The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-02-11

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,481 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

They go in here.

Good morning. I am calling to order the Wednesday, February 11th am council meeting for a meeting of the Portland city council. Keelan. Can we please call the roll?

Good morning. Avalos. Smith. I think councilor Smith might be joining online. Let me just check really quick. No. Okay.

Kanal here.

Pirtle-guiney here. Ryan. Here. Koyama Lane.

Aye, Morillo here.

Novick. Clerk. Here.

Green here.

Zimmerman. Here.

Dunphy here. And linly. Can we please read the rules of decorum?

I am glad to, president. Thank you. Welcome to Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at ww. Agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Item number one on our agenda is approval of the agenda. Have there been any requests to reorder or remove anything from the agenda? I don't see any. If there without objections can. Weird. I'd like to. Oh, just require a motion. No, no. Great. Without objections. Like unanimous consent to accept the agenda. Great. Thank you. Agenda is approved. Please call public communications.

First up, we have deborah hayman.

Good morning.

Councilors. My name is deborah hayman. I'm a resident of district one. And I'm here again because this council has demonstrated a disturbing pattern of deflecting responsibility and delivering ineffective half measures, which has eroded public confidence in your ability to lead. Just last week, the city government announced it found tens of millions of dollars in urgently needed unspent housing funds. That kind of breakdown in oversight and lack of clear responsibility for it raises serious questions about this body's credibility and competence. We're seeing that same breakdown in oversight and transparency with the macadam ice facility. Instead of exercising your authority to protect portlanders, you have pushed responsibility onto unelected departments and avoided direct accountability. Federal agents at the macadam ice facility have caused well-documented harm in our community. They have consistently used tear gas, pepper balls, and other weapons against people exercising their first amendment rights. That violence has spilled into the surrounding neighborhood, exposing residents at the grays landing affordable housing complex to chemical agents inside their own homes and forcing cottonwood school to relocate due to safety risks. Once again, this is a public safety and civil rights issue, not a private business matter. And yet, this council has no clear plan to protect people. Instead, you have chosen to prioritize the property rights of landlords. Stuart lindquist over the safety and civil rights of portlanders as a whole. The people deserve better. No other landlord and tenant in Portland have been afforded the acquiescence and accommodations that this city government has extended to mr. Lindquist and his tenants. No other landlord would be allowed to continue to host tenants who caused this much documented harm. In September 2025, you issued a land use violation and it has stalled. With no clear timeline or public accountability. In December, you passed a detention facility impact fee ordinance and that too remains unimposed. Even if implemented, it won't deter an agency with a massive federal budget. In October, you codified portland's sanctuary city status. But sanctuary without protection is just a slogan. How can Portland be a sanctuary city when we cannot protect our community from repeated assaults on both their bodies and their civil rights? Your lack of effective action is causing real harm, and portlanders are paying the price. We're losing faith that you are willing or able to protect us. That loss of confidence is growing with every delay, every deflection, and every breakdown of oversight. If you need additional expertise or capacity, bring it in. If existing structures and strategies are failing, change them. You have the power, obligation and resources to do so, and our safety and civil rights depend on it.

Thank you.

Next up we have adi Smith.

Good morning. I am probably going to go over just by a few seconds. So I just by a few seconds. So I please appreciate if you bear with me. Hello. My name is andy Smith. Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026. I am speaking before the Portland city council. I've asked the city council before to allow public commenters to sign up for every city council meeting. As it stands, if a public comment or provides comment today, they aren't allowed to speak again until next month. This is ridiculous. This must change. Either with this group of city council members or newly elected city council members, this change must be a priority. If we want to speak at each city council meeting, there shouldn't be a rule stopping it. Next, this newfound funding needs to go towards rental assistance to organizations like self enhancement and Oregon eviction prevention. Rapid response did not provide funding to the united way of Oregon, as they do not disburse assistance to african Americans. Oregon's black unemployment is 7.7% and rising. Oregon's the second most racist state in the nation. Employers in the state had no problem following the trump administration's die, quote unquote, requirements, because they weren't using it anyway. There are few positions, let alone corporate executive positions, with black people in them. In this state, rental assistance for black and immigrant households must be a priority every month, as long as unemployment in the black community remains high, or as long as the trump administration's racist dei requirements are in place. Next, appeals court chief judge aaron and an appeal commissioner, teresa kidd, are violating the law with impunity. There's no oversight. They're biased. They lack discernment, professionalism, clarity, thought, truthfulness and honesty and literally look at the law and decide to do the opposite. Black people aren't safe in Oregon, and we aren't leaving. Oregon's democrat governors are appointing racist, discriminatory judges to the bench. Judges like Multnomah county circuit court judges monica harris, michael riedel, mark peterson, Washington county judges kathleen proctor, Eric ricardo manchaca, brandon thompson, charles bailey, andrew erwin, Eric boucher. Since the epstein files are the largest child sex trafficking ring that includes donald trump is on everyone's mind. Let me remind everyone that in Oregon, when judges and attorneys are arrested, charged and convicted of csam child porn, raping girls and the like, the Oregon state bar doesn't immediately terminate their license to practice law. Attorneys are allowed to resign at their leisure or not at all. Why is that? I want to remind people that democrats bill ice. Everyone talks about ice as if it's a trump or republican invention. Trump weaponizes its novel cruelty, but democrats built fund and normalize it. Trump gives ice spectacle and impunity, but democrats infrastructure. Trump can only wield ice because democrats had already erected its machinery in 1996, under bill clinton, democrats passed aedpa and I ira building the legal cage ice would later inherit. Clinton also implemented prevention through deterrence, pushing crossings into remote desert terrain. Border deaths at this time rose from dozens per year to hundreds. More than 10,000 migrants are estimated to have died in the years following his legislation. George bush established ice in 2003. I'm almost done. Under president barack obama, ice was expanded, professionalized and normalized. Ice must be abolished. I am also not voting for anyone who supports israel. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for being here today.

Next up we have james lee.

Good morning.

I'm james bernard lee. I reside in southeast Portland and speak only for myself. Thank you for hearing me today. Do you know the word ergodic? It is a concept of mathematical physics. Meaning what can be averaged over time can be averaged over space, like air molecules. In this room. Their average speed determining temperature, pressure and density everywhere. About 1900, a gentleman of harvard opined sound in concert hall could be treated likewise. In that 1970s, I and two others proved that erroneous average sound made by orchestras could not be music. The last good concert hall, boston symphony hall, opened in 1900. For 56 years I have urged architects to return to this paradigm of boston, to no avail. Lincoln center in new york tried four times in 60 years to build an acceptable hall. Lastly, in 2022 for $500 million, doing the same thing, expecting a different result at maximal expense. Our mayor has not got the memo, nor have the 15 ex-officio worthies sitting at his table. He owes me for disrupting the menace of charlie brown's bullhorn. In return, I asked him to hire me with modest retainer to assure harvard's grievous sin would not be repeated. Here he remains ungrateful and ignorant, 26 cooks unaware of the ergodic fallacy. Now simmer the ancient acrid broth of harvard. Here the accurate physics of concert halls are devised in 1970 will never change. Pay attention please. In the 1960s, when I did rocket science at china lake, projects like sidewinder were thought too subtle and vital to be left to a large bureaucracy. Bill mclean often gave a few competent and ingenious folk modest funding and free range to do what they would. I kept a disassembled one, a sidewinder seeker, head on my desk to remind myself of what exceptional people can do. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

The next to public communications canceled laci sutton and jason wilder, but we have jonathan ader, our alternate online. Jonathan, go ahead and unmute.

Hi, my name is jonathan ader. I am a Multnomah county precinct committee person living in southwest Portland.

Jonathan, I'm sorry we're having a bit of a hard time hearing you. Are you able to get closer to the microphone or turn it up a little?

Can you hear me any better now?

Yes.

Okay. My name is jonathan etter. I'm a Multnomah county precinct committee person, and this is regarding auris 153.058, which is a statute for to for a citizen to initiate a violation a by a private person.

Sorry, jonathan. We're still struggling to hear you.

I'm sorry. Let me let me see if I can fix it. I'll look in my I'll look in my settings and see if I can fix that. Oh. Let's see.

Thank you, keelan, for pausing his clock.

Is that any better? Is that is that better?

Now that does seem better. Yes, sir.

Okay, great. Okay. My name is jonathan etter. I'm a Multnomah county precinct committee person living in southwest Portland, and I'd like to talk about a or s15 3.058. That's that statute is initiation of a violation proceeding by private party. And on last November, pursuant to rs 153.058, I filed a citizen complaint with the traffic department of the Multnomah county circuit court. It was state v brian mcmahon, and it stated that a person. It states that a person other other than an enforcement officer may commence a violation proceeding by filing a complaint with the court that has jurisdiction over the alleged violation, however. Or s15 3.058 only allows the city attorney or the district attorney to appear and present evidence at trial. Consequently, I contacted the Multnomah county district attorney to seek their cooperation. I emailed the office several times with no response, called multiple times, left a message, subsequently visited and spoke with two investigators who informed me that the da's office would not get involved in a traffic case. The da's refusal to participate in any traffic case effectively renders ors 153.058. Moot, and the state's case in this instance will be ultimately dismissed by the court, and as such, the da's office is thwarting the will of the legislature, and this involves a former lake oswego police officer, and it is not appropriate for the Portland independent police review board. But I was concerned because this person, in my estimation, was threatening the safety of my community and particularly in hillsdale, particularly people who are elderly and disabled. And the da has resources. There are 14 14,000 misdemeanor cases issued each year that involve the misdemeanor trial unit in Multnomah county, which deals with those issues. And I would point out that our d.a. Nathan vasquez, actually criticized a Multnomah county circuit court judge for her refusal to hold a dangerous driver fully accountable, deeming her decision bewildering. Well, I am bewildered, as this case would require. I'm sorry. I'll be done a second. Minimal time.

30 more seconds. You're fine.

And. The the trials online. I have evidence, but as an elected official, I urgently request that the da's office reconsider its position. I urge the council assist in the state's case. Otherwise, this statute will remain meaningless and offer no recourse for citizens to independently file a complaint seeking accountability and justice. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here this morning.

That completes communications.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Our next item is the committee referral report for my colleagues and for folks watching at home. My office is referred several items to committee last week, some of which have already been heard. Those items are listed in the committee referral report, which is available online at Portland. Clerk slash referral dash list. Next item. Before we get to the city administrator's report, we have a time certain land use item. Can we please read item number four?

Adopt the affordable housing opportunities project, amendments to the comprehensive plan map and official zoning map.

Colleagues. This is the first reading of an ordinance. We have claire adams with council to give us a presentation. Please, claire, take it away.

Good morning. Council president and councilors. For the record, claire adams, council policy analyst and staff to the homelessness and housing committee. The ordinance before you document number 2026 037 was heard in the homelessness and housing committee on January 27th, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation to pass the ordinance. Amends the Portland comprehensive Portland comprehensive plan map and zoning map as specified in the affordable housing opportunities project recommended draft report, which is exhibit b of the ordinance. The ordinance also directs adoption of the findings of fact, report, and commentary, which are found in exhibits a and b as legislative intent and further findings. The mapping amendments change zoning for 19 properties across the city that are owned by nonprofit and public affordable housing providers to allow development of additional affordable housing units, or the preservation of existing units on those sites. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and analysis, economic and real estate development impacts and community impacts and community involvement. Seven people testified during the committee meeting on January 27th. Written testimony is submitted via the map app. There's a link to that in the committee staff summary that should be available elsewhere. The general themes of the testimony the committee heard included reducing zoning barriers and adjusting other standards to facilitate affordable housing development. Concerns regarding fire and emergency response access for specific affordable properties, and a request to include the tabor heights united methodist church in the project with a zoning change that would allow, excuse me, having a technical issue. With the zoning change that would allow the development of affordable housing on that site. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.

Thank you. Claire. Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions to this before we move to public testimony?

Council president, do I get to give my report?

Oh, yeah. That comes from you. Yeah. Thanks. Please. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Okay. So yes. Thank you. This ordinance comes to council from the housing and homelessness committee, where it was heard and passed unanimously. The proposal was also reviewed and recommended by the planning commission. The affordable housing opportunities project addresses a clear problem. Nonprofit and public housing providers already own land intended for affordable housing, but existing zoning creates unnecessary barriers and delays, so this ordinance removes those barriers by aligning zoning and comprehensive plan designations with the intended use of the sites. It allows affordable housing development and preservation to move move forward without requiring separate site by site zone changes. This ordinance is one tool in a broader housing strategy, so it does not, on its own, address the full spectrum of needs, from shelter and temporary housing to long term affordable housing. But it removes a key barrier where permanent housing is the goal. And this is a targeted map only amendment. So it does not change zoning code standards and it does not add new funding. But this was approved with unanimous support from the committee and from the planning commission recommendation, and is now before you for consideration. That's my report. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Now colleagues, anybody have any questions technical or clarifying questions at this time? Councilor Clark?

Olivia Clark: Thank you, vice president Clark.

Thank you, president Dunphy. I'm I think this is great that we've we're updating things, updating our zoning code, aligning things in the interest of building more affordable housing. But I have a concern that I just wanted to raise on number ten, the sears armory site. This is where the Multnomah safe rest village resides. And I know quite a few neighbors came out and spoke against this change, and they're very concerned that this change in the zoning makes it a lot easier for the safe rest village to remain there. And there's a lot of concern about that. I know the mayor and some of us are touring it tonight. I've toured it before, so I just want to get some clarification about what this really does. Does it really make it easier for the safe rest village to remain? Because I think it's they're under an emergency emergency declaration, the housing emergency declaration. So maybe if somebody could clarify that for me, I'm concerned. Otherwise I think I may be voting against this, even though I, I totally support the whole idea of this. I'm just concerned about the neighbors and and the safe rest village.

