Portland police review subcommittee debates scope, eligibility and process for new civilian oversight ordinance; approves annual report

The Portland Police Citizen Review Subcommittee on a two-hour meeting approved its annual report and spent the bulk of the session advising how the City Council should handle an ordinance to implement the charter amendment creating a Civilian Police Review Board.

The subcommittee unanimously approved the annual report (motion moved by Javier) and then focused on six topic areas committee members said should guide their letter to the council: eligibility criteria for board members, the board’s scope, how the board would receive complaints, the appeals process, staff and technical resources, and budget/funding.

The committee chair, Joey Bridal, vice chair, opened the item by describing the meeting as a “special agenda” and asked members to weigh in on the six buckets compiled from members’ prior comments. Bridal said the goal was to “get a sense of what the committee would like to write a letter about” and have a draft returned by a smaller writing team after the discussion.

Why it matters: The city’s charter amendment requires the council to adopt an ordinance spelling out details the charter leaves open; subcommittee members said their guidance could influence whether the ordinance is refined in public workshops, referred to a council committee for deeper review, or sent directly to full council for a vote. The council has scheduled a public workshop on the draft ordinance for July 28.

Scope and authority. Members agreed the ordinance should preserve the board’s ability to examine due-process issues “including but not limited to thoroughness, fairness, objectivity and timeliness,” and several members asked that the ordinance retain enough flexibility for the board itself to decide additional due-process topics to investigate. Rachel Millett, staff member, said the charter’s “due process” phrasing is broad and the ordinance’s “including but not limited to” language gives the board room to add topics within that boundary.

Eligibility and conflicts. A major point of debate was eligibility language in the draft ordinance that sets look-back periods for people with certain ties to the department (for example, prior employees, people who filed complaints, relatives of officers). Committee members noted the draft has changed during the public process (different versions showed 1-, 5- and 10-year limits for various categories). Several members, including Keith and Randall, urged caution about excluding people for long periods; others said some limits reflect bargaining outcomes and the sensitivity of the materials the board would review. Members agreed to ask the council to clarify the different look-back periods and to request that the ordinance favor recusal for direct conflicts rather than broad exclusions when possible.

Complaint intake and investigations. The charter allows the new board to receive complaints directly from the public. Members sought clarity on whether the board or staff would conduct interviews and how that intake would interact with Internal Affairs (IA) procedures. Millett said the charter anticipates the board may be the initial receiver of complaints but that IA generally performs investigations; any intake by the board would need minimum procedural safeguards so the rights of officers and the integrity of potential criminal proceedings are protected. Several members said they want an intake process that is more approachable for complainants but does not inadvertently interfere with IA or legal obligations.

Appeals process and "big red button" concerns. Members discussed the charter’s requirement for an appeals review that the ordinance describes as a de novo review of due-process issues by an appeals body. The group acknowledged confusion about who qualifies as an “aggrieved party,” what the appeals body may do (the ordinance limits subpoena power and any binding authority), and whether the appeals route provides an escalation path when IA reviews are judged insufficient. Several members said the appeals language in the ordinance is legally and practically unclear and recommended the council or city legal staff clarify the mechanism.

Staffing, technical adviser and budget. The draft ordinance authorizes up to three supporting positions (a police liaison, a community liaison and a technical adviser). Committee members agreed to ask the council to clarify whether those liaisons will be existing staff or new hires, and noted the technical adviser is required to be independent of the police department. Members also agreed the board will likely need a funding request process through the city manager’s annual budget cycle and that the subcommittee should be able to make budget requests when it identifies staffing or training needs.

Process recommendation and timeline. Committee members asked that their letter recommend the council send the ordinance to a council committee for deeper review rather than attempting to finalize it in a single two-hour workshop. The subcommittee set an internal drafting timeline: a draft by July 2 (to be posted July 3), final deliberation at the subcommittee’s July 9 meeting, and a goal to send the letter to the council no later than about a week before the council’s July 28 workshop. Rachel Millett, staff member, confirmed the city’s budget process would be the mechanism for any funding requests and that legal and procedural questions may require further public committee work.

Votes at a glance: The subcommittee recorded two formal actions during the meeting. The annual report was approved (motion moved by Javier; unanimous). The meeting adjournment motion passed 6-0 (seconded by Tracy).

What’s next: Committee members asked staff to produce a draft letter reflecting items they supported and to post the draft for public review in advance of the July 9 subcommittee meeting. The group also requested links to prior city council workshop recordings and the staff memo on the ordinance for background.

The subcommittee adjourned after setting the drafting timeline and a recommendation that the City Council consider sending the draft ordinance to a committee for more detailed review.