WEBVTT

00:00:02.000 --> 00:00:09.000
Thanks for that, Russell. Uh, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Independent Court Appointed Monitors Town Hall.

00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:18.000
I'm Mark Smith, I'm the lead monitor, and we'll do a little bit more introduction in just a couple of moments, but I really want to start particularly by thanking.

00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Vancouver Avenue First Baptist Church, and especially Pastor Matt Hennessy.

00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:35.000
Yes. Well, well worth the applause. you know, I've had an opportunity to mention this to Pastor H in a couple different settings and different meetings we've been in, but there's no one more hospitable.

00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:40.000
in my experience, Pastor H has been in various settings, including this one.

00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:46.000
welcoming us to the church and getting us set up, and I just really want to let you know we're grateful for it, so thank you.

00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:50.000
I want to thank, as well, Ms. Yvette Penson from Sweet Temptations Catering.

00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:11.000
Um, for those of you in the room, everyone on Zoom, I'm sorry, you'll have to trust me on this, but we have really good food tonight. We're a little bit blessed and have a bit of riches, so… For those of you in the room, I will continue encouraging you to please partake of the great food we have here. And thanks to all of you, all of you who are here in the church with us today, and also online with us.

00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:15.000
Um, this event, the real meaning of it, the purpose of it.

00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:23.000
is so that we can genuinely listen to you, hear your perspectives, receive your feedback, and really have that informed.

00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:32.000
The job that we are here to do of monitoring compliance with this settlement agreement, so I appreciate everyone for taking the time to be here, and as it's often said.

00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:41.000
taking time out for a weekday meeting or an evening meeting, it's not easy, everyone has busy schedules. It means a lot to us, and so thank you for making the effort to be here.

00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:53.000
Along the lines of listening to you, we have tried to make a few modifications from our previous town hall, which was roughly 6 months ago. We listened to feedback and surveys that we received about that downfall.

00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:01.000
It's challenging, I think, to strike a perfect balance between sharing some detailed context for, uh.

00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:06.000
those who might be less familiar with the settlement agreement and our monitorship of it.

00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:11.000
presenting the relevant findings from our report, which is over 100 pages.

00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:22.000
And also making a lot of space in real time for your questions and answer, uh, for Q&A, and for your comments and any other feedback. So, uh, difficult to strike that perfect balance, and though.

00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:25.000
We might not get to perfection. We tried to slim down.

00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:34.000
Our presentation tonight, and expand the interactive portion of the evening, leave a little more time for question and answer than we did last time.

00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:39.000
Uh, the discussion of our findings, our draft findings at this point.

00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:46.000
Regarding the city's compliance with the settlement agreement over the 6-month period that you see up on the screen there.

00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:52.000
So, it's gonna be a little bit less detailed and a little less specific than what we did last time around.

00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:56.000
Um, part of that is so we can save time for more questions.

00:02:56.000 --> 00:03:08.000
As we do so, we of course welcome you to dive into any part of what we discussed today, or if you've looked at our report and have questions about it, that's the point. So if I'm a little bit more summarized, if my teammates are a little summarized.

00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:19.000
in our presentation today. Please don't hesitate to ask us questions that you want us to go into. We'll do our best to provide you with complete answers, again, to the best of our ability.

00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:24.000
I do want to mention just a little bit of housekeeping. The meeting is being recorded. We do plan to.

00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:32.000
make it available on our website in the near future. For those of you who are joining us on Zoom, closed captions should be.

00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:34.000
activated for you if you'd like to use them.

00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:40.000
And with that, I think we are ready to get started.

00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:57.000
Uh, so brief agenda for the night. Um, we will do a short, short version, an overview of the settlement agreement. I want to make sure if those, uh, if there are people either online or in the room, who just don't have so much familiarity with it, but would like to know about it and its origins, I'll briefly go through that.

00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:04.000
Um, do a quick introduction of our team. Some of you have… we have met before many times, which I'm very grateful to meet you again, and a couple of you.