Do.

We have staff from planning and sustainability who are able to speak to this? Welcome.

Thank you so much. Good morning. Council president, vice president, councilors patricia diefenderfer, chief planner, bureau of planning and sustainability. For the record, the I'll let bill speak to this, but I do believe that the e.g. One zone currently does not allow residential uses and that the safe rest village is is there due to the housing emergency. The cm2 zone would allow for the safe rest village to remain without the housing emergency, but would also allow other future uses. So the the rationale behind this particular the zone change for this particular property is to allow the safe rest village in the near term to allow the potential for permanent affordable housing in the future, because the current zone does not allow housing, and the cm2 zone, which is the proposed zone, allows a wide variety of uses, both commercial, residential and other kinds of uses. And bill, I don't know if you want to add anything.

I'll just add that. Just to clarify, a safe rest village is a kind of shelter, and that is in a particular category, which in the current eg2 zone, I'm sorry, I should identify myself. Bill cunningham, senior planner with bureau of planning and sustainability. Good morning. Just wanted to clarify the point about the safe rest village, and it is classified as a shelter, which is always a conditional use, which requires a land use review and a fair amount of process to move forward. And it is true that that safe rest village came in as part of the housing emergency ordinance, and changing the zoning to cm2 would facilitate the ability to continue the safe rest village without a land use review. So that's certainly true and a key reason to for the zone change is to open up the possibility for more permanent affordable housing into the future, which currently is prohibited in the the current eg2 zone. And something brought up by neighbors as well, is a concern about the possibility of having an emergency operations center on that site. And I just wanted to clarify that the proposed cm2 zone does allow public safety uses and emergency management uses, so changing the zoning does not preclude the possibility of including emergency management uses on the site in the future, but it does open the opportunity for things like affordable housing.

Well, I appreciate the explanation and I understand it. I'm just concerned that it just makes it easier for the safe rest village to stay there forever or indeterminately. So I'm just signaling that I may vote against this despite all the other advantages. Thank you.

Thank you. Council vice president Clark councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks, I appreciate this. You know, I, I appreciate the the presentation at our committee. As the as the chair mentioned, there's one thing that you said that I want to hone in on because I think it can lead to some misunderstandings in the grand public, which is that the zone allows a shelter to exist. And and that's a yes. But I'd also I just want to note for public record for everybody who's watching, is that the last this mayor, the last two mayors, the three mayors in a row have been putting shelters up across the city, frankly, in determinant of any darn zones, because we have been opening them under emergency ordinance emergency declarations. And so I don't want any misunderstandings to happen in the public sphere, especially for, you know, obviously, the three people in the queue here are all district four folks that by changing the zoning of the sears armory location, that somehow it is making the shelter, frankly, even easier to exist. It it has the easiest path already to exist, which is an emergency declaration. The mayor has the choice on whether or not to continue to open, that the council has the choice whether or not to continue to fund that. The zoning is so divorced from, frankly, the decision of the shelter. I just want to be very, very clear that a vote in support today of this overall, are we calling it a hope? Is that what we're calling it? A hope is is not, you know, a nail in the coffin, so to speak, for a permanent shelter in a neighborhood. And I just I have to be clear about that. And one of the questions I asked during committee when this came up, given the current zoning, I think it was called e.g. One. I asked e.g. Two. All right, thank you. I asked, was that a deliberate zoning? Because that was our plan. Or a lot of times when we redo zones, we take a look at a thing like a us army reserve armory and we say, well, it's already in the neighborhood. It it conforms to this. So plop, there's your zone for it. It wasn't a deliberate decision of this is what we want to see in that area. That's important. And I share that because there are when we plan out neighborhoods and we think about the mix of commercial to residential to industrial, some of that is very deliberate. And other times we're applying a zone to what exists on the property already and probably has for 50 or more years. And so I'll be supportive today. And the if you have concerns about the sears shelter or the Multnomah safe rest village, I assure you that the zoning question is not the question to to get wrapped around the axle about when it comes to the future of that, that that concern should be given to this council as a funding body and to the mayor as an operating body. And that is a worthwhile. You know, engagement that I think we're all going to have to have for what is the length of psvs in our community? We've seen some open, we've seen some closed, we've seen some expand, we've seen some shrink that I'm fully ready to have that conversation, but I'm not placing that at the feet of the planning department because and I think this is a good thing. The executive has opened up through emergency ordinance and done their duties in a certain way, regardless of zoning across the city. So thanks for your explanation. It was very helpful. During the brief. I said that during the committee. It was a great presentation, very clear to me. I've already had a few people reach out from different areas where they're an adjacent property, or kind of interested in how to get on the next list, and I think that's very interesting in terms of the the hunger for this. So appreciate the work. And for those in Multnomah village, which I'm a neighbor of. This is not a permanent siting of a shelter. I can't underline bold and italics that enough. And I just want to be very clear about that. Thanks so much.

Thank you, councilor Zimmermann. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thanks for.

Letting your d4 councilors all stack up on this. I appreciate your comments there, councilor Zimmermann. I think that's very similar to what I was going to say. You know, I'm going to support this one because we need more housing production. And I think, you know, that's it takes a long time to get to a place where changing the map, there's a lot of process and work that goes into it. I don't want to delay necessary zoning that can open up capacity, but the cm2 is just a mixed use zoning parcel designation. And you know, when I was in the army, I was stationed at sears armory. And I can tell you it's an old building and it's a terrible use of land in the city. And I think, if anything, for neighbors who are worried about whether or not this like, locks in what I think is a a safe rest village that has not really honored its community agreements, frankly, this actually, you know, the potential for redevelopment of the site might actually force a change in the location or different contemplation of how we would approach that. You know, right now, because it is a underutilized parcel where there's no clear investment or use case. It's just a site of convenience. And so I think that's why we have it there. I'm definitely going to be supporting this. And I think that like, we need to stay laser focused on making sure that, you know, we're going to do our site walk this afternoon. And I think that's how we show up for for these community members who are worried about this. But I'm very supportive of this. I want to do more of the zoning around the city to to create more housing opportunity. Thanks.

Council clerk. And then we'll move to public testimony.

Thank you, council president. All right, colleagues, that's very convincing. I really appreciate that. And as a former housing advocate, I think you've turned me around by sending some strong messages to our constituents in Multnomah neighborhood. So you you've you've turned me around. Thank you.

Excellent. Keelan. Can we please call public testimony?

First up, we have lee armstrong.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. My name is lee armstrong and I am here again on behalf of habitat for humanity Portland region in support of the affordable housing opportunities project. Habitat owns one of the properties that is proposed for rezoning on northeast prescott street in the cully neighborhood. We plan to build 16 family sized homes on the site to be affordable for households who are priced out of the for profit housing market. Rezoning this property to arm one will reduce both the cost and the time that we need to build these homes. Habitat really appreciates that the ahop team has been proactive in rezoning this property to help streamline the development process. You all are probably familiar with affordable homeownership programs for households below 80% of the area median income, but habitat Portland region actually sells most of the homes that we build to households. Between 35 and 60% of ami. These are families who would otherwise be rent burdened in the private market and potentially housing insecure habitat. Portland region has a long standing commitment to the cully neighborhood. Over the years, we have built more than 60 homes here. In 2010, we helped form living cully, a coalition with a shared mission to prevent displacement for communities of color and low income residents in the neighborhood. As cully faces increased real estate costs and investments through a new tax increment financing district, stabilizing households through permanently affordable housing, homeownership is more important than ever. The plan for this new development emphasizes efficient unit layouts, pedestrian friendly design, and shared community Green space. Building on our track record with earth advantage platinum construction standards, prescott street will be habitat Portland region's first net zero net zero homeownership development, complete with solar panels. This development will reduce homeowner utility costs, improve indoor air quality, and deliver long term environmental benefits. And if you look behind me as I move out of the way, this is a rendering of the project as it will look when the homes are completed. Thank you very much for your support of the ahop proposal, and for your service to the city of Portland.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have guy ben.

Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Councilors. President Dunphy, vice president Clark, my name is guy ben and I am here today representing TriMet in my capacity as program manager of its transit oriented development program. Trimet strongly endorses the city's proposed affordable housing opportunities program to support the delivery and preservation and renovation of affordable housing near transit. Trimet owns two properties in the brooklyn neighborhood on southeast 17th avenue that are identified for rezoning through ahop, located at the intersection of southeast rone and southeast holgate streets. Trimet has owned these properties since March 2011 and March 2012, respectively, when they were purchased for the orange line max construction, which was completed in 2015. Trimet has a long history of supporting and delivering transit oriented development across the city, learning from past experiences and from best practice and precedents in other us cities. Trimet reestablished its transit oriented development program in 2020 to accelerate the delivery of community supported projects on its underused land, codified in TriMet 2023 regional tod plan, the program focuses on delivering housing and other catalytic development to help neighborhoods grow and prosper. Rezoning southeast 17th avenue parcels through ahop will unlock two prominent station station adjacent sites for such catalytic development. Although at first glance these infill parcels appear to be good development sites, they are small and are zoned e.g. One general employment, which since the adoption of the city's 20 2035 comprehensive plan in June 2016, has prohibited residential development as a result, and because they are too small for viable light industrial use, TriMet has been unable to bring any development to these sites. Residential or commercial, for a decade. Rezoning these parcels to commercial mixed use two will finally unlock these parcels for development. Our analyzes indicate that this can enable the delivery of an estimated 80 to 100 affordable housing units across the two sites, TriMet has heard the neighborhood's desire for active ground floor space, and it will continue to investigate the potential to include ground floor commercial space, as cm2 zoning allows. Notwithstanding this, TriMet, like many in this room, recognizes that including commercial space in affordable development prevails. The project, which typically adds 15 to 20% to the gross development costs, making it economically unviable. Nonetheless, TriMet strongly believes cm2 remains the best approach and encourages council to support the ahop proposals. It appreciates the thoughtful, proactive and collaborative approach by the bts team leading the project, and is excited to be part of this practical, cost efficient and effective initiative to help address the city's affordable housing crisis. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have ashley plush.

Thank you. Good morning, I'm ashley plush. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. As a brooklyn resident. I submitted detailed written comments as well yesterday for your review. I support the city's goal of increasing affordable housing. My comments are about the scale proposed for the TriMet properties, directly next to one and two story homes, and whose frontage is on 16th avenue, a residential street under cm one. Buildings can be 35ft tall, roughly three stories, which is already a meaningful increase in scale next to nearby r 2.5 and r five homes under cm two buildings can currently reach four stories. However, at the January 27th homelessness and housing committee meeting, we learned of a separate housing bonus alignment initiative that's underway that would increase the m2 height from 4 to 5 stories. That possibility was not part of earlier conversations with the community or the Portland housing bureau commissioners hearing. The discussion draft is not yet available for public review, and its first meeting is scheduled after this vote. After approving cm two, it could lock in entitlements that may soon allow for even greater height. That represents a substantial shift in mass and intensity at this location. In past meetings, cm two was largely justified by the city for ground floor commercial uses, as well as a benefit for residents and the neighborhood. The developer with a letter of intent, has indicated that commercial and service uses are unlikely to be financially viable. As such, the same number of housing units could still be delivered under cm one. Further, if the only way that this project pencils is at a scale exceeding neighborhood compatibility, it raises a policy question about whether this is the right zoning for these specific locations. Cm one still allows for meaningful housing development while better aligning with policies 4.30 and 4.31, ensuring compatible scale transitions and protecting light, privacy and neighborhood character. There are also practical livability considerations. A 50 plus unit building without adequate onsite parking would affect surrounding streets, particularly given that 17th and holgate are not available for parking. Policy 5.11 emphasizes removing barriers for people in protected classes, including residents with disabilities. A large building without elevators or sufficient accessible parking raises long term accessibility concerns. Finally, each map amendment can stand alone, so selecting cm one here would not affect other ahop rezonings. Based on these policies, I recommend cm one. I recommend cm one to better fit the stated objectives and the character of the neighborhood. If you have any questions. If cm2 is fully justified at this location, cm one is the more prudent approach to advance housing while respecting neighborhood scale and long term livability. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Next up we have jake.

Good morning and welcome.

Hello, everyone. My name is jake and I live in the cully neighborhood, and I'm a little out of sorts because I stayed up all night with my sick daughter. I just wanted to just advocate and point out a few things. I fully support the project and want to point out that it's largely a no brainer, right? Like we're here looking at this. And only one project had opposition statements, per the the report. And all the zoning changes were modest, like arm one, arm two c to r, mm2 to cm2, etc. And the biggest change was for the habitat project, which was r7 to rm one. And and even then you know a no brainer, right? It's right next to a school. So enhancing safe routes to school. It's a block away from a city park. So even a dense project will have access to Green Green space, open space. And I just have to, you know, point out the the frustration as a community member who's seen and a person who works in construction in a soft construction market that's wanting more opportunities for for projects and currently furloughed because of lack of work, like we need to make this process easier. It's a complete waste of time and resources for to spend over a year and a half to do all these common sense changes to our zoning code, like and then and then to. If you read the reasoning from planning sustainability, that reasoning can apply to all the adjacent parcels. There's there's really nothing precluding us in a bigger project, obviously with community input, obviously, you know, it would take a take some time, but we need to start working on, on a project to, to make all of this a lot faster and a lot easier. For example, across from the prescott, like, well, two, two doors down from the prescott habitat project, there's a 1.78 acre church. One can imagine if trends hold at that church might be vacant in five, ten, 20 years, and that we could have, based on that density, you know, 32 homes right across from scott school, elementary school. And it just seems common sense and the reasoning from planning and sustainability carries over to that site, without question that this, that we should also be up zoning that site from our from our seven to arm one and and it just sorry my I know my my the logic of this isn't isn't clear but we need broad up zoning around schools, around parks, around main streets like prescott, along bus lines throughout our city. Next to these these TriMet stations, there's there's low density areas. So that's that's my my testimony. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

That completes testimony for this item.

