is an extremely important topic. I appreciate councilor Kanal and chair Smith for working with the carpenters on this, and look forward to learning more about what sounds like a great ordinance. This committee, this committee should do way more outreach to unions prior to hearings like this, because people are eager to talk about it and shine a light on wage thieves. I think it is great that wage theft is being discussed every year in this country, workers lose more money to wage theft than is lost to all forms of property crime, robberies, burglaries, larceny and motor vehicle theft. Combined, each year, well over $15 billion is stolen from workers by their employers, and each year less than 3% of that total is recovered by those same workers. Please help workers contribute to this by reaching out and engaging us. I can think of multiple people here in Portland in my life that have experienced wage theft in the past year, including my own partner. Let's talk about wage theft and hold wage thieves accountable. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

And that concludes public testimony.

That thank you so much. I appreciate everyone staying. And we got a little bit longer than than we had expected. But I think it's so important and it's critical to hear those voices, particularly those frontline voices that are on the line. And you're and you're out there, you're seeing it, you're hearing it, and you know you want to give more help, but you need some policies that will give you the teeth that you need to to be able to stop some of this. Because, as you know, boley is about, what, four years behind four, five there, five years behind. Okay. They're behind. By the time a job is finished and you go to investigate it, they're gone. So I do understand. And maybe, just maybe, this ordinance will be able to give us some upfront teeth that will be able to stop some of this in, in its tracks before it gets started. I appreciate vice chair Green for wanting to get involved with this. And we will we will give you a pre ordinance policy to look at and all of all of the committee because I want to do this before we switch over. If we switch over to make sure that this is this is a priority for the labor committee. And it looks like we got some time, but I don't have anything else. This has been great. And thank you, councilor Kanal. You know, I so wanted to show that video. You know, I wanted to show that video so bad. But it is very telling. It is very telling. And it was eye opening and it just inspired me more that I knew that we needed to have some oversight on this. So thank you. Thank you for bringing us along. I think we can gavel out and thank you.

Thank you.

We have adjourned.

Our public record. If you have a chance to go see it, go out to their. For you as well. And.