Portland, OR – The second-ever meeting of Portland’s newly formed Community and Public Safety Committee ended in frustration and confusion after a technical issue disrupted proceedings, leaving no time for a meaningful discussion on a proposed change to the city’s police oversight system.
Councilor Sameer Kanal introduced the proposal, which sought to expand the definition of “bias” used in selecting members for Portland’s new police oversight board. The proposed changes would redefine what constitutes bias, ensuring that individuals are not disqualified from serving on the board simply for expressing political opinions or past experiences with law enforcement. Kanal also suggested adding a fifth community member to the nominating committee and revising the process for selecting committee members.
However, the committee’s meeting took an unexpected turn when broadcasting issues led to a truncated public comment period. Originally slated for a full discussion, the meeting ended abruptly, leaving many of the over 30 people who had signed up to speak frustrated. Due to the technical difficulties, public comments were limited to about a minute and a half per person, and fewer than half of the attendees were able to voice their opinions.
Councilors Kanal and Steve Novick, who co-chaired the meeting, explained that they faced a strict 4:45 p.m. deadline to conclude the session, preventing any flexibility to extend the hearing past the designated time. Novick cited the broadcasting issues as the primary reason for the shortened public comment period, adding that they had no choice but to adhere to the schedule.
The lack of time for public testimony caused tensions to rise, with several attendees expressing their displeasure by speaking over councilors or calling out the committee for not anticipating a larger turnout. One such outburst prompted a councilor’s staffer to intervene, asking the crowd to calm down. Councilor Loretta Smith voiced particular frustration with the handling of the meeting, suggesting that the committee should have known that the police oversight proposal would generate significant public interest.
“Putting something on the agenda to make a point when you actually know and expect to have a huge number of people here testifying, it’s disingenuous to say that you didn’t know this would be this popular,” Smith said.
As a result of the time constraints, the committee did not vote on Kanal’s proposal, and a spokesperson for the councilor confirmed that it was unclear when the issue would be rescheduled for further discussion. Kanal himself expressed discomfort with the way the meeting had unfolded, emphasizing that he was “deeply uncomfortable” with the idea of cutting people off from providing testimony. He encouraged those who were unable to speak to participate in the next hearing on the topic.
The proposal itself centers on revising the definition of “bias” in the context of selecting members for the police oversight board, which is set to become a citizen-led body with the authority to investigate police misconduct. Under current rules, individuals with a “demonstrated bias for or against law enforcement” are prohibited from serving on the board, a provision that Kanal argued was too vague and could be unfairly applied. He expressed concern that the language could be used to disqualify people who have been affected by systemic racism or have had past interactions with police due to issues such as mental illness or substance abuse.
Critics of Kanal’s proposal, including Councilor Eric Zimmerman, argued that the changes would only complicate the process further, adding additional ambiguity to the criteria for selection. Zimmerman, who opposed the idea, claimed that the original language was clear and fair, while the proposed amendments risked introducing more bias into the process.
Police union representatives, including Portland police’s rank-and-file union leader Aaron Schmautz, also expressed strong opposition. Schmautz criticized the proposal, claiming that the new language would allow individuals with questionable past statements to still be considered for the oversight board if they asserted that their “state of mind” was impartial. He argued that such a subjective measure would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate.
Despite the heated debate, some supporters of Kanal’s proposal remained hopeful. Attorney Ashlee Albies, one of the few individuals who was able to testify, argued that the changes were necessary to ensure accountability for police officers without unfairly punishing them. “There is a difference between holding officers accountable and punishing them,” Albies said. “We are not seeking to punish officers. We are seeking to hold them accountable, and that supports public safety for everybody.”
While the meeting ended without a resolution, it highlighted the ongoing tension between the city’s efforts to reform police oversight and the pushback from both law enforcement and certain political factions. As the debate over who should have the power to oversee police conduct continues, Portland’s Community and Public Safety Committee will likely face more difficult conversations ahead. The public will undoubtedly have another chance to weigh in when the proposal is brought back for further discussion.