Excellent. Colleagues. We now move into discussion. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. Council president. I hope my colleagues will permit me to speak about their district. But as a person who used to live in brooklyn and I'm right on the cusp, I feel like I've got some sort of reasonable claim there. I just want to note that the parcels on southeast 17th are currently just unutilized land. They're unutilized land next to next to like a max, like right along a max station. And so when we think about the choice before us, we're not only thinking about creating opportunities to build more housing, but we're also creating opportunities to create the conditions through our land use considerations for TriMet to be a viable business enterprise in some sense, because they don't have an infinite money printer like like the rest of us, right? To make it possible for TriMet to be what we deserve. World class transit system. We have to build density around TriMet stops. And you know, holgate and 17th is a TriMet stop. And I see a big I see a big vacant lot there. And so we need to go big here folks. And we you know, and I think the last person mr. Jake and. I think hit the the nail or hit the nail on the head by saying that we do move too slowly when we consider this kind of stuff. And that's not a that's not an indictment of staff. That's not a sort of suggestion that people aren't working hard and taking their job seriously. But it is a suggestion that perhaps we haven't enabled them to move faster. And so I want to look at this as an opportunity to to move forward much more quickly and much more systematically across our whole map on how to unlock this stuff. So I'm strongly in support of this, and thank you.

Thank you, councilor Green. Colleagues, any further discussion on this item? Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you so much, council president. And thank you, councilor Zimmerman, for your accurate reading during the technical questions. That was quite helpful. Thank you to the team for seeing this through. Another round of necessary amendments to this comprehensive plan. Thank you to the planning commission for your recommendations. I had to peel away just before the vote, but I would have made it five zero. We passed the shelter to housing zoning connected to the comprehensive plan in 2021, and it's really wonderful five years later to see these pragmatic updates that make sense to me. I know branding or team are out there. Hi, it's good to see you, and you're well aware of the challenge of siting the villages adjacent to residential homes. It does make it more challenging to manage the good neighbor agreement, more challenging than saying an industrial zone. And I think that's the rub that we always have here. I think we just need to continue to provide extra construction for privacy. Maybe there's a fence zoning law that doesn't allow us to build them high enough. Maybe that could be altered in this emergency situation. So I'm hoping that we can have larger fences, especially in the north end, if I'm doing my directions right where it gets right, right against the residents and perhaps in general, a larger fence around that property would be helpful. And I continue to hope that the provider is doing good neighbor work, which I'm proud that we instituted those. They were very hard to do. Trust me, no one wanted to go through that. And we and we're getting there. I think the success you had at peninsula crossing demonstrates that you can work it out, and I hope that we can do the same at Multnomah village. And I just know that sometimes fences make up for better relationships with neighbors. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president, and thank you to our team in the bureaus who brought this to us today. I am supportive of this measure, but I have a couple of points that I just would like to raise for the record. And a question or two, I worry that approaches like this can advantage already established housing developers, whether nonprofit or for profit, who are able to come forward through the process and doesn't give space for small groups who are trying to do the right thing with their properties, but don't always have the connections. To know about opportunities like this. I am really appreciative for that reason that during the committee hearing, there was an offer made for anybody else with a project like this to bring it forward. Obviously, nobody who testified did so today, but I appreciate that we gave that opportunity to people. Related to that. I am wondering how regularly we take actions like this, because I know that I do have a few projects in my district that are those those smaller owners who don't always have the connections to know when something like this is happening, who weren't quite ready for the process before us today, but who, in hearing about this process, were interested and could take advantage of something like this in the future. And I'd just like to make sure that for anybody like that who is paying attention, we get on the record how often we expect to do things like this and when further opportunities might come up.

Thank you so much for the question. Councilor pirtle-guiney pirtle-guiney. So we did a similar project. The bureau did a similar project to this in 2020 and 2021. Actually, the focus for those projects was faith based organizations. And the process in 2020 did identify or lead to the identification of a few additional properties. And that's why the 2021 project happened. So if there is sufficient, you know, we'd be happy to talk to property owners of different locations if there's sufficient interest. I think we can certainly investigate the opportunity to to follow up with them and find future projects where we could address those properties. I wanted to just also mention that we, as you all know, we are undertaking a an area planning process for the inner east area or geography of the city, and to earlier comments from speakers about the need to look more holistically at at larger swaths of the city and identify potential for creating more capacity for multi-dwelling housing and mixed use. The inner east project is an example of a project where we have the opportunity to do that, and it's also possible that some of these locations that you are thinking of, councilor Pirtle-guiney, might be in that geography, and we might have an opportunity to address those locations through that project.

Councilor just to add briefly, for the record, Eric engstrom, director of planning and sustainability, I absolutely would like this to be a recurring kind of program. It's it's, of course, resource dependent. And we've done a couple of these now. So I'd like to continue that, resource permitting and echo what patricia said at any given time, the bread and butter of baps work is doing larger scale land use planning over wider areas where we're embarking on the southeast plan. We did the southwest corridor a couple of years ago. Of course, in the past, things like the albina plan, saint john's plan, hollywood plan, that is our bread and butter, and that's what we want to be doing.

Thank you both very much, and I appreciate you bringing up the inner east side plan as well, because the other point that I wanted to make is, while I think this is a really important process for these properties where we can make affordability happen more easily by changing some zoning all at once, I do think that we need to focus on the power of our land use system. We have a very strong planning system in Portland that has allowed us to be deliberate in how we set up our communities, to create neighborhoods, to create walkable spaces, to ensure that there is employment near neighborhoods. And if we do too much of these one offs, I know that one of my colleagues said this. These are places that were intended to be used for affordable housing, but if it wasn't zoned in this way, then it was at some point, either intentionally or, as another colleague mentioned, perhaps unintentionally, planned for something else. And many of these changes are moving land out of employment designations into mixed use designations, which of course still allow for some employment, but a very different type of employment. I don't think any of the opportunities before us today would have provided the type of employment opportunities we might want there, so I don't think that's a problem in any of these cases, but I do want us to make sure that we're being careful about those types of changes, that we're being deliberate that to the point my constituent in cully made. We're looking for those places like northeast prescott, where we should probably do a whole lot of zoning, because that's a thoroughfare that could have a lot more density on it, and not just one property, but along many properties. And I hope that we're using this as an opportunity to catch the whoopsies. Some of these are buildings that maybe don't actually comply with the zoning that's currently there. It looks like in some cases that we're catching those one offs, but that we don't neglect the broader work that's needed where we have the opportunity to balance not just our housing needs, but also our employment needs, our open space needs, the other things that may fantastic neighborhoods in our city that need to go along with these expanded employment opportunities. So I just want to make sure that we're keeping that in mind as we make these changes. I want to thank you all for all of your work on this. And I know that some of my constituents will be heartened to hear that there will be other opportunities to make sure that we can turn some of our, our housing potential land into land ready for housing to be built. Thank you very much, council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, council president. And thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. I think you took a couple of my questions. I crossed off my list because you asked them, and I really like what you're bringing up. It's you have a very good handle on land use and development. My team is telling me right now, and I would love to talk more with you. So a couple of these questions I don't have to ask because you asked them, but I do want to ask. My staff has heard from community members about a growing interest in affordable housing opportunities, kind of like cottage clusters. And I think we've heard people say this idea that they're portlanders who are property rich but cash poor, who are interested in doing things with their property to build something like affordable cottage clusters. Are there bts projects underway, or maybe some planned for the future that can explore opportunities for that affordable middle housing through zoning changes and or technical assistance for existing people that that own property.

Councilor, thanks for the question. So, as you know, over several several years ago, over, I think, 2021 and 2022, the city adopted the residential infill project. That project facilitated exactly what you were describing the ability to do before to six units, cottage clusters in many different configurations on otherwise single dwellings owned properties in the city. And in fact, we've the bureau has put out has done two annual reports thus far on the residential infill project and most of the housing that we're seeing right now in the city, and particularly in 2023 and 24, were actually residential infill project types of projects, middle housing projects. As we all know, the the sort of larger multi-dwelling and mixed use projects are not happening in the city right now. And so that's actually where we are seeing housing production and the city's regulations really already facilitate that and are consistent with state law that requires cities in Oregon to allow that and actually goes beyond the state laws. And in fact, I'll say that there have been a few additional revisions to state law that require us to make some modifications to the city zoning code, and those projects are projects that staff are currently working on, and that the planning commission and council will see in the not too distant future.

Thank you. How are we helping residents understand their options? Kind of. Besides reports, are there other ways we're getting that info out?

I, I think it's also a partnership with the bureau, the Portland permitting and development. They're the bureau that does the permitting and development review, and they're usually the bureau that property owners interact with first in order to understand what they can do with their property. So I think it's it's a partnership between the two bureaus to help people understand what the regulations are and how they are able to use them.

We also have, for the record, again, Eric engstrom, we have a training program that some of our staff do, which is like a land use 101 presentation that we go out and meet with realtors or neighborhoods and give them that, that presentation. So that's another route.

And I'll offer. I'm sure there are other councilors too. We have newsletters and we are meeting with constituents often. I think we we can be boosting this. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. I put myself in the queue. I want to just note I'm a big fan of this. I think that this is an opportunity for us to try and dig deep and get as much value out of these lands, and also just as as we heard from our colleagues at TriMet actually get work going. I think it's worth noting and relatively unique among city councils, but this is a pro housing city council. We hear the concerns of neighbors about density and scale and scope, but this is a council that is dead set on building as much housing as we can. And I personally love the idea of building density and height in the areas that can absolutely support it, and trying to find those vacant pieces of land that could be something bigger or better, or helping the city. I think that's the greatest opportunity we have right now and something we should be doing everywhere. And I will note, though, the vast majority of vacant land right now is in east Portland, the rest of the city has been pretty well developed by and large. But and I've heard some testimony that some written testimony, some email testimony that I just want to call out because, again, big supporter of this, but the the hazelwood centennial and gatewood gateway neighborhoods are slated to receive a fair amount of upzoning in this process and additional concentration of affordable housing units, which is great, but we also already have half the density of grocery stores in east Portland. We don't have the infrastructure or rapid transit availability to support a lot of the families who will be moving into this area. East Portland is home to 40% of all the kids in the city. We need to build affordable housing out there. It absolutely has to happen, but it has to come hand in glove with hand in glove with our economic development agency, prosper Portland, going out and intentionally trying to site grocery stores and economic opportunities. And it has to come also with our, our colleagues at TriMet recognizing where the future of transit need is going to be. So let's do more of this. But also let's make sure as as has been said multiple times, that a we're not concentrating affordable housing in neighborhoods that have also historically received the least in terms of services, in terms of economic development, and that where it makes sense, we are going as dense and as high as we can because we are a major city. And that's my soapbox. So colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for conversation, this is a non-emergency ordinance and will be moving. Hold on, I have a script. This item will be moving to a second reading on February 25th at 9:45 a.m. Time certain for our vote. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

And colleagues. We are now moving to our city administrator report. Can we please read item number 5th.

February 2026 city administrator update.

City administrator lee.

Thank you. I'll begin with a few opening comments before highlighting several key items from this month's report. This report continues our efforts to provide consistent, high level operational transparency across service areas. It focuses on implementation progress, fiscal discipline, and areas where risks are complexity requires continued oversight first on homeless response to additional shelters. Shelters open under the mayor's emergency overnight shelter plan, adding 296 beds, including recovery oriented beds. At southeast grand, we also extended shelter hours during extreme cold conditions and will continue to do that as we see inclement weather. Portland solutions continues to coordinate monthly resource fairs to connect vulnerable portlanders with services. Second, on fiscal stewardship implementation of Green ten budget note is underway. Most bureaus absorb the 2% ems reduction through discretionary spending controls such as travel, consulting and administrative expenses, while protecting union represented positions. We will continue our written updates every six weeks on this matter on major capital delivery. Construction continues on the bull run filtration project, now approximately 20% complete. A project delivery advisory team has been convened to strengthen governance and execution, and we expect updated costs and schedule analysis later this month on public safety. The suspect in the shooting of the two PPB officers has been arrested, and both officers have been released from the hospital, and we're wishing them for speedy recovery as well. Portland street response is also undergoing enhanced training and partnership with PSU temporary modifying operations to strengthen long term service delivery, also on traffic fatalities, has declined for the second consecutive year, a 32% reduction from the prior year, though 39 lives lost remains unacceptable. We're continuing to work in that endeavor now with respect to the detention facility impact ordinance and activity at the ice facility, we will continue to review the implementation of a temporary administrative rule to allow short term enforcement while developing a permanent rule based on council feedback. We're gathering additional information across bureaus to ensure the rule is thorough and defensible. From the outset, a multiple bureau working group met last week and will continue to meet again this week to continue fact finding. We expect to provide council with a clearer timeline on next steps shortly. We're not publishing a temporary rule at this time until we address some questions that came out of our meeting with two of our councilors with Green and Morillo. As you know, the administrative review is underway. The facility continues operating under existing land use approval. During that process and parallel, we are evaluating all available city mechanisms to address harmful conduct occurring at or around the facility. Finally, the city has received a claim notice related to the facility and administration is coordinating closely with the city attorney's office regarding any implications. We are moving with urgency while ensuring our actions are legally sound and operationally executable. I'll pause here and happy to answer any questions that council may have. We also have our dcas and other staff from the city administrator's office to address any questions council may have.

