Portland board warns council proposal could pressure police‑accountability office funding; budget director explains mechanics

The Community Board for Police Accountability spent much of its July 16 meeting focused on two supplemental budget ordinances before Portland City Council and on whether those ordinances—one identified in the meeting as 2026‑223—could effectively constrain the board’s budget.

Ellie Murray, a registered nurse from District 4, opened public comment urging City Council to reject what she described as an effort to “shift funds from the OCPA to the Portland Police Bureau.” “Any ordinance that would divert funds from this vital accountability structure should be roundly rejected,” she said, citing voter passage of Ballot Measure 26‑217 and saying oversight must be preserved.

Councilor Sameer Kanal told the board he was speaking in an advisory capacity and flagged a constitutional and charter concern: naming the OCPA as a likely source of underspending could signal to the board and to staff that they should not spend their full allocation. Kanal described 2026‑223 as a proposal that identifies a repayment/refill mechanism that would rely on anticipated underspending and cautioned that directing underspending from a particular office could impede the board’s independent judgment required by charter.

Spencer Knowles, chief of staff to Councilor Steve Novick, told the board the supplemental ordinance as drafted does not immediately reduce OCPA appropriations and is not a loan from Portland Parks. He said the ordinance is intended to draw from general‑fund contingency now and, if necessary, refill contingency later through city‑wide underspending or other identified sources; he added that the OCPA would retain the charter‑required 5% allocation of the police operating budget.

Ruth Levine, director of the City Budget Office, answered an extended round of questions from board members about mechanics and risk. Levine cautioned against calling the approach a conventional “repayment” and explained that the ordinance contemplates drawing down roughly $10 million of general‑fund contingency in order to avert service reductions this fiscal year and then refilling contingency by April through underspending elsewhere or identified interest sources. “That is doable,” she said, but added the approach is unusual and reduces the city’s contingency cushion.

Board members pressed on practical and legal implications. Several—Madeline Carroll, Atticus, Tim O’Donnell and others—said they feared the ordinance could create pressure on a new OCPA director and on the board to underspend in order to avoid budget shortfalls, and argued it risked setting a precedent for singling out the oversight office. Others, including Justice, urged the board to avoid escalating a political fight with council and framed the proposal primarily as a normal fiscal forecasting exercise.

The board debated whether to send a formal statement to City Council. A motion from Tim Pitts asking the board to oppose any effort to impede its independence was discussed at length; members could not agree on wording. Some members warned that declaring the board would ‘‘fully utilize’’ the budget could be used politically to justify future reductions; others said silence risked ceding the public narrative. The motion was ultimately withdrawn and no unified statement was sent.

Procedurally, the meeting included a failed motion to amend the agenda to add a second public‑comment window and a passed motion to approve the agenda. With discussion unresolved and time running out, members voted to continue the meeting to 8:15 p.m.

The board did not take a formal vote on either supplemental ordinance. Board members were repeatedly advised that, as written, the ordinances would not immediately cut OCPA’s current appropriations but could affect the city’s contingency and create political pressure in the months ahead. Several board members said they may provide individual testimony to City Council in upcoming hearings on the ordinances.

Next steps: City Council was scheduled to discuss the ordinances in its upcoming meetings; the CBPA plans to continue its internal discussion and, individually or in subgroups, some members said they intend to provide testimony at council hearings.