Portland council debates final picks, representation and process for Police Accountability Community Board

Portland City Council spent a June 17 work session narrowing candidates for the new Community Board for Police Accountability, the volunteer body created by a 2020 charter change that will oversee investigations and discipline and that must be implemented consistent with an existing U.S. Department of Justice settlement.

The council examined the nominating committee—s process and results, reviewed application counts and scoring thresholds, and debated how to balance representation by district, lived experience and prior public roles while protecting applicants— confidentiality. No formal appointments were made; council members directed staff and the council president to prepare a proposed slate for public posting and a vote at the next council meeting.

The matter matters because the new board will be the governing body that hires a director and sets policy for the Office of Community Based Police Accountability, the city bureau that will carry out investigations and staff work the board requests. The board and office were created after Portland voters approved a charter amendment (ballot measure 26-217) on Nov. 3, 2020, and the timeline for implementation is tied to terms of a DOJ settlement agreement cited in the implementation materials.

Council staff described the vetting steps that produced the pool councilors reviewed. Kristen Thorpe, the onboarding and administrator coordinator supporting the new office, said the application period ran from Feb. 28 to April 14, 2025, and that 121 applications were submitted. "A 121 applications were submitted. 3 did not meet eligibility requirements, so the nominating committee scored a 118 applications," Thorpe said. She told the council that the nominating committee anonymized personal data before scoring, referred applicants who scored 60% or higher to the council, and advanced any applicant who received a majority (six or more) of nominating-committee "yes" votes.

Timor Ender, the District 1 representative on the nominating committee, said the committee aimed to "create a system that would instill trust" and that members looked for a range of lenses, including mental health, public health and labor experience. "Our group of 10 nominating committee members brought a wide range of perspectives and backgrounds to the process and engaged in thoughtful, collaborative discussion around each applicant," Ender said.

Councilors asked for details about how the committee scored applications and how votes shown on the council—s summary sheet related to the earlier anonymous scoring. Staff explained that the nominating committee used four essay questions worth five points each (each weighted 25%), averaged scores across committee members, and discussed any applicants near the 60% cutoff to see if exceptions were warranted. Thorpe told the council only two applications failed a subsequent conflict-of-interest check, leaving 40 applicants for the council to review.

Several councilors raised concerns about representation and possible politicization. Multiple councilors said they were reluctant to advance applicants who had obvious, recent public campaigning or a very public advocacy record in favor of or against the police, arguing that highly public political activity could undercut the board—s perceived neutrality. Councilor Dunphy said she was "concerned about this body becoming politicized" and objected to advancing recent candidates for elected office to the inaugural board. Other councilors opposed a categorical exclusion, saying prior candidacy or public positions did not automatically prevent an applicant from meeting the board—s duties.

A separate point of contention was the nominating committee—s roll-call "yes/no" votes, which councilors reviewed on a green-and-pink tally sheet supplied by council operations. Several councilors said they were uncomfortable advancing applicants who had received multiple "no" votes from committee members; one councilor noted four "no" votes stood out. Staff pointed out that the candidates now before council had already received at least six "yes" votes from the 10-member nominating committee (a majority), and that many other applicants had been eliminated earlier by the committee and did not reach the council.

Heidi Brown, chief deputy city attorney, described how the board and the office will relate once appointed: "The charter calls for there to be a board, and they are the decision makers or governing body, as far as investigations and discipline. But it also calls for the board to hire a director who will be a city employee, and that director then hires staff, investigators and administrative staff, who perform the investigatory work," Brown said.

Councilors also discussed procedural and confidentiality questions. Several asked staff to confirm which applicants had checked a confidentiality box on their city application; Council President asked staff to follow up with the Bureau of Human Resources to provide a breakdown. Thorpe had explained that applications were assigned numbers and personal information was redacted before the nominating committee saw them to reduce bias.

On next steps, Council President (title used in this meeting record) said she would draft a proposed package of nominees based on the discussion and the materials councilors flagged and would try to file it with the clerk—s office before the end of the day so it would be publicly available for review in advance of the evening council meeting the next day. She also asked councilors to be prepared to decide how to name six alternates and how to allocate one-, two- and three-year initial terms; she suggested several possible methods, including using levels of support, representative balance, or a random selection process to set initial term lengths.

Councilors emphasized they wanted a balanced board with a range of lived experiences (the charter calls for representation that includes people who have experienced systemic racism and those who have experienced mental illness, addiction or alcoholism). Several councilors asked that the final package pay attention to district representation: at least one councilor noted the preliminary top-15 list contained eight nominees from one council district and far fewer from others.

No formal appointments or votes occurred during the work session. The council—s directions to staff and the council president were procedural: verify confidentiality-check responses from BHR, post a proposed slate for public review if possible, and present the proposed slate, along with alternates and term assignments, for action at the evening council meeting.

Councilors closed the session by thanking nominating-committee volunteers and applicants. The council president said she would attempt to file the proposed list before the clerks left for the day so the public would have time to review it before the council took up confirmations the next day.