Thank you. City administrator lee councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, city administrator lee, I'm glad you're here with us. We haven't scared you away. Appreciate you. I do think we don't talk enough about what is working in our city. And while I know it's not perfect, I do want to highlight the report's call out of pdx 311, which is meant to be the community's first call to help with questions local government services within Multnomah county. So really want to make sure folks also know you can call and talk to someone daily from 7 a.m. To 8 p.m. To ask questions, make requests and and reports about anything from potholes to broken lights and feedback about how that's going is welcome. I also want to give a shout out, quick shout out to the to public works and all the partners that have coordinated with the winter staycation. It's so fun. Come downtown, support Portland by attending one of the many events you can choose from this weekend, like the Portland winter light festival. Go, alicia! I taught her kid in third grade. The Portland night market. Other. Another or other exciting activities. And I also want to talk about the vision zero tableau dashboard. Thank you. It's detailed in the report. And my question is I would love to know if we can include some age related data in there. I've had some initial conversations with public works about disaggregating data by age, and we know that there have been variations in age related trends. So at the very least, I'd love to see data that that tell that story of whether it's youth elders and who's experiencing the fatalities and serious injuries, possibly at disproportionate rates. Okay.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. And thank you for your leadership in the vision zero space as well. We will absolutely work together with the citywide vision zero lead data dixon, and also with our PBOT partners to make sure we we are able to do that and if there's any issues, we will report back to you. Thank you.

That sounds great. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Green.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, mister president. And thank you, mister city administrator. I appreciate your update both on the Green ten ems cuts. That's, you know, I think provides a high level of clarity that you're you're executing on that. So I appreciate that. I also want to just acknowledge that I have seen responsiveness from your office and your dca's on trying to implement the detention facility fee and this temporary rulemaking. I know we placed some pressure on and you guys have responded. And I think that's that's how this new system is supposed to work. So thank you for that. We're going to continue to be engaged on that. I know the community is watching. I think I just want to to raise as as your as you're working through that with all this, all these bureaus, I'm sure you guys have seen it, but some other municipalities have had their mayors issue executive orders to train, to have their police train their body cams on ice and other dhs entities to help in that fact finding and kind of like transparency piece. And so I hope that's something that we consider as well in building our case, that we need to protect our portlanders. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Hi. Thank you all so much. City administrator. I just wanted to say thank you. I think we don't often say thank you when people do great things at the city. And I feel like this report was really detailed. And I want to echo what councilor Green said about our detention facility impact fee. I feel very supported by you and your team on making sure that that's implemented quickly. And so I just wanted to put that on the record that you have been responsive to our needs, concerns, making sure that it is both happening. As you know, it's matching the urgency that the community is requiring of us and that it is being done in a way that will be upheld in the courts and is going to serve portlanders the best way possible. So I appreciate those regular updates. I think it's really something that my constituents desperately want and need and have been asking for. I'm also curious if, or maybe this is something that I would like to see, and I'm curious if you'd be interested in adding this to the report. Just having regular updates about what sort of information gathering the city is doing with regards to the impacts of ice at mcadam. So is there tracking of tear gas deployment? Is there tracking of air quality monitors being added? I know the county was interested in partnering with us to add air quality monitors down at mcadam and that sort of thing, so that we can get regular updates about what sort of information the permitting department is getting and where we're at in that process as well.

I don't see an issue with us providing that information as well. We'll make sure we update that in our weekly reports to you also.

Okay. That sounds wonderful. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your work.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Kanal.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. Good morning. Before I get into a couple questions, just wanted to first say I really appreciated the shout out to tatiana and the city's language access program and the work across the enterprise. Also, leslie goodlow and housing for receiving the world arts foundation lifetime achievement award. You're going to hear this 3 or 4 times today, but tonight, 6 p.m. The first meeting of the community board for police accountability. I want to congratulate everybody involved in that 1926 days after the ballot measure was adopted and very, very much going to we'll have other items on that, so we'll talk about it later. Also was very happy to see a couple of things in here, specifically the discussion of the investment in both psr first responders and violence prevention violence prevention professionals. The 38, I think, percent decline in traffic fatalities. I'm very excited to to see that reported. I'll I'll note here that we still have a lot of work to do in district two. The pivoting to questions here, I think I was really happy to see that there is a class comp study beginning in response to budget note Kanal eight. I think one of the things that this report has done a great job of both under previous administrator and yourself, is that when a councilor Wrote a budget note, they've been brought in on that. I have not been involved in the Kanal eight one. This is about assessing the deputy director classification, looking at, you know, whether or not we need so many of the high level leadership in terms of the org chart and how how much like a how wide the base is compared to the top. So I'd love to hear about that. The first I heard about it was the email that went out to all supervisors and managers, and that since the budget was adopted. So I would love to talk about that more with you on the Green ten amendment. The ems cut, I was curious, I don't think the original intent was to do 2% by every bureau that was involved in it, but just for the general fund on the whole, was the guidance given down that every bureau needs to individually do 2%? Was it 2% applied at the service area or citywide level?

I'll ask jonas to kind of come up and touch upon some of that information. We've looked at it from two different approaches. We have looked at it from a service level, but also looked at it from the standpoint of looking at departments. But I'll let jonas kind of give some further details on what that truly means.

Just to save time, I'll ask the the second part of the question too here, which is was a single professional services contract cut.

Councilor, thank you for the question. For the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer your first question, I don't recall, frankly, at the moment specifically what the guidance was and how it was applied, but happy to follow up and get that to you. And additionally, I can't tell you in the details what they were, but we can certainly work and go back and gather that and provide it to you.

Thanks. Yeah, I really appreciate the info on it. I would just it was a little that second part was just not clear to me. So I appreciate that. Is 20 water main breaks a normal amount for a month in the city? Is that is there a pattern that you can speak to about the if that's a high number, because it seemed high.

And not before dca jumps in on that. I asked that same question in every city I've been in about water main breaks, and a lot of it depends on the season. We start to see that more in our colder weather seasons, which we're in right now as we have aging infrastructure throughout the city. We see this type of incident happen. We can probably provide some trend analysis of what we've seen in years past, but from my history and experience, you typically see an uptick in those kind of water breaks during this season of the year. Thanks.

Thank you. I think city administrator said that. Well, and this is for the Portland water bureau. This is an average seasonal outcome. Happy to provide a trend analysis over the past few years if needed. And exactly for the reasons that kelly mentioned. Those are the reasons why we have breaks during this time of the year.

Thanks. Yeah, I don't need anything super detailed, just I want to sort of high level. It seemed high and I appreciate the info there. Okay, so two last questions are both for I think for you. City administrator lee. One is when when do we expect to hear the next piece of information on the land use violation allegation and process with relation to the ice macadam facility? And I'll just ask the follow up right now, and I want to be clear on that, that I am not asking for the names of individual staffers. I want to be super clear about that, but which program name or email address? Who in the administration can community members direct their input to on? This is the other part of the question.

Thanks for the question. Councilor donnie oliveira. For the record, we expect just for public records refresher we are in the currently in the middle of administrative review of an appeal to the notice of violation for the September land use notice. The attorneys for the building owner appealed that that violation. There was a meeting at the end of December where they presented essentially their their their findings about why we should revoke the administrative violation. So staff and city attorneys are completing that review of those findings and will make a determination by the end of this week on that appeal of our violation. That just will set off another scenario where the attorneys for the building can take action, and we'll follow up with counsel on those steps. So that's the first question. So we are moving forward with that process.

And that that piece at the end of this week will be public.

Yes. And then so that's that step right there. And then to your second question of who can the public talk to about this process. Is that is that the essentially the question.

About yes.

Yes, yeah, I'd like to get back to that and send that out, maybe more publicly. We do have a an email that the bureau of the permitting development bureau has to take incoming questions and complaints. So I want to honor the distinction. If people have a complaint, they want to file. We want people to continue to do that, to catch that formally, if the public's interested in just an update and clarity of what's happening, that's probably a different email. I'd like to get back to the, you know, to you, the administrator, so we can make that public.

Okay. And I'm going to ask a question I've asked before, but it's because I got an email with I got a video sent to me overnight of a Portland permitting and development employee standing outside of a building talking to protesters, saying that council is responsible for the next step in this process between council and the administration, who is currently responsible for the current step in the process on the land use violation process.

That's permitting development. I would love to see that video.

Just got it overnight, or I would have given you a heads up on it. Sorry to put you on the spot.

I appreciate it.

I'll happily send it your way.

Yeah.

And then the last question I had is more of a request for next time. I would love to start getting some information on contracts, specifically the long term. And if you want to start with the really big ones, I would. I would totally understand that. I know this is an iterative process, contracts, because one of the things that happened last year is in the budget. We were leading up to the budget. We were told if it's a short term contract, the mayor can just do it. But if we get to if it goes crossing the fiscal year, then it's going to be approved in the budget. But the way that the budget was presented did not separate out the list of contracts. And because we do decision package based budgeting, if it was effectively it was it was not in the documentation unless you knew where to look. And so I would love to have a list of those contracts. And if you wanted to start with the over $1 million ones, I would totally understand to to try and give us the clarity we need to be able to assess those in the budget process.

We can accommodate that.

Thank you so much. Thank you, council president.

Thank you, councilor Kanal and councilor Kanal. Thank you also for calling out the ongoing question about budget. Note specifically development colleagues, if there are other future budget notes that you all have questions about, this is a great venue for us to have those conversations about. So if if we happen to, you know, if there's something you're waiting for, bring it up here or do it privately. Also. Councilor Koyama Lane, are you still in the queue? Oh, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. Just briefly, because councilor Kanal you touched on the water main breaks, I think it's a good question to ask, but I also want to uplift and call out the excellent work by the public works service area this earlier last month, on January 10th, there was a pretty significant water main break in my district on southwest first avenue that was restored very fast, and there's a lot of complicated work that went into it across the service area, and I never had a want for information on that because our new one, water director ting liu, kept us up to speed every step of the way. So kudos to your team. Keep it up. I think that that helps me communicate with my constituents. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president. I much of what I was going to say has been said. I won't repeat it. I will acknowledge that I appreciated the details from vision zero, and I wanted to ask a question. Dan, I really appreciated the details. We had a meeting with you specifically and that was helpful as well. Is the impairment information only about alcohol correct?

Councilor councilor Ryan, thank you for the question. I'm going to have to get back to you on that. Dana dickman will be getting back to you with more information.

And I know I sent an email and if you did get back, I have for the details on that yet. So thank you. That's why I asked. I do think it's important that we have information that goes beyond alcohol. We need, I think toxology reports that give us the information on impairment that could go into substance abuse. This is just so. Or substances. We just need information. And so it leaves less guessing. And this is on all parties. It just is really helpful. So when you see only the impairment was alcohol I just thought that part was missing. And so I do appreciate that. Thank you. On a budget note that was passed, I just want to lift. Victor, who was at parks, is now overseeing the storefront program. He delivered a really wonderful report yesterday. I'm looking at the colleagues in the economic development committee, and there's so much momentum. And the best part of it is the people who own storefronts, who are part of the community, are really being listened to. So their voices are in the report. My experience since I've been here at times is that the reports are too insider, and we don't have the community voice. And so it was really refreshing to actually see that. And so I know that this will continue to have tension with that, those bodies at the table. But that's definitely a more that's a product that everyone can get behind. So thank you I wanted to lift that.

Thank you councilor Ryan. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Can we please call item number six? Thank you, city administrator.

And nondiscrimination requirements for single occupant restrooms in places of public accommodation. Code to establish equal restroom access by requiring gender gender neutral signage at code section 23.01 .071.

Colleagues. This is the second reading of an ordinance. Is there any further discussion on this item? Seeing none keelan can we please call the roll?

Avalos I.

Smith absent Kanal. I pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy.

Colleagues thank you so much I.

The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Amazing. Can we please call item number seven?

And appointed boards commissions and committees. Code. Ad code. Chapter 3.40.

Colleagues. This is the second reading of a non emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion on our appointed boards and commissions? Seeing no further hands in the queue, please call the roll.

Unless I.

Smith. Absent Kanal.

So sorry, I was trying to get to the thing so I'm just going to be very brief. I'm very supportive of this. I do intend to continue the conversation about where it can go further, which is, I think, a lot of the conversation last time. So I'll be voting, I thank you.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick.

I Clark, I.

Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I the ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Excellent. Can we please call item number? Actually I'm going to use this as an opportunity to give everybody on the council a bio break and take a brief ten minute recess. We will reconvene.

And we're back.

Can we please call item number eight?

Accept a removals from community board for police accountability recommended by administration. Due to ineligibility and cause, and appoint alternates to vacancies.

Thank you. So, colleagues, first item on this, I would like to try and take up a technical amendment for. I'd like to offer a technical amendment that is before us. Specifically, we learned that a one additional alternate to the cbpa has resigned as of Sunday this week. So I have a technical amendment that is pre-filed called Dunphy two specifically adds language to just add that one additional alternate, jason ashley, also resigned and updates within the. Makes the proper corrections throughout the remainder of the document to reflect that this individual has resigned.

Second.

Thank you. So that has been moved and seconded. Colleagues, we also have a number of other amendments on the floor and some questions about where we are at this exact moment on this item. I want to first look to our city attorney and see if she has any additional updates for. Come on up, heidi. Okay. Heidi brown is here.