00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:10.000
are new faces to us. Some of you I didn't have a chance to meet, which I hope I will by the end of the evening.

00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:17.000
Um, we will discuss our current draft semi-annual compliance report, and what our findings were.

00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:25.000
Um, and then we'll probably take a quick 10-minute break, and then have our question and answer period and a listening session, which will be the bulk of the evening.

00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:37.000
Um, when we get to the Q&A session, so after our break, um, we will try to alternate between people here in the room physically with us and those on Zoom who have a question.

00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:43.000
If you are here remotely on Zoom, I ask you to please, when we get to the Q&A session.

00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:49.000
Raise your hand virtually, and we will unmute you in sequential order as we take the questions.

00:04:49.000 --> 00:05:04.000
Although you can send us a chat if you feel so inclined, I want to be clear, we will not be responding to questions posed in the chat tonight. We really want to focus on those who raised their hands, both here in the room and on Zoom.

00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:16.000
Um, if you do want to submit a question in writing, however, you're absolutely welcome to do so. I ask that you do so via our email, and I'll mention it now. We'll have it up on the screen later as well. It's info at.

00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:26.000
Portland PoliceMonitor.com info at pointless monitor dot com. I promise you we will get your reply as soon as we can.

00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:44.000
Um, if you do have a message you need to send to us about the meeting, please send it to host Dr. Robert Fernango. He will monitor the chat in case there's any concerns or questions that we need to know about. So, again, the chat is open. We won't be taking questions through the chat. Just raise your hand if you're.

00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:55.000
Virtually, if you're in the Zoom room, or raise your hand here in the room once we get to the Q&A portion, so thank you for that understanding.

00:05:55.000 --> 00:06:15.000
Uh, if we move to the next slide, Shane… Uh, so as I mentioned before, in case some people are a little bit less familiar with the settlement agreement, here is a very, very summarized and brief history. It has been around for quite some time. Uh, it really was initiated from a DOJ, United States Department of Justice investigation.

00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:20.000
Uh, that started back in 2011. It focused on.

00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:32.000
Um, PPBs, uh, use of force against individuals with actual perceived mental illness and concerns with those uses of force. It resulted in a lawsuit being filed against the City of Portland by the United States Department of Justice.

00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:39.000
As that lawsuit continued on in 2014, the parties, that being the City of Portland and the.

00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:48.000
Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement that was approved by the court. The settlement agreement sets out a number of reforms that the city was required to implement.

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:53.000
Before the agreement would be terminated and the case would be wrapped up accordingly.

00:06:53.000 --> 00:07:00.000
Uh, so since that time, the Bureau and the City have been working toward complying with the entirety of the settlement agreement.

00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:08.000
Uh, fast forward to January of 2024. Many of the provisions, close to half of them, roughly, were terminated.

00:07:08.000 --> 00:07:18.000
As a result of the city's sustained compliance with them, they had succeeded in complying with a number of the requirements, and so they disappeared from the agreement.

00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:34.000
Others, about 15 of them, I believe, transitioned at that time to self-monitoring status. We're going to talk a little bit more about what that means later in the presentation, but basically, it's described as the name. The city monitors its own compliance to ensure that it is maintaining.

00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:40.000
The reforms. Um, and then in May 2024, uh, the parties.

00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:45.000
got together and agreed that they wanted an independent monitor to begin.

00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:49.000
conducting assessments, which has not been the case before. The Department of Justice had done some.

00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:54.000
compliance reports. Uh, as many of you know, a group called the COGL.

00:07:54.000 --> 00:08:03.000
or compliance officer or community liaison had done some compliance reports, but, uh, last year, um, it was decided that an independent monitor will be brought in.

00:08:03.000 --> 00:08:11.000
Uh, that's our group. We were approved by the court and began our term effective July 1st of 2024.

00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:16.000
Um, to begin doing compliance assessments with, uh, with the settlement agreement.

00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:30.000
Okay. I mentioned we'll do some just brief introductions, uh, so our team, so you know who we are, particularly we haven't had a chance to meet you. I'm going to ask Russell Bloom to start us off with introductions, please.

