This page is maintained by staff following the conclusion of the PAC on August 31 and its presentation to City Council on September 21.
Community members and media seeking a summary of the PAC's work can read the Summary of Recommendations. Readers seeking more information can read the full recommendations.
Who will be able to serve on the Community Board for Police Accountability?
In order to be eligible for service on the Board, one must live, work, play, attend school, or worship within the city of Portland for at least one year. The Board will ensure diversity of its members and will include members who have experienced mental illness, addiction, or alcoholism, as well as members who have experienced systemic racism, and those with subject matter expertise. As mandated by the City Charter, individuals who are currently or formerly employed by a law enforcement agency are ineligible, as well as immediate family members of those currently employed by a law enforcement agency. The goal of the membership structure for the Board is to be broadly representative of Portlanders, including their backgrounds and lived experiences, viewpoints and perspectives, and other factors such as geographic distribution and professional backgrounds.
Why can police officers not be members of the new Oversight Board?
The Police Accountability Commission was obligated to put together a proposal for a new accountability system that complied with Charter 2-10. This is because the PAC's recommendations must go to City Council, and City Council cannot overrule charter text approved by the voters.
Charter 2-1003 reads, "People currently employed by a law enforcement agency and their immediate family members are not eligible for service on the Board. People who were formerly employed by a law enforcement agency are not eligible for service on the Board."
The PAC did not discuss potential changes to Charter text, as that was outside of the scope of its work. Instead, it proposed recommendations that complied with the Charter text, while building in places for police officers to advise, assist, and be represented within the process.
How will the new oversight board ensure it is fair, impartial, and legitimate?
Due to the sensitive nature of the work, candidates for the Board will be required to undergo a criminal background check to ensure that they may access the information necessary to serve on the Board. Following the background check, candidates’ names may be referred to City Council who will be the appointing authority for all Board members. Council will also have the authority to remove Board members for cause, which includes a breach of confidentiality, misconduct, or other reasons that would affect the eligibility of the member. In order to further remove the potential for bias, OCPA staff will be required to complete anti-bias training as well as training on PPB policies and procedures.
The PAC’s recommendations include several areas in which they protect the impartiality of the complaint process. Starting at intake, officers will be allowed the same number of support persons as the complainant, and will have the same opportunities to be heard during the hearings process. If the staff conducting intake has any bias or conflict of interests regarding the complaint or allegations, they shall disclose that bias and the Director will assign another staff member to the complaint. Additionally, if a complainant perceives any form of bias from the intake staff, they may request a different person to complete the intake process.
For less severe complaints, the case may be resolved through an informal complaint which will include a discussion with the involved officer’s supervisor in order to get both perspectives on the issue at hand and to come to an understanding between the officer and community member.
A core aspect of the ballot measure was that police don’t decide if police committed misconduct. However, police don’t have to be the decision-makers to be involved in the process. The PAC’s recommendations include that a person from the upper management of PPB’s Training Division shall attend all hearings to answer questions about policy, training, or procedures. This allows the panel to be fully informed on PPB policy and training and may provide insight into the alleged incident.
When the Board recommends a policy change to the PPB Chief, the Chief may reject that change and explain to the Board what their reasoning is. The recommendation may then be sent to City Council to determine the next course of action after hearing from both the Board and PPB. The Board will also have the ability to attend training for PPB officers in order to gain a better understanding of the policies and procedures in place.
While the PAC recommends that the Board not seek guidance from or train with PPB, there is an exception if it is “necessary to perform their duties,” meaning that where necessary Board members will learn from and with PPB.
Why is the new system's budget proportional to 5% of the police budget?
The Police Accountability Commission was obligated to put together a proposal for a new accountability system that complied with Charter 2-10. This is because the PAC's recommendations must go to City Council, and City Council cannot overrule Charter text approved by the voters.
Charter 2-1004 reads, "Funding for the Board shall be proportional to be no less than 5 percent of the Police Bureau’s Annual Operational Budget." It is important to note that this does not remove money from the PPB budget. Instead, it states that for every dollar in the PPB budget, an additional five cents will go to the Board.
The PAC did not discuss potential changes to Charter text, as that was outside of the scope of its work. Instead, it proposed recommendations that complied with the Charter text, while noting that the new oversight board will need to submit a budget request and be subject to all City budget, procurement, expenditure, and accounting rules, the same as every other part of the City government.
What oversight exists for the oversight budget?
Most bureaus have community members advise on budget, and then staff develop the budget proposal. This is already built in as the Board is 33 community members, and they advise the Director who will actually submit the budget proposal. In addition, the PAC’s recommendations include a provision enabling a Budget Advisory Committee specific to the oversight system.
Why do the PAC’s recommendation end Independent Police Review?