Thank you. Good morning. Council. Council president. Council heidi brown, city attorney's office. Sorry. So one thing to update you on is that yesterday I did take a look at the non-disclosure agreement, confidentiality agreement that we had drafted. And it made some, some narrowing of it to an address in an attempt to address mr. Weinstein's concerns. It originally stated that any and all information they received would remain confidential, and that and instead what I did was I took the language that we have that applies under our administrative rules to our city employees, which is that confidential and restricted information would remain that way. And I added that in I did also add in privileged information to be clear that we were talking about attorney client privileged information, because that is where that's that's the sole area where we seem to be in disagreement between mr. Weinstein and our office is around the disclosure of what our office views as attorney client privileged information. So I think I think mr. Weinstein is fine with releasing keeping confidential discipline information, investigation files and all that information. And I also wanted to be clear that there are training materials that as I said last week, I'm happy to disclose that only reference the law. The portions that reference our interpretation of the law are the portions that I would want to redact and not disclose. So, and just to be clear about why that is, you know, the the given the board's job is to review investigative allegations of police misconduct and make determinations about whether there was misconduct and if so, what's an appropriate level of discipline. And then from there, you know, we want to be able to uphold that discipline where where it's warranted. That's an appropriate that's very important for this board from my perspective, because I don't want it overturned. And if we disclose attorney client privileged information, that will make it very challenging to uphold discipline. So that that just in summary, is where we are, is that I did suggest some alternative language. I'll let mr. Weinstein respond to that broadly if he wants to. But just I can tell you narrowly that he was not satisfied with the way I had proposed it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very much. Thank you.

Colleagues, before we dive into the substance, I'd like to get Dunphy to just out of the way. If that is acceptable. This is a hopefully non-controversial technical amendment. Unless there's any objection, I'd like to move to call the roll on that. No objection. Can we please call the roll on Dunphy to.

Aye, Morillo aye, Morillo.

Absent Kanal.

I pirtle-guiney I Ryan, I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I Novick I mark I.

Green Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Thank you colleagues moving to the q councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, mr. President. I move to divide the question on the report as follows. It would be into three separate votes, one on everything that's not removed, separated out. And the other two are I'm pulling up the file here. To remove the the. Line about mr. Halsey and separately to remove the lines about mr. Weinstein. So I'm going to be very specific here. And sorry I'm close the right tab here. So the first would be to separate out for a separate vote. The second to last line prior to the table that begins, member skyler halsey, as well as the second line of the table for its own vote. A second vote would be held on the final line before the table. Alternate bob weinstein. Et cetera. And the fourth line of the table that also has bob weinstein's name. And then the third vote would be on everything else. So we would have a vote on just accepting the resignations and all of that as a report, and then separately weigh the discussion on each of the two people separately. And I'd like to request the order, be that the skyler halsey part goes before the bob weinstein part. And I defer to you if you'd prefer to have the everything else part at the beginning or end.

Point of information, just because it's going to happen a lot over the next hour or so, it's bob weinstein, I think.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Yeah, no, everyone's done it. But I, I haven't had an opportunity to correct everyone on that. Thanks.

Linly council president I just want to make sure when we divide the motion, what you're doing is voting on the underlying motion in separate parts. And so the framing of the two separated parts, I believe, would be should person a be removed, not should we take them out of the existing report. That would that would be an amendment. But dividing the motion is should we remove person a, should we. So person.

B to clarify that means that when we get to these two parts, a yes vote would involve removing the person from the board or as an alternate. A no vote would be to retain them.

Correct?

Okay, okay.

And and just so I'm getting it through my thick skull, functionally, we would be voting on the text of the entire thing minus the parts that that were pulled out, the names specifically, and then we would independently be going back and voting on the names individually.

Yes.

Okay.

Point of information, I understand that, but I guess can you just walk me one more time? Because the each of these four options are each of these scenarios.

That's for the resolution.

Oh shoot. Now I'm confused. Okay. So say it one more time then.

So my the request for a division would mean that we vote on the parts of the report that have not been currently found controversial. The parts related to resignations, the the updating information, walking through how what happened all that. Then we would vote on skyler halsey where a yes vote would be to remove skyler halsey. And a no vote would be to retain skyler halsey. And then we would vote on bob weinstein, where a yes vote would be to remove and a no vote would be to retain. Is that accurate? The attorneys?

Yes. Thank you. You said.

Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I think you just said a yes vote would be to remove. But that's the opposite exact opposite of what the attorney had just said, which is a no vote.

I'm going to let them confer.

Takes them out of because the vote is to keep their name in the report or not. And a no vote would basically say the name is removed. And I just want to clarify, because I think you guys just said opposite things here.

Okay.

Well, we're going to we're going to have the discussion before we get to the vote. So I'm going to I think we should let them confer and then explain it. But we'll make sure I'm in the scenario of a division. My understanding is that a yes vote would be removing this person.

Yeah, a yes vote would be the report. How the report frames that person, which is in those two instances, it would be removal for cause.

And a no vote would be retaining them as a member or alternate, respectively.

Correct. And I misstated one is removal for cause, one is ineligibility.

So just okay.

Point of information. Council president.

I'm hoping that the counselor can explain why he's suggesting this approach, as opposed to doing this by amendment, just so that we can understand if there's. What the rationale is for approaching it this way, given that there had been discussion about amendments to do these things as well.

There.

I can tell you that my this came from at least partially from me. The city attorney's office has been conferring about whether the right path forward is to do a series of amendments to try and remove and then re-add language versus a what I think is a relatively more straightforward process of dividing the question before us, so that this came at my recommendation.

Thank you for that clarification.

Counselor Zimmerman. Did you get everything in here?

I still have a I have one request or great question.

This is.

A okay. I would prefer a different order to your questions. Councilor Kanal the voting on the overall report before I know what's in it. If the votes, the separated questions don't go the way that I think, I may not support the overall. So I would I would offer actually that the overall report should be voted upon after we know the contents of it. That would be otherwise, I think I would have to vote no against that report because as it stands right now, there are names that I don't agree with being included in the report. So that's my my pitch.

I'm happy to go with skyler halsey, followed by bob weinstein, followed by the full remaining parts of the report. My request would be that we discuss these together, just because there is some conversation that I think might overlap here, and then when we get to the votes, do it. But I defer to you.

That sounds good.

And I'm checking with our city attorneys to make sure we're okay. Yes. So the order will be a division of the question will be that we are going to vote on the removal of skyler halsey. We will vote on the removal of bob weinstein, and we will vote on the overall report before us. Does that sound right? Okay, colleagues, we're moving to council discussion. Anybody have further discussion about this? Counselor Zimmerman, are you still thinking great, please.

Thanks, colleagues. Last week we heard from a number of testimonies, and one of the requests that I had made was that the bias information be included in the council documents so that we have an understanding for both the information we were hearing from public testimony, but also a sense of what are we talking about when it comes to bias that was not included. You've since been emailed that by the city administration, and I have sent it to the council clerk for inclusion into the record. I'm just going to say that again, because I know they're doing two things at once here. I've sent that to the council clerk for inclusion into the record. The bias information. I just wanted to clarify that, because I've been asked a few times since my request last week why it wasn't included, and I think it just got missed. So now it is in all your email boxes from the staff and headed to the council clerk to include in this agenda item. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Colleagues, any further conversation? Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Oh.

Maybe a question first. So as far as process, we are on the report, what are like because you were about to be like, we're going to go into a vote. What would have that vote been or no.

Oh no council discussion first. But the order of the votes will be that we will vote on the inclusion of skyler halsey. We will vote on the inclusion of bob weinstein. We will vote on the underlying amended report.

And so right now we're in discussion broadly.

Yes.

But then do we need to move any of these amendments or. No.

Because we divided the question. It is just a procedural vote.

Okay, why don't I I'll get back in the queue after. Let me get my mind right.

Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. So so we're anything germane to these three divisions or I guess two divisions technically is is free for debate.

Or discussion of the underlying report as well.

Okay. Great. I want to speak to the the suggestion that skyler halsey be removed. I do see the evidence that has been attached. It is in my inbox, and I think from what I can parse here, the primary reason why this person was concluded to be. Exhibiting bias is the repost of an acab meme. But colleagues, that is a that is a trans rights meme on the internet. That is all. Capybaras are beautiful and it has the trans flag in it. And if you know what context is in the the case of like memes, you'll know that this is not about police. So if that's the case, I think that that's frankly a misreading of the social media context around this. The rest of them are, I think, fairly reasonable reposts that anyone who is advocating for police accountability would do. I mean, I have done memes like these myself, and I don't think that I would be confused associated with bias here. So for that reason, I think it was inappropriate to remove skyler from from the list. And I'll be voting, I guess. No, on that item for this. So if you don't know the all bears are beautiful meme, you need to google that right now. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you, mr. President. As we've wrestled this to the ground, it seems to me that maybe we're not going to do it today, but I do think we should come back and try to clarify even more within the nda, especially around the training, the kinds of things that heidi said on the dais, even though I know she's worked hard to try to clarify some of this, it's not clear enough for me around the training issue. And there are laws that are discussed in training. But there's also, as she said, an interpretation of the law. I think that should be highlighted and pulled out. My my sense is that the accountability board is supposed to be a neutral body. And with all due respect to councilor Green, I'm I'm not convinced that reposting is is neutral. So I'm concerned about that. I really thought the board was supposed to be a neutral body, so I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you, councilor Clark. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Okay, thank you for helping me get clear on the process. So I will go ahead and speak to the broader report now. I want to start by grounding this conversation in why the community board for police accountability exists in the first place. The cbpa was created to provide independent, community based oversight of policing, particularly by centering voices that have historically been excluded from decisions about public safety and accountability. I understand that the city is requesting removals based on eligibility and administrative requirements, and I also understand that some members were flagged through a review of social media activity for perceived bias, either for or against the police, and that one member is being removed for not signing a non-disclosure agreement. My concern is not whether the city has authority to enforce requirements. My concern is about how those standards are being applied, whether they are being applied consistently, and whether council has been given sufficient information to exercise its judgment responsibility responsibly. Now I want to address the nda issue real carefully. As a former member of the citizen review committee, I was required to sign confidentiality confidentiality agreements because police accountability work involves extremely sensitive material, including arbitration records, personnel files, and legal strategy. Those agreements are tied to protecting attorney client privilege and preserving the integrity of disciplinary proceedings. So if privileged legal information is disclosed improperly, it can be used in arbitration to weaken or overturn discipline decisions. And that risk is structural to how police labor agreements operate. I understand that some community members view this primarily as a transparency issue, but and transparency is important. But this question is fundamentally about protecting attorney client privilege and ensuring that oversight bodies can function within the legal framework that exists. And those are distinct considerations. That doesn't mean that confidentiality agreements can't be examined or improved over time, but I think over or under the structure currently in place, signing that agreement is part of the responsibility of serving in this role. And when that requirement isn't met, it creates a functional issue for the board's work. Now, where I am far less comfortable is with the how the social media reviews were handled. Two members were presented to council for removal based on social media activity identified as bias. Another member, who has publicly expressed strong bias in favor of the police, was not evaluated for bias in the same way, but was instead removed on an administrative basis. And that distinction, to me, raises real questions about whether bias is being assessed evenly, regardless of its direction. If bias against policing is grounds for removal, then bias in favor of policing must be evaluated with the same seriousness and transparency. And we have to be honest about context. Policing already operates within a status quo that privileges police narratives and institutional power in that environment. Criticism, skepticism, or lived experience with policing can too easily be framed as bias. While pro-police perspectives are treated as neutral. The cbpa was intentionally designed to include people with lived experience, including people who have been harmed by or are deeply critical of policing systems, and so if lived experience is treated as disqualifying bias, we risk excluding the very voices that this board was created to elevate. I also want to note that one of the members initially slated for removal has since resigned for unrelated reasons, and I want to thank her for her service and be clear that I did not intend to vote to remove her. This is not about defending any individual. It is about whether our process is fair, consistent and aligned with the purpose of community led police accountability. And so as we move forward, I would like to see a clearer articulation of what constitutes disqualifying bias, how that standard is applied across the board, and how council is provided sufficient information to make these decisions with confidence. Because getting this right really matters, especially as we have the first meeting today of the cbpa. And as somebody who has been deeply involved in this work for many, many years, it took a lot to get to this point. It's really fragile how we approach this, the seating of this first body. And I'm just concerned about today's vote given, wanting to make sure that we are ensuring the credibility of the cbpa and public trust in our broader accountability system, I'm very eager to hear other councilors arguments here, but that's kind of how I'm approaching this conversation. I don't think I have any direct questions right now. I feel like I've gotten those answered through the process of briefings and just discussing it on the dais so far, but I really hope my colleagues consider what it looks like to evaluate these biases, and the fact that we are presented with some. We are presented with some members, and we weren't presented with others to give the full context of how I'm making this decision. That's what deeply concerns me about this process. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Avalos, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yes, sorry, I forgot to ask my questions or raise comments about bob weinstein's concerns with the nondisclosure agreement. You know, heidi had mentioned that there's there was some effort to kind of engage in a back and forth to get to a place where a mutually agreeable agreement could be struck. But but my understanding from that is, is we did not find that agreeability. So I, I guess I need to know more about what bob's ongoing reservations are. We need to have, I think, a little bit more of that discussion. So so I can look at that clear eyed because I'm not convinced either. So I, you know, help me out, bob, or, you know, whenever appropriate, I need to we need to talk more about that.

I'm not clear if I can call bob to.

You can do whatever you want.

If mr. Weinstein is available and would like to answer counselor green's questions, I would invite him to the to the to the dais.

Never forget that one just said you can do.

Whatever you want. I heard it. Yeah. And I'm going to remember that. Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Yeah. Thank you. My name is bob weinstein for the record.

So thanks, bob. So help me understand what has transpired between last week when we discussed this to today with regards to this nondisclosure agreement. From your perspective.

Councilor Green and other council members, what has transpired since the meeting is late. Yesterday afternoon, about 430, I received an email from heidi brown with a suggestion for an amendment after review with people who understand the law and what attorney client privilege means. I responded this morning and told her that while I appreciated the effort, my concerns were not addressed and I offered language. That said, I. Here's a concept that I think both addresses my concerns while also clearly identifying the information which is properly confidential, and agreeing to retain that information as confidential. Here's the language I sent her the receiving party. Me, in this case agrees that they will retain its confidential to the extent allowed by law, and not disclose any and all confidential, privileged or restricted information outside of the city related to any issues shared with the receiving party by the city, then defined. Confidential, privileged or restricted information means any and all information, documents and materials subject to nondisclosure as provided by the exemptions contained in ors 192345 and 192355. The public records statutes. Those sections have long lists of exemptions, including attorney client privilege and investigatory materials, etc. Final paragraph in what I suggested. Information that is not confidential, privileged or restricted under Oregon law, including but not but not limited to general work product not related to a specific matter before the sipa. Training materials and information consisting solely of citations to or summaries or discussions of publicly available law shall not be subject to this confidentiality agreement. So pretty much said that the agreement should follow the law. It should follow what the council intended. It should follow what state law demands and requires. I think the significant difference. I did have a discussion with heidi during the break, and there's two things she her language suggests that only the city can disclose anything that is provided to the board, including training materials, that we all would say, hey, that's public, that I or other board members would not have the right to say this is how we've been trained. In fact, from my perspective, all of that stuff should be on a future community board for police accountability dashboard so everybody can see this is how this is how people were trained. A key difference in what she told me and my many years of experience dealing with municipal attorneys, school district attorneys and state attorneys general is as, as as follows. Let's say there's a statute or a code and it's. You know, obviously been written by attorneys and it's, for lack of a better word, legalese that a layperson may not understand what it means. So if I as an alternate or if or another board member says to the city attorney's office, what does that mean? And, and plain language and they say it according to heidi. And she can tell me or tell you if I'm misstating that interpretation is confidential. It's attorney client privilege. I don't think it is. It could be said in public. It's not pertaining to a specific person. So it doesn't involve a personnel matter with an identifiable person. It doesn't involve a certain case that's before or that's coming to the board. It's just an interpretation. So a layperson can understand the meaning of a charter provision or a section of code that's those are the two differences. Only the city can decide what is disclosable and those kinds of things that I mentioned would not be heidi mentioned to me that which I know and, you know, citizens who object to non-disclosure can go to the da's office. Well, the average citizen does not know that you can go to the da's office or how you do that. And from my perspective, those two issues remain a concern.

Okay. That's very helpful for me, bob. Thank you.

Any other questions while I'm here? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bob councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Council president. I think a couple of things that have come up here is largely about whether or not we've how we interpret as a group of, of counselors the piece of the charter that talks about who decides who's on this board. And it is council's ultimate decision. And that's a really important thing to keep in mind here, because we're getting little pieces of information I've gotten since this, this council meeting started. I've gotten two emails with more information, some of which I don't think all of all of us have had. And it's a lot of just trust us. I am willing to be deferential to the to the staff on a lot of these issues. And I have personally talked through a lot of these things because I've sought out that time and I feel very informed on it. But I also am aware that there's a conversation here that's that's broader than just this one issue. There's also a conversation here that's broader than just these two particular individuals, because, for example, councilor Clark referenced the need for the board to be neutral. And I think there's two questions that that brings up. One is how do we determine what neutral is? Obviously, in a in a place where nothing's exactly unbiased, nothing's neutral. But the other piece of it is whether or not you apply that individually. And I think this group of 12 of us is a good example of that. We are representative of the city, but no one of us is representative of the city. No one of us is representative of even our whole district. And I think that's how I've been viewing this this entire time, because that's what the rules say. And the charter, that's what the rules said for the most part in the code, with some very clear carve outs for specific situations. So that's how I'm viewing and approaching this conversation. I am comfortable giving the the process time to work itself out with relation to if there can be a an agreement reached. I do understand the city attorney's offices position. I'm also hearing bob's position here about this, and I I'm likely to be deferential to that process. But that process doesn't happen if we vote yes on removing him today, that process just ends if we vote yes on removing him today. But I also want to just take something that he said and apply it to the other context as well, which is the idea that about whether or not transparency matters from the perspective of public trust, and that matters so much for the other the other conversation about bias as well, because it's not the role. And we haven't tasked the city attorney's office with developing a system that can earn the trust of the public, which councilor Avalos has mentioned is incredibly fragile because it has been 1926 days since 82% of people voted for this, and it hasn't met yet. And it will in 6.5 hours. And I am so excited. I'll be there with bells on. But the the process has, I think, lost trust with people who voted against it, as well as people who voted for it. And having done a lot of the outreach in my previous role to people who voted no on that ballot measure, as well as people who voted yes on it, and I know this is something councilor Ryan and I have talked about over the years, that it's not about building a system that works for the 82%. It's about building a system that works for 100% of portlanders, that there is a fragile trust here. And basing it off of irony and internet memes and basing it off of a process with these checks, that is very problematic because it flagged things outside of the look force that that the city gave. Regardless of what people think about the look force that we gave for the social media search, which, by the way, appears to be limited only to facebook, which is itself an interesting choice. But and I think that has to do with transparency and settings of, of privacy. But regardless of that, the if you look at the second email we got today, you'll see a lot more than just that was flagged, a lot more than what we flagged to look for on the two most common things in the word cloud that were given for skyler halsey's post were episcopal and church. Why are they even looking at that? So I have I have a huge problem with the way this this particular process was handled. I think a lot of the other parts of this process were handled well, just took time, but I think our staff did as well as they possibly could have done, given the role of the state in that, and I want to praise them for that part of it, because I do think that was good. But there are concerns here I have about the implications on public trust that we will have if we simply accept without actually digging in or giving time for these processes to develop. And I wanted to to make sure that that was framed here. One quick clarification. When we vote on it, it's not voting on the underlying report. It's voting on the remaining report. So that vote will not include anything about skyler halsey or bob weinstein. It will include just the resignations and removals. It's not like an amendment. So just wanted to clarify that for later. Thank you.

Thank you councilor Kanal I put myself in the queue. Colleagues, I have two very quick comments. I will say I really appreciate heidi brown for working to try and find a creative workaround. I thought last week that mr. Weinstein made some compelling testimony about the way we were approaching ndas. However, I think if I'm again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not, maybe I'm missing it, but I get the general impression that the question at this point is who decides what is confidential? And I am inclined to trust the or to default to trusting the attorneys who we have hired, specifically in the context of trying to thread this very specific needle on police oversight with the with the consent agreement in place with the federal government, with the ongoing, I mean, upcoming negotiations with ppa on their contract and additionally, the sometimes litigious nature of a lot of these different things, I am inclined to be deferential to our attorney, who I think has made a really good faith effort to try and find a path forward with regard to mr. Hugh halsey. Skyler hugh halsey I don't know. I do also have concerns. I too googled the ecrb meme that had a picture of capybaras on it. I was curious, I typed in all capybaras r and found the same meme that councilor Green was talking about. I also have concerns about, you know, I am of an era of the internet that embodies the idea that reposts do not mean endorsements, and I'm interested to know, you know, what the I can I couldn't tell from the supporting documents whether these were everything that was on this individual's facebook page, which again, I also think it's odd to talk about facebook because facebook is and that's another question. But I'm also interested. I wasn't clear based on the totality of reposts or other content where this fit in, and I didn't see anything in particular. I certainly saw things that had a particular perspective, but I didn't see anything that really, for me, crossed a line or a specifically crossed the line that our specific disqualification criteria called out. So I am having a harder time with justifying removing that one. But. And those are my two specific comments, so I will take myself out. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you council president. I apologize for not being there. I'm down in Salem testifying with the mayor on the bill. I wanted to go back to what bob weinstein said, and I think we have to really take a look at, you know, when we are following the charter, what's what's the interpretation and how we interpretate. Who is going to say what what what specific nda we use? And he said he had no problem with actually the only piece that he had a problem with was not acknowledging the training. And as you know, as elected officials, everything that we do say on on these devices, when we're when we're doing public work, we have to it has to be transparently seen to the public. If that's the case, I think we should show the same difference to bob weinstein, because he understands very well the things that you can, that you can and cannot bring forward. But I think we need to have a larger conversation. I agree with some of the things you said, council president, because I think it's it's frustrating, particularly when we're trying to implement everything. The way in which the charter committee and the people who voted for this, you know, said that we we should. So at this point, this next vote, I have a point of order. So this next vote is not going to be on the removal. It's just going to be on the process.

Councilor Smith, specifically, we will be doing three votes in a row. The the first vote will be to either whether or not to include the name of hugh skyler halsey in this report. The second vote will be whether or not to include the name of bob weinstein in this report, and the third vote will be on the overall report. Of order.

Okay. Just to just.

To.

Clarify.

It's not about inclusion or not. It's we've broken the report up into three parts. And now the question is, do we adopt the part of the report that has skyler halsey in it.

Right.

Adopting that will remove him. So yes. Would be to remove him. No would be to retain second same thing on bob weinstein. Yes. Vote would be to remove a no vote would be to retain. And the third vote is not on the overall. It is on everything but the parts related to those two people.

Right.

So the resignations.

Okay okay. Thank you. Thank you councilor Kanal. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Smith. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. Council president, I'd like to ask a question of our attorney, if that's all right with you.

Absolutely.

I'd. One of my colleagues mentioned that it would be nice to be able to continue the conversation that you started. It sounds like yesterday with bob. And I'll note, I appreciate that you tried to find a way to move forward with him. I wish those conversations had happened before the last minute. I know sometimes that's hard, but it had been my hope that there would be some sort of resolution there before this came back to us today, in order to allow more time for that conversation, we would have to keep him on the list as an alternate. Currently, he doesn't meet the qualifications necessary to move on to the full board because he hasn't been through the training. If we were today to keep him on the list as an alternate, and if we were to end up in a situation where he were the only alternate left and there were an opening on the board and he hadn't signed something, you hadn't come to an agreement. He had not finished the training and was therefore not qualified to be seated on the board. What would happen?

We would have to come back before you and request again his removal in that he had not signed a confidentiality agreement or council would have to decide to remove the requirement for confidentiality agreement, which would also require us to amend the d.o.j. Settlement agreement because it is similarly reflected in there. And that would also lead to likely bargaining. So so it would be involved.

So in essence, though, if we leave him on for now. Either you reach some resolution here and he completes the training and is eligible to be seated on the board if we need him, which we may or may not in the future, or you continue to remain at an impasse with him. And should another vacancy come up on the board, and should he be the only alternate left available, you would come to us and say, you can't seat him on the board without making these other, more complicated changes. So we either need to go out and recruit other alternates, or have a vacancy on the board, or do those other very complicated things you've just described. But we never end up in a situation where he is seated on the board by default, as the only person left if he hasn't completed the training, is that correct?

That is correct in that it is requirement under code to sign a confidentiality agreement. The only thing I would note is that everybody went through the training and the background check and see, just check and all that, so that if you get to a point where you are facing putting somebody onto the board, they have completed the training, they're required to complete the training within six months of appointment. So alternates and regular board members all went through the training except mr. Weinstein. At the point at which he refused to sign the confidentiality agreement.

Understood. What I'm what I'm trying to get to. And I think I understand where we're landing is if we remove him, the consequences we have one fewer alternate. His background that he would have brought is not available in the future to to add to the board. And we move forward. If we keep him on, the consequence is there's more time to have the conversations about whether he's willing to sign something to then go through the trainings, but there is no situation in which, if he's still not able to go through those trainings, we end up being asked to seat him on the board. Is that accurate? Okay, that helps me just with a little bit of context setting and thinking about what the vote around his removal or not means. I really appreciate that, colleagues. I just want to say out loud, as we have these conversations that I fear that we sometimes conflate being for police accountability with being a police abolitionist. And I fear that, on the other hand, we sometimes conflate thinking that we need more police staffing with being unwilling to hold police accountable. And frankly, I'm not actually sure that we all have the same understanding of what it even means to support or oppose police and where the lines are on what support or oppose means. And I think we're having a lot of conversations about portlanders and about our own beliefs using coded language that not everybody is interpreting the same way. And I just want to mention that because I'm sitting with that as we think about how we move forward and as we think about councilor Kanal, I think what you've described is balance as opposed to neutrality. And what neutrality means for this. I haven't actually decided where I'm landing on all of these votes. And I'm not saying this to try to change anybody's mind, but because I think it's really important that as we all make up our minds, we're thinking carefully about what words we are using as coded language for meanings. That, and beliefs that somebody may or may not actually hold. Thank you, council president.

Thank you.

Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you, council president. First, I just want to say, I think what councilor Avalos laid out in her opening statement very much reflects my opinions on all of this, so I won't repeat most of it. I will say that as someone who is closer, well, you know what? I'm not going to take up the position of top poster in the city because I think that goes to councilor Green. But I think, you know, I come from a generation where people post a lot and it's not always, you know, even in my blue sky bio, I literally say a follow does not equal an endorsement. So I could be following an account. That doesn't mean that I like the person or that I support them. It could just mean I'm just following their feed and looking at it. I have people who don't like me who follow me all the time. I have people repost things, that sort of thing. So it's interesting to me, the metric that is being used where a simple social media post or a repost could be weighed just as heavily as, for example, we have people who are former city council candidates who ran for office, who had very public platforms, who publicly talked about their positions on things, who were endorsed by the police union, which ostensibly means that you are someone who is going to fight for the interests of police, which is why they endorsed you as the top people to be offered up for this. And that does not view that does not show that they are biased, but a blue sky or a facebook repost can show a heavier bias than that. And that is extremely strange to me, because one is a simple repost on social media, and one is actually a demonstration that you have committed so heavily to supporting the police that their union thinks that you are worthy of their endorsement. And again, their their endorsement means I am going to support the interests of police and their perspectives and their needs. So it's just I think the metrics that are being used here to evaluate bias are very skewed. And in a social media age like we have now, it seems absurd to me that those types of things and that context that we know about, people who are coming up here, are being weighed less heavily than a repost. I'm not really understanding the the logic there. And it is true that when you are upholding the status quo, which as it currently stands, is that we have police and we have a system that for a very long time has excused the poor behaviors of police officers and the harms that have happened to black and brown communities, that anyone who criticizes the status quo is going to be viewed as a radical, and anyone who is upholding the status quo is going to be viewed as the norm. I understand that there are people here who have been endorsed by the police, who have also been critical of police, and I appreciate that there can be nuance there. But by that very logic, then you must also concede that just because you reposted something doesn't mean that you can't also be nuanced in your thinking about the approach. So because I saw some folks here who were endorsed by the police raise their hands when I said that, and I'm just saying if if that itself is not enough to invalidate you, then why would a simple repost be enough? So I think that the very metrics that were used here are just not. I really worry about who we are excluding, and especially because the reality is the people who are directly impacted by these issues who do not have a political vested interest in gaining power by being endorsed by certain groups, they are going to speak passionately and they are going to speak from a different position because it is a personal issue for them, someone who is not part of that group. I think that it is inherently a passionate issue when it's something that directly implicates you. So I guess I'll just leave it at that. I think I've made my point, but the the metrics by which we are measuring people are very bizarre to me, and I don't think that they're right. And the idea that accountability is inherently an attack, or that accountability means you are inherently an abolitionist, it does not seem to measure up to what is right. And frankly, even most abolitionists understand that they're not going to abolish police overnight. It's a very complicated political stance that most people have reduced in the media to something very simplified. So I will leave it at that. But I do have a lot of concerns around that. And I do also have concerns that this is supposed to be a body handling legal matters that are very delicate. And if we have someone who feels that they are personally empowered to share things that should be private for the sake of upholding these legal standards, then we are going to be putting the work of the body in harms way for the sake of the individuals satisfaction about making a public statement. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Avalos.

Angelita Morillo: Like Loretta says, ditto, ditto, ditto to councilor Morillo. I really appreciate how you laid that out, and I want to talk a little bit more about the discussion around training, because that seems to be where we have a lot of the disagreement is being centered. So the concern here is not about whether basic information like publicly available laws or general policy frameworks can be shared. That's not the issue. The issue is that these trainings can often include discussions of legal strategy, case analysis, arbitration dynamics, and advice provided by the city attorney's office so those conversations are protected by attorney client privilege. They are sensitive by design because they relate directly to how the city navigates discipline and arbitration, and a system that is already legally precarious. So protecting that privilege is not optional. It is foundational to preserving the city's ability to successfully implement discipline and defend accountability decisions. And if those strategic discussions are disclosed, they can be used to undermine cases in arbitration. Seen it happen all the time, actually. And so what gives me pause is the suggestion that an individual board member should be able to independently determine what is appropriate to disclose and what is not. That is not your role as a board member. The determination of what falls under attorney client privilege is made by the city attorney, because that office carries the responsibility and the liability for making complex legal judgments. In an environment where arbitration outcomes can hinge on very narrow procedural details. So this is not about whose personal judgment we agree with. It is about respecting the legal framework that governs this work. And when someone suggests that their individual view of what should be public supersedes the legal judgment of the city attorney, that raises real concerns for me about role clarity and the ability of the board to function within the legal structure that it needs to operate in. We can and should continue evaluating whether the confidentiality framework is calibrated appropriately. But as it stands, protecting privileged discussions during trainings, mind you, during trainings of a brand new board is not about limiting transparency. It is about safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the accountability system itself, and that public trust in this board depends not only on openness, but also on its ability to operate responsibly within the law and successfully exercise the real authority that it now holds. And that balance really matters. So I want to make that crystal clear that this is not about your personal ideas of what you think needs to be disclosed to the public. We have a duty to ensure that our city attorney has the ability to do the navigate the legal system in a way that's not going to undermine their authority. And so I do not agree with these arguments, and I will not be supporting bob for appointment. Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilor Avalos councilor.

Candace Avalos: Clark.

Vice president Clark.

Thank you, president Dunphy. It's hard to follow that. I, I do agree that there's a lot of ambiguity around some of these issues, and I am very sensitive to the issue of fragility at this moment in time as well. I appreciate the comments of our formal former council president, councilor Pirtle-guiney trying to thread the needle here. I really appreciate it because what I was going to suggest, but maybe you have a better suggestion, is that in trying to find the middle path here, that we give ourselves some more time to more time on trying to deal with bias, deal with confidentiality and put these two people aside. Put this vote aside and and do some more work here. I think we're we're really wrestling with large societal issues and there are bigger than us. The issue of the internet and social media is bigger than me, that's for sure. So I was going to try to suggest a middle path here if people would be open to it. And I like council pirtle-guiney approach, as well as giving ourselves more time to wrestle with some of these issues. Not sure there's any interest in that.

Thank you, councilor Clark. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: First of all, I have to thank you, mr. President. I have to respond to councilor Morillo suggestion that if you accept the endorsement of a group, that means you made a commitment to fight like hell for that group. What it means is that that group decided that you, among the candidates, were preferable to some other alternatives, and it means the candidate decided that they thought that, on balance, that endorsement wouldn't be bad to have. I have to say that I think councilor Morillo point isn't that far from saying that if a unconvicted murderer votes for me, then that means that I'm should be expected to represent the results. The interest of unconvicted murderers. So in terms of skyler halsey, I mean, to me, I'm a little skeptical of the idea of bias for or against the police. That seems a little broad, but I think that the key thing is one one key factor is if there's discipline imposed on an officer, what can the city attorney expect to be raised in arbitration to undermine that, that discipline? And as to ecrb, I'm willing to accept the idea that that indicates nothing other than a bias in favor of capybaras. But one of the schuyler halsey's post was a repost, but as a repost of something saying, do you guys ever think undercover cops are no different from nazi secret police? And to me, that does raise a concern that if there's discipline of a cop who is acting in an undercover capacity, then you can assume that at least one voter was willing to impose whatever discipline on that undercover cop because they think they're equivalent to nazi secret police. And I understand that there's a difference between repost and regular posting. I mean, people who post a lot might think that, but I think that if you're in a legal proceeding and somebody raises that, that's going to be a problem. So I am okay with the city, with with a determination that somebody is ineligible based on the likely usage of their posts in a disciplinary proceeding. And just as I mean, it's slightly different, but if somebody says various, you know, biased in favor of police things, I do think that that would tend to undermine the public's faith if a decision was made not to impose discipline.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor Novick. Counselor Green.

Yeah. Thank you. First of all, I want to react to councilor Avalos. Last line of argumentation. I have to agree 100%, I think. I think what's at stake here is ensuring the fidelity of the process and making sure that we can actually get to true accountability, which our portlanders have been waiting a long time ago. What is it, 1900? What's the date number? What's the count? 1926 okay, that's a long time. For that reason, I'm also going to be hesitant to delay this, frankly. But I appreciate the creativity, creativity, and thought. There may be a middle middle path, who knows? But I just want to speak to this, the social media stuff again. And I just think like when we were looking for bias for or against it is a very, I think, frankly, impossible standard, especially when you look solely at a slice of a person's thinking on it through. It looks like almost exclusively facebook posts. I want to read one of the posts that I think is really important, because I think we're looking at a totality of intent here. There's a post from June 9th, 2020 that actually is much more substantive than any of the other memes which the memes are like, you know, you can you can extract a lot of different meaning for that. But like when you look at a post that actually has an articulation of what a position is, that to me, I think carries much more weight. So June 9th, 2020, there's a meme or a post that says, just to be clear what some folks are talking about when they say defund the police. And it's a it's a discussion by doctor anthony james hargraves and it basically says defund the police does not mean eliminate all police funding. Defund the police means police will be funded. Police will not be overfunded. We're redistributing the city budget. Everyone gets a fair share. So there's a sort of vision of fairness of budgets or moral documents. It goes on to say defund the police because police should focus on crimes and criminals. Police are not mental health counselors, police are not social workers. And so that's the nature of this post, which is quite substantive and actually lays out a position for someone who might say, this is how I'm going to enter into a discussion. I think when we think about bias, we look to posts like that, not just kind of like hot takes from what is it, the barbie movie, you know, I mean, and like, you know, not great if you're trying to be judged by this standard, I get that. But like, this is also talking about in the context of a long history of cointelpro, a long history of secret police being used to undermine democratic movements. And so I understand this is challenging, but I just wanted to make sure folks didn't miss that very important substantive post there, which I think, in my view, settles the question. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: So I'm going to say one thing and then I have a note, which is that skylar halsey has joined online. And so there is the opportunity there to address. Thank you for being here. And I think the thing I wanted to to bring up before that is just the the idea that there's a process here, and this is a conversation that's been going on a long time. I think just shy of a year ago, we had our second meeting of the community and public safety committee meeting, where many of the things that we're talking about today were brought up, specifically, the idea that it is very difficult to determine bias because each of us has our own opinions and beliefs that bring us to it. The idea that the application of to a group versus an individual member, the idea that there is a status quo bias that isn't necessarily inherently ideological, but can be manifested, can manifest on a specific issue in a way that is in alignment with one or another ideology. These are all things that have come up before. And I'll note that neutrality unbiased none of that actually appears in the charter. The charter says that the permission of the board, again, the board as an entity, not as an individual, to independently investigate Portland police bureau sworn employees and supervisors thereof promptly, fairly and impartially. And one of the things that came up in the last testimony was that the recommendation was to have larger groups within the 21 members, in fact, first, to have a larger group of members than 21, but within that 21 to have a larger group sit on a panel so that individual members would not have as outsized of an influence on these decisions, but that our predecessors on the old city council took the recommendation from their staff to narrow that down so that 3 or 5 people sit on these panels and that that creates risk. And I think one of the things that that we can look at is, how do we ensure, you know, that the size of a panel or these other administrative decisions, but which are inherent to us because it is in code, not in their administrative rules, are things that we can do to try and give confidence to everybody. But the other piece that I wanted to bring up is that the system for determining this after the fact is very flawed, because public trust is not part of the decision making of the city attorney's office, and it shouldn't be. And I think that's the right call. And but that afterwards, the grievances that could be filed about this can only be filed by one side of the process. Right. That's a the grievances that would go before an arbitrator can only be filed by the, the, the ppa. And so these are a factor in looking at potential bias. Is that that they looked at what might cause a problem with arbitration. But because that can only be initiated by one side, that standard is inherently biased. And that's a concern that has come through here. The other thing I wanted to mention on the on the. Agreement, the nda, is that we do have a requirement for confidentiality agreement, but and that is in the settlement agreement, but it only says literally sign a confidentiality agreement. That's the exact words. It doesn't speak to the specifics of that. And I'll also note that in the code it refers to some it says the cba member must sign a confidentiality agreement. So I do think there's a bigger conversation here. I agree with everything else that heidi said in her comments. I do think there was a good faith conversation, and I'm willing to allow that to use my vote to allow that process to continue. But I wanted to mention that I'll defer to you. But I did want to say to to note that that skylar halsey is here, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak more with them.

Thank you.