00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:35.000
Thank you, Mark. Happy to be here with you all tonight.

00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:43.000
I do have to read my own bio, because I forget. But I am Russell Bloom, and I'm the Deputy monitor on this team.

00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:49.000
I have a work history that involves primarily civilian oversight of law enforcement.

00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:54.000
Most recently, I retired from my role as the Independent Police Auditor.

00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:03.000
overseeing the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department. That oversight structure was set up as part of the district's response.

00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:09.000
to the shooting of Oscar Grant on a station platform on New Year's Day in 2009.

00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:19.000
I came to that agency as an investigator in 2014, after working as an in-house investigator in Oakland, California civil litigation firm.

00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:26.000
And I have more recently provided law enforcement oversight consulting services for a number of.

00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:34.000
cities, oversight entities, and law enforcement agencies. Including in San Jose, California, Oakland, California, Albany, New York.

00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:42.000
and others. My involvement in law enforcement oversight began as a volunteer on the Berkeley, California Police Review Commission.

00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:46.000
One of the oldest oversight bodies in the country.

00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:52.000
And where I served terms as both Vice Chair and chair on that board.

00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:59.000
I'd like to highlight, um, during my law school experience, an opportunity to work as a judicial extern.

00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:03.000
Uh, with the United States District Court Judge Felton Henderson.

00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:08.000
And that was during the creation of the Oakland, California Negotiated Settlement Agreement.

00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:14.000
Which, uh, interestingly, remains active today, more than 20 years later.

00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:19.000
Lastly, I live in Richmond, California, which is in the Bay Area, in the East Bay, across from San Francisco.

00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:24.000
And I'm the father of two objectively amazing adult sons.

00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:38.000
Okay. Uh, my name's Rob Fernando. Um, I am an associate monitor with the team, and um… My background is a mixture between, um.

00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:54.000
Um, holding a PhD in criminology and spending… portion of my life as an academic, uh, doing research primarily on law enforcement interventions and their efficacy and impact on crime rates, as well as then.

00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:58.000
Moving forward, spending 10 years working in healthcare quality improvement.

00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:03.000
working effectively as a monitor or an independent monitor of sorts.

00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:10.000
For Medicare and Medicaid programs across the country with 18 different states and with the federal government to help them.

00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:16.000
assess the quality of healthcare and prove that care for beneficiaries.

00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:26.000
Um, my role on the team is to serve as a, um… Research methodologist and analyst, working with the data that we received from.

00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:39.000
PPP and from other sources. Uh, and doing our compliance assessments, and um… Uh, also assisting with any of the other review, uh, document review, bottom-of-the-cam review, etc, etc.

00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:56.000
Um, I will pass along to check. Thanks, Rob. Good evening, everyone. My name is Cher Ramirez. I'm Associate Monitor with the team. Well, I'm based in LA, I've been out to Portland quite frequently, working closely with my team and colleague.

00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:04.000
Antoinette Edwards on the Community Engagement side of our work. My background is in homeless and housing policy, community-based mental health programs.

00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:10.000
Um, and also alternative and unresponse. Thank you.

00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:14.000
So we have a few of our members who are remote as well, and.

00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:19.000
One or two more in the room as well, but let me… let me see if some of our remote folks can introduce themselves.

00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:23.000
Um, Brian, are you able to unmute?

00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:27.000
Now that your knee's so strong… Yes, can you hear me okay?

00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:28.000
Sounds good.

00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:35.000
Alright, hi, I'm Brian Buckner, I'm an associate monitor with the team. In addition to serving on this team.

00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:45.000
I am an Assistant Inspector General with the Office of the Inspector General for the Los Angeles Police Department, where I oversee the office's use of force section.

00:12:45.000 --> 00:12:55.000
I've worked in that office for a number of years and spent the last 20… 21 years working either directly in civilian oversight or on police accountability issues.

00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:01.000
I worked for about six and a half years for the former mayor of Los Angeles, overseeing his public safety.