As stated in the Settlement Agreement between the US Department of Justice and the City of Portland, the new Oversight Board will “replace IPR for investigations of certain complaints of police misconduct.” After Portland voters overwhelmingly approved the creation of a new community-led Oversight Board, it was agreed that IPR would cease to function once that Board was fully implemented. For more information on how the PAC recommended that this transition occur, see the Transition Plan document at https://www.portland.gov/police-accountability/pac-transition-plan.
What impact, if any, do the PAC’s recommendations have on the Portland Police Bureau’s Internal Affairs division or the Police Review Board?
The PAC is not directly recommending changes to either IA or PRB. However, the new Oversight System will handle all cases and complaints involving community members, so the workload of IA and the PRB will be affected. Incidents only involving other officers, such as human resources rule violations or workplace violations that do not affect community members, will still be handled internally by PPB, including through the IA and PRB processes.
How will the Director be selected? Will the public be involved in this process?
The PAC agreed that public vetting and transparency of the position of Director is essential for trust and legitimacy. It is the ballot measure / Charter 2-10 which rests hiring authority for the Director with the Board. The hiring process developed by the PAC within the Charter parameters includes several steps, including a public meeting in which the Director is hired for the public to weigh in. In addition, the draft City Code includes a hiring committee for screening, which can have both Board and other community members on it. The text is enabling language allowing for more public involvement in the hiring process.
What is the investigation process? How will it proceed, who will be involved, etc.?
Under the PAC’s proposal, investigations are handled by the Office of Community-based Police Accountability (OCPA), including paid investigative staff. Investigations will generally consist of five steps: intake, investigation, findings, appeals, and discipline/corrective action.
At intake, allegations will be determined and if the case proceeds to a full investigation, professional investigative staff will determine the course of the investigation.
The final investigative findings will be presented to a panel of the Board, made up of five to seven members, and that panel will hear the case and determine whether the involved officer acted within or outside of policy.
At that point, if the officer is found to have violated policy, the panel will use the agreed upon disciplinary guides to determine the appropriate disciplinary or corrective action. Only those serving on the panel will have access to case materials and records, not the full Board.
Following the hearing, if either party disagrees with the findings they will have the chance to appeal.
In summary, professional staff will handle the investigation, while the community members on the panel will hear the case and determine the findings with the input of the investigators and PPB’s Training Division.
Much of the detail is in section 35D.010 through 35D.240 of the Draft Code, available at https://www.portland.gov/police-accountability/documents/pac-city-code-recommendations-08-31-2023-0/download
What types of cases will the CBPA/OCPA investigate?
As per the Charter, the new Oversight System will investigate “all deaths in custody and uses of deadly force; all complaints of force that result in injury, discrimination against a protected class, violations of federal or state constitutional rights.” The Board will also investigate allegations of dishonesty/untruthfulness including perjury; false reports and concealing evidence; sexual assaults, sexual misconduct, or sexual harassment; domestic violence; unlawful search or arrest; neglect of duty; discourtesy; improper discharge of a firearm; criminal conduct; improper or illegal act, omission or decision that directly affects a person or property; violation of orders which affect a community member; harassment; intimidation; retaliation; force used at protests; abuse of authority; failure to identify; theft of money; corruption; allegations of affiliation with white supremacist groups; cases of substantial public interest; cases where data show a pattern of inappropriate policies. In addition, the Board may also investigate allegations of misconduct which directly affect the public, and other cases which do not originate from a complaint.
In summary, the CBPA/OCPA will investigate any allegation of misconduct which affects a community member, as well as complaints where the complainant requests CBPA/OCPA review.
How is this different than what currently exists?
There are currently several entities that deal with law enforcement oversight in the City of Portland, including the Independent Police Review, Internal Affairs, the Citizen Review Committee, and the Police Review Board. Currently, complaint investigations may go through any or all of these entities, depending on the type of complaint and what point of the process it is in. It can be confusing for community members and even those working within these systems.
The new proposed system would have four main differences:
- Complaint navigator provided to complainant from the very beginning – currently complainants are not provided similar support until the investigation is complete and the case enters the appeals process.
- One entity reviews each case – no more transferring between organizations.
- The new Oversight System will investigate uses of deadly force and in-custody deaths – currently these are not independently investigated by IPR.
- Community members will make the decision on the findings of the case – currently IPR can make recommendations but are not the final decision makers.
Where in the new City organizational chart, taking effect as part of the government transition on January 1, 2025, will the new CBPA/OCPA be located?
As of the most recent transition plan (Resolution 37635, approved with amendments on November 1, 2023), the City will "establish the Community Board for Police Accountability and the Office of Community-based Police Accountability (Oversight System) as a stand-alone entity in the [Public] Safety service area, reporting directly to the deputy city administrator for [Public] Safety."