Colleagues. Yeah. If anybody has any specific questions as we gave time to mr. Weinstein, if there are any specific questions from colleagues about mr. Halsey, he's available. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you, mr. President. I'm a little cautious. It seems like, because this document has a couple of names on it that we're we're doing what I guess is kind of expected from our councils. We're splitting as if it's a these two people are against each other. They represent something against each other. And that that is a little alarming for me. And I'm going to steal a term from councilor Avalos in terms of level setting. And I think that's important because. I'm it sounds like in some of the comments in the discussion that we're starting to call into question, mr. Weinstein's bias calculator, and that's not why he's on the list today. He's on the list, as we've said multiple times over and over about the nda. And but the way that some of this discussion is going, it's as if they're pitting those two issues against each other. I just want to be cautious just in terms of that. And as far as I can remember, having been a person who ran for office against bob, he was not endorsed by the ppa. I'm looking to make sure that that's accurate, that's accurate. So he's not endorsed by the ppa. And I that was said and I and I think it was in reference to bob, I just wanted to clarify that. But if we're going to go down this. So only two profiles got given to us out of the 25, right? Councilor Kanal 25 members plus alternates. 2727 thank you. Only two profiles were given to us, and I think that this is a perfectly healthy conversation about the bias. I really do. And for the most part, it stayed there. But I would ask that we the reason I'm not going to support bob's name being included in this report is because I do think there is some room to work on this nda and the standard of the nda, and keeping the cba transparent. I'm not sure why we're getting into a little bit of whether or not he's being assessed for bias as well, and that's making me a bit uncomfortable. If we need to request the same file on all 27 members, by all means, let's rock and roll. I don't think that that's what we want to do, but if if we are taking these two individuals names that whose names have been called out as separate questions, it does leave me to to question what lens we are making these determinations through. I don't have much concern in the staff process that brought us to this. I do understand that this was not an optimal and I agree to a large extent with that. But mr. Weinstein is being is being added to this list by the staff for a specific reason. And it's very different than the reason that the other members were. And so I just I'm hoping my colleagues will separate that out and not apply a biased lens to a person who the staff is not saying they have a concern in that, in that perspective. And I really don't have much comment on the other names that are on this list. I was only moving to separate those questions, so thank you councilor Kanal for that. I agree with separating out the bob question, and I'll continue to to do that, but I hope we can be careful about which lens or what criteria we're applying. Or are we just taking this up as a as a territorial or turf disagreement between two camps here? And I can't quite tell where this discussion is going right now. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Colleagues, I will note we have 15 minutes, 14 minutes left in this hearing. We will almost certainly no, we will certainly not be hearing item nine today. And we will be moving that to tomorrow's afternoon. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that clarity. Councilor Zimmerman, I think I was talking about the process overall for what counts as bias and what does not count as bias and what's wade, because we are also being asked to accept this report as a whole. And I have a lot of questions about how that report is done. I have to respond to councilor Novick because I would say, you know, you made the claim that, well, if you get an endorsement, then that means that and you say that that influences whether or not someone is going to be fighting for the interests of a certain group, then if a convicted murderer votes for you, then surely you must support murderer. I don't think a convicted murderer. Does he have a super pac? Does he have an endorsement process? Does he have sway in political circles where policy is created and passed and impacts thousands of people in the city of Portland? Because if not, then that is a false equivalency about the power that an endorsement holds. And I'll also note that some people seek endorsements and they don't get them, not because they aren't values aligned with that group or their interests, but because maybe they didn't have they weren't perceived to have the juice to actually be a top candidate. So that is also something to consider. But what I am again, saying, and I think what councilor Green has pointed out repeatedly, and what I appreciate about councilor Green, pointing out the more nuanced post, is that we are using a very narrow metric to judge people's political perspectives and their abilities to be biased or non-biased when there is much greater political context, and I think, much more heavy context around the powers that people have and don't have and who supports them, and that absolutely does influence the way that people move through politics. And this is a political question because it is a question about power. It is a question about who gets hurt and who doesn't get hurt, and whose perspectives are prioritized. So I just want to clear that up. That's part of my concern in in this entire process, not just related to mr. Weinstein and not just related to the people that we have here as a whole, but to act like the the things that people ran on, the endorsements that they sought, the endorsements that they have don't influence them, I think is a little naive. And I would like that all of these factors be taken into account more than just a one off social media post. And again, I think that for schuyler, specifically with that post that councilor Greene pointed out that showed the nuance of their perspective, that's really critical. That, to me shows a substance that I, I haven't heard anyone discuss. So thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. Colleagues, we are hearing a lot about each other's beliefs, about each other's values, about the potential beliefs and values of people who may or may not be on this board. If I remember back to a year ago, when we first moved a slate of candidates for this board, there were a broad range of life experiences and beliefs represented with or without the two individuals whose names are before us today. There will be a broad range of perspectives, life experiences and beliefs represented on this board. The alternates, who we will use to replace individuals who have stepped off the board or been removed from the board, represent a broad people with a broad range of life experiences and backgrounds and values. Two changes today are not going to upset the balance of this board, and I want to offer my apologies to the two individuals who we are debating that so much has become about who you are as people, because my guess is I don't know either of you personally, but my guess is that you both signed up to do this out of a care for your neighbors, for your communities, and for our city as a whole. And nobody should be calling into question what your motivations were. At the end of the day. Yes, the buck stops with us and these are our appointments, but we cannot be in the process of reviewing every single potential interest of bias for every single member of this board. We cannot be in the process of wordsmithing what the right level of confidentiality should be. I want to trust our staff to do this work just as neutrally as we want our board members to act. And I'm concerned, frankly, that no matter what happens today, there will be people who do not believe that this process is neutral and believe that there's bias in it at this point, it's not where I want us to be. It is, unfortunately, where we sit. This is a process that needs iterative work and processes that need iterative work, where people's well-being hangs in the livelihood, where people's livelihoods hang in the balance is an ideal. But again, it is where we sit. In an earlier conversation with staff, I had the opportunity to dig a little deeper into the bias pieces here, and I suggested that the search for expressions of bias must, in the future, be significantly broader than it was this time, because I do think that it caught certain things that some people might say were places where some people might speak, and it didn't look in other places where people might speak. We need to make sure that we're applying things evenly. But I also know that we are at our best when we set standards that apply universally and allow the process to play out. We absolutely should evaluate and optimize this process going forward. But today we are digging into the weeds. I want us to consider whether our early direction was right or clear enough. As we look at the next group, we had a committee, in fact, that looked at whether we were giving the right direction and decided not to move changes forward. I don't sit on that committee. I don't know why that decision was made, but we gave direction to staff and we have their recommendations before us. So, colleagues, I am leaning toward moving forward in my votes with our staff direction across the board here, because what we are starting to do is dig into the weeds and make accusations about multiple people, members of the board who are whose names are before us, and members of the board whose names are not before us today and at each other in a way that I don't think is the work that we are supposed to be doing. Thank you, council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Green.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. I've got my eye on the time here. I just want to respond to councilor Zimmerman. You've raised an important question that deserves distinction and clarification of intent here. I think my hesitancy with seating bob at this point has absolutely nothing to do with like suggestion for bias. I'll note that, you know, bob and I are probably a mile apart on politics. I knew bob during the campaign. We had a fairly collegial relationship because I think I think he's an honest operator, I really do. I just I just completely disagree with him on so many things. And that's okay. He does me. Bob has targeted me personally as a private citizen for things he thinks I'm doing that are wrong, which is completely within his right, even if I disagree. I voted for bob in the initial round because I did believe he would be an impartial and unbiased operator on the board. I just have deep reservations with his unwillingness to accept a very specific part of this nondisclosure agreement, which, again, is his right. But then as as an elected leader, I do have to hold the line on the legal interpretation piece of the attorney client privilege. And so there's a world in which he can move past that. I would vote for him to be on it, but that's kind of where I'm at. So I don't think anyone has actually made a suggestion towards bob's intent today. Just to be clear, because I haven't heard that it's been about this legal, this confidential, confidential, confidential. You know what I'm trying to say? That's that's what that's about. And that's all I'm going to say. Thanks.

Thank you, counselor Green councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you. I first want to just clarify councilor Pirtle-guiney I agreed with the majority of what you said, but with relation to the committee, were you referring to the February hearing in which my resolution came up at the committee, committee and public safety committee meeting?

I think there was a resolution that you brought forward, and I believe there was other, more general discussion about this process in the committee that you and councilor Novick co-chair as well.

Steve Novick: Okay. So just to clarify, there was minimal councilor Discussion. What happened that day is we had a lot of public testimony on it. It got towards the end and I felt very uncomfortable, as did some of my colleagues on that committee pushing a vote forward without having time to discuss it or without. And also we would had to have cut off people from testifying. The item was continued to a further agenda and then has not to date been placed on agenda. So it kind of lingers in limbo. But there was some explanation ahead of time and that was pretty much it. So I would I wouldn't characterize it as it's definitely not an action taken by committee, but I wouldn't characterize it as a decision not to act either. It was. And just to be clear what it was, it was a it was a request to have the city attorney start talking about changing with ppa, start talking about changing this to be more clear. And there was a conversation at the committee level as to what that would look like as well. But that's pretty much it there. With relation to the broader sentiment, I think it is fair to put the process into a place of scrutiny. I think that's a fair job. I think that's our job to do. And I'll just say for myself, I understand that everybody has. And this just to kill the metaphor, I guess by belaboring it too strongly, it's okay for a gardener to get into the weeds, right? If you have that expertise, it's okay to get into those weeds. And I've been involved for 1600 plus of those 1900 days in this process. So I am going to get into it. And I think that this is something that it's particularly important because of the fact that that it was so strongly supported. It was a vote of the people. And this council's our predecessors primarily have a pattern of kind of disregarding what they have seen from the voters and saying, I know better, and I don't think that's true. I think we we owe it to the people to give them a process that lives up to the charter. And one of the challenges we're facing right now is that there are challenges between the code that the council adopted and the charter, but with relation to bias. Specifically, I think it's fair to say that the evaluators of bias and the evaluation process of bias has to itself be unbiased. That's a fair question to to try to get an answer to. And it's not about the people, the individuals, it's about the system that we created. And by the way, we didn't create that system. We didn't look at the look, cause that was all on the administrative side. So this is the time to look at that. I know there's only two minutes left. I want to ask if skyler halsey, who's been waiting online, has anything that they would like to say before we pass it back. But I also want to note one procedural note for the council president, which is that if we were to not vote on this today, which is fine, whether we table it, whether we vote no, whatever. Skyler halsey is a member of this this board tonight, and bob weinstein is an alternate of this board tonight when it holds its first meeting. And I'm okay with that. But I want everybody to know it. So I just wanted to ask if if skyler had anything they'd like to say.

Hey, friends, do I have to wait to be recognized or is that you? Go ahead, go ahead. Thank you. I didn't have anything prepared. This kind of came in last minute. And so thank you for council member Kanal and lisa and his team for helping to make that happen. I just want to say that ultimately, as long as this process moves forward, that's where my value structure is. I think that having citizen oversight of our police is increasingly and more apparently necessary. And I just think that anything that is a stumbling block, after four years in this process, even if it's unintentional, is showcasing how the system as it exists works against folks that are trying to make that happen. So anything that stalls this process is, is just maintaining things as they are rather than as was elected five years ago, was voted on five years ago. Thank you so much.

So just.

A point of information. My point in bringing that up earlier is that nothing we do on this, whether we vote yes, vote no, or don't vote on it, can stall it. That board is meeting tonight. We're just deciding who's on it tonight or not. And so I don't think that there's an impact either way that that meeting is not getting postponed.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues, I have one last thing to say. In 2011, 2012, 2013, I served on the predecessor to the predecessor, to the predecessor to the predecessor of this board. I served on the community police relations committee. I have I started my career working in time reduction and gang prevention in a middle school. I care deeply about accountable policing. I care about public safety. I have been doing this work for for not as intensely as many of my colleagues, but for many years. I really care about this procedure, this body, this new system being successful. I have also had the opportunity to work with heidi brown. I've had an opportunity to work with the attorneys from the the Portland police association. I came into this hearing today and last time honestly offended at the suggestion that skyler would be removed. I think that first, I think I firmly believe that reposts do not inherently mean endorsements. I'm a strong believer in the first amendment in this situation. I mean, I guess in most situations that that's not what I'm saying. Sorry, but I also recognize that this entire conversation, the previous one we had, are all now part of a public record that is also in the hands of the ppa. And when we have future arbitration, I worry that this will be used to undermine the process. And I really care about the outcome. Unfortunately, more than than specifically mister halsey's inclusion on it. So I want to make sure that this is successful. So my opinions have changed largely since we walked in here, and I am eager to move to a vote so that we can set this board up for success for tonight. Councilor Kanal last word.

Sameer Kanal: I just want to ask.

Does that mean that if, hypothetically, I'm not going to do this, I chose to to assert and spend a lot of time asserting and putting into the public record that some other member of this body was biased, that the very fact that we have this discussion has makes it more or less likely that we're going to remove someone, because that seems like an incredibly unfair standard, that if we're going to have the conversation impact our votes, that any one of us could just say, hey, this person and not picking on anyone in particular, I'm not even going to use the name as a hypothetical is is biased or is unsuited. Or if I just come up with something random that's never been brought up. So I just want to raise that as a concern here, that that can't be the only standard that that determines it. I just I had to float it. I'm apologize.

That's a fair point.

Colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue, I would like to move to the divided question that we have now.

Make sure we really clarify so we all know. Exactly what we're voting on.

The first item that I'm going to ask colleagues to vote on is the. With regard to skyler halsey, if a if you vote yes on this vote, that is to remove mister halsey from the board. A no vote is to keep him on the board, am I correct? Is that okay? I'm looking for everybody because I want a baby step this great. Can we please call the roll on the first part?

No.

Smith.

No.

Kanal.

No.

Pirtle-guiney.

Yes.

Ryan.

Yes.

Koyama Lane.

No.

Morillo.

No.

Novick I.

Mark I Green.

No.

Zimmerman.

Yes.

Dunphy.

No.

So the motion to divide. Has failed.

Yes.

Which means.

Divided portion has divided.

The divided portion has failed.

Right.

The motion to divide has failed.

That that already.

Has.

The divided portion, which would remove mr. Hall, mr. Halsey from. I'm going to script the acronym from the group fails.

So the member remains.

On the.

This is very confusing. Thank you all for your patience and helping us work through this.

Point of information. So in other words, mr. Halsey is remains on the board as a result of this vote.

Yes yes yes staff's recommendation. Okay.

Can we please call the roll on the question of mr. Weinstein?

Avalos.

Yeah, just again, a yes vote is to remove a to follow the staff recommendation as written in here and include him and removal. A no vote is to not to keep him on the board as an alternate. Okay.

Yes.

Smith.

A no vote is to keep it.

Yes. Correct.

Keep the names on the list.

No, a.

No vote is sorry.

A no vote will keep mr. Weinstein as an alternate on the board.

Yes. No.

Okay.

Kanal.

No.

Pirtle-guiney.

Yes.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane.

Yes.

Aye, Morillo.

Yes.

Novick.

Yes.

Clark.

No.

Green.

Yes.

Zimmerman.

No.

Dunphy.

Yes.

The division is approved, which means the member is removed from the board.

Can we please call the roll on the remainder of the report?

Avalos.

Oh, and again, a yes is to accept the report. No is to not accept the report.

It's the rest of the rest of the rest.

Of the report. So this is just the resignations.

Yes.

Yeah. All that stuff.

This is approving the rest.

Of the report. Either of these two people we just talked about.

Thank you.

Okay.

So then yes.

Yes. Smith.

Yes.

Kanal.

Yes.

Pirtle-guiney. Yes. Ryan.

Point of clarification. Sorry, that was rushed for me. So if the vote here is about the totality.

It's whatever.

We did the two that we just voted on.

The other part.

It's the it's everything that we haven't voted on so far. We're basically voting on a report.

Because we divided them in three. Got it. But suddenly I thought this was a big enchilada okay, I.

Koyama Lane I.

Morillo I.

Novick I.

Clark a.

Green. I Zimmerman. I Dunphy. I the report is accepted with 12 yes votes.

Colleagues we are going to carry item nine over to tomorrow Thursday afternoons council hearing. And with that I recess the city council session. Thank.