00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:07.000
Policy work, and then his homelessness work, as he established a homelessness team.

00:13:07.000 --> 00:13:12.000
And in addition to the work in Los Angeles, I served as president.

00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:17.000
of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, or NACOL, which is.

00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:21.000
The nation's largest organization of people who work in or.

00:13:21.000 --> 00:13:27.000
Um, work around, uh, police accountability and police oversight.

00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:28.000
Things there, Brian. Um, let's see, is, uh, Val, are you able to unmute?

00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:36.000
Thank you.

00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:46.000
Good evening. My name is Val Thomas. I am a retired commanding officer with the, uh… from the Los Angeles Police Department. I retired after.

00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:54.000
about 27 and a half years. Um, during my career, I was able to work a variety of assignments, um.

00:13:54.000 --> 00:14:01.000
The patrol aspect, the operations aspect, I was a commanding officer of a patrol division, a traffic division.

00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:12.000
As well as an area commanding officer, where I had, um, management and oversight responsibilities of the entire division, um, ranging from detectives.

00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:18.000
And crime reduction, all the way to community relations and, uh, divisional training.

00:14:18.000 --> 00:14:31.000
Also, I worked, um, specialized assignments, um. in the… I worked in the Inspector General's office as the aide to the Inspector General during the time that LAPD was under our consent decree.

00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:38.000
And, um, I was also the commanding officer of Internal Affairs Division, where I, um, ensured.

00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:44.000
Uh, thorough investigations. Uh, of workplace investigations.

00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:52.000
criminal investigations and administrative personnel, uh, complaint investigations, with our ultimate goal of being.

00:14:52.000 --> 00:15:08.000
Um, organizational accountability and constitutional policing. Um, I'm very proud to be a part of this monitoring team as an associate monitor. During this report, I reviewed use of force as well as training.

00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:16.000
And, um, I just want to say thank you all for taking time out of your evening to come and discuss this very important.

00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:17.000
Thanks so much, Val. Appreciate it. Uh, Corey?

00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:21.000
report.

00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:26.000
Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Mark. Again, my name is Corey Lowe.

00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:32.000
Um, I'm a retired, uh, deputy chief with the Albuquerque Police Department in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:42.000
Um, my last 6 years, um, I worked various, um, assignments throughout my career, but my last 6 years was focused on the consent decree that Albuquerque had with the U.S., um,

00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:44.000
U.S. Department of Justice.

00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.000
So my focus was on everything use of force related,

00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:52.000
early intervention, training, recruiting, all the way through.

00:15:52.000 --> 00:16:00.000
Um, I'm very happy to be part of this team, um, and I work along with Val on my areas. We look at use of force and training.

00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:03.000
Thank you.

00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:10.000
Thanks, Corey. Uh, one other team member, there are 9 of us in total, by the way. Uh, one other team member who is, uh, online but not able to.

00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:27.000
unmute. Little ones at home, she's out on the East Coast, is Dr. Susruda Sedula. I'll just briefly mention Dr. Sedula Sasruda. She's a senior auditor in the Police Integrity Division at the OIG for Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:36.000
Um, she analyzes data, assists with investigations and other special projects, fulfills discipline requests, and helps create policies for that agency.

00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:41.000
She previously worked as a police special investigator with the LAPD's Police Commission.

00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:49.000
Uh, again, collecting data, conducting analyses, and identifying errors for improvement, and making recommendations to policy and practices.

00:16:49.000 --> 00:17:08.000
She's also worked as an analyst for Chicago Police Department. She has, uh… Been an assessor for, uh, Division of Criminal Justice Services in New York State, um, worked with the New York Civilian Complaint Review Board, um, has a PhD from… and master's degrees from John Jay, uh, College of Criminal Justice.

00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:16.000
I'm glad she's here with us tonight. Um, I want to ask, we have one person in the room who I think many of you know quite well, Ms. Antoinette Edwards.

00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:19.000
I want to see any introduction you'd like to do.

00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:25.000
Yeah, it's good to see so many people that I've talked to.

00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:32.000
Oh, good to hear me. And I'm gonna have somebody sold up in my own heart. Born to be what?

00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:43.000
In fact, I got you! A home for the people online, I'm still adding their efforts, Associate Monitor, and I.

00:17:43.000 --> 00:17:47.000
I am so grateful for the opportunity to connect with community.

00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:52.000
And just to acknowledge and empower with information about who we are.

00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:58.000
community stakeholders, and that's who you all are, so thank you again for being here. Hi, Jose!

00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:17.000
Nice shout out. I hope I got everyone, uh, if I missed anyone, let me know. Uh, I want to move us along. My background is in civilian oversight of law enforcement. I've worked for different agencies in Southern California and Chicago, in the Bay Area, and bring a lot of passion and care to this work.

00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:23.000
the main reason we like to do these introductions is not to sort of promote ourselves, and as you see up on the screen behind me.

00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:37.000
or on your screens at home, it's really a goal for us to combine our varied experiences and points of view as we do the assessments we do. I don't think they'd be as good or as strong if we had a singular point of view or background to work from.

00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:58.000
And so that's why it's critical. Um, alright, if we move forward… So, what's the work that we do? We just made our introductions to you. Uh, we assess certain areas of the settlement agreement. In total, we conducted compliance assessments for the 6-month period of, uh, the first 6 months of 2025, January through June.

00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:04.000
A total of 22 paragraphs of the settlement agreement spread across 4 primary areas.

00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:17.000
Uh, use of force, and as we look at that, we review everything from policy to how uses of force are reported, to how investigations into use of force are conducted, how audits are done by the department, uh, by the Bureau of Uses of Force.

00:19:17.000 --> 00:19:28.000
etc. Uh, the second area is the employee information system, or EIS. Some of you are, I'm sure, familiar with it. It's a system basically set up.

00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:35.000
Um, to, uh, help, help examine whether, um. Uh, the Bureau is identifying.

00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:41.000
at-risk employees, concerning behavior, positive behavior that can be reinforced amongst other parts of the Bureau.

00:19:41.000 --> 00:19:47.000
Are they utilizing the information that they have about how employees are acting in certain situations?

00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:55.000
to be a learning agency, um, and to look for concerns. The third area is officer accountability. This deals very heavily with.

00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:09.000
Administrative investigations into, uh. alleged misconduct by members of the Portland Police Bureau. There are many rules that need to be followed and procedures that need to be adhered to when conducting such investigations.

00:20:09.000 --> 00:20:24.000
And the fourth area of the settlement agreement that we looked at is called the Addendum of Additional Remedies. The paragraphs in this section were added to the agreement a little bit later than the original paragraphs. They deal with some specific tasks that the city or Portland Police Bureau need to.

00:20:24.000 --> 00:20:31.000
complete, um, the… including revising some of the forms used to report investigate force.

00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:39.000
assessment of some of the activities that happened back in 2020. Um, looking at the civilian training director.

00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:49.000
A few other items that they need to do, uh, implementing a full bodywork camera program and standing up a new civilian oversight system.

00:20:49.000 --> 00:20:54.000
Uh, so we looked at 22 total paragraphs spread across, like, 4 main areas.

00:20:54.000 --> 00:20:58.000
And when we conducted our assessments, this is the framework that we work from.

00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:04.000
We look for, in each paragraph. Did the city and Portland Police Bureau.

00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:09.000
showed that they were in substantial compliance with the requirements of that paragraph.

00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:14.000
Meaning that they satisfied those requirements comprehensively. With a high level of integrity.

00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:21.000
And that any violations were found, which… Again, it's not a measure of perfection, but if any violations were found.

00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:29.000
Were they minor or occasional? And, uh, were they systemic in nature? And that's what we look at to determine whether or not these.

00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:37.000
Paragraphs were substantially complied with. They may be found in partial compliance, which means that significant progress has been made toward.

00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:42.000
adhering to the requirements, but additional work is clearly needed.

00:21:42.000 --> 00:21:48.000
And then there's a third finding of non-compliance but initial steps taken, which is really.

00:21:48.000 --> 00:22:00.000
I think meant to say that, uh… Some work has begun, but there is significant progress that still needs to be made.

00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:06.000
I know this is, uh, challenging to read. We try to fit, you know, all the paragraphs that we look at onto a single slide.

00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:18.000
Um, but I will let you know that it is available in our actual report, which is on our website. It's a little easier to see if you'd like to, and our website, I'm going to put a plug in for it, if you'd like to access it.

00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:24.000
is Portland Policemonitor.com. We will have that up on the screen later. Portland PoliceMonitor.

00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:32.000
Uh, so this chart is in there. It basically shows for the 22 paragraphs that we assessed for compliance.

00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:37.000
These were the results that we found in our draft report. Again, the report is not finalized. We want to hear.

00:22:37.000 --> 00:22:43.000
comments tonight, and comments, you know, for the next couple weeks before we finish the report.

00:22:43.000 --> 00:22:49.000
Uh, but I'll try to summarize what it shows on this chart, even if it's a little hard to read the detail of it.

00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:59.000
Essentially, it says that we found the city. Uh, and Portland Police Bureau to be in substantial compliance with 17 of the 22 paragraphs that we assessed.

00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:03.000
And the remaining 5. were in harsher compliance.

00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:09.000
The ones that are in partial compliance, they fell into two of those main areas I talked about before, those four categories.

00:23:09.000 --> 00:23:13.000
A couple of the partial compliance paragraphs dealt with.

00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:19.000
use of force issues, um, and in particular, some of the audits and analyses of use of force.

00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:29.000
And there were the other 3 paragraphs were in those additional remedies that I mentioned. Specific tasks that the City of Horton Police Bureau need to complete that are just not done yet.

00:23:29.000 --> 00:23:36.000
Uh, and so a total of 5 paragraphs out of the 17 we found in partial compliance, the remainder substantial.

00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:42.000
Uh, as we get into these areas, describe in a little bit more detail. The first one is use of force.

00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:56.000
When we do our assessments, uh, we look at a large number of things. We look at actual use of force investigations, in this case, for the 6-month period, we examined 49 cases that were non-lethal force cases.

00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:04.000
And both of the two lethal force cases that had completed investigations during the 6-month period I mentioned.

00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:22.000
Uh, we do look at policy, we look at, um… Uh, how investigations are conducted, whether all the benchmarks are being met. We do a very comprehensive review of all the cases that we look at. Positively, we've found that the investigations we examined were generally done.

00:24:22.000 --> 00:24:27.000
in a sound fashion. They were comprehensive. They achieved what they were supposed to achieve.

00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:39.000
And that's a bit of a success story, I think, with regard to Portland Police Bureau. The areas of partial compliance, remember there are two paragraphs, dealt more with the audits of use of force investigations that are required.

00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:48.000
and analyses of forced data. We felt that those could each be strengthened and clarified. And to get into a little more detail, the focus of what we're going to talk about as we.

00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:57.000
move along in this presentation, uh, is, um, the areas that are not yet in substantial compliance. I think those are the main ones to focus on.

00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:04.000
I'm going to ask Dr. Fornango to talk about the two areas within use of force that we found were in partial compliance.

00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:11.000
Sure. Thank you, Mark. Um, so the two paragraphs, uh, in use of force where we found that.

00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:17.000
PPV was in, um, partial compliance, or paragraph 75 and 76.

00:25:17.000 --> 00:25:23.000
Um, in paragraph 75, the requirements there are that the.

00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:33.000
of the Inspector General performs audits to verify that supervisors are consistently meeting 12 different requirements with respect to force inspect… Investigations and reporting.

00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:42.000
Um, the monitoring team found that those OIG audits are largely accurate, uh, across.

00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:47.000
The relevant items that are being reviewed during that process. And in fact.

00:25:47.000 --> 00:25:54.000
For, uh, 11 of the 12. Uh, items that needed to be reviewed, those specific requirements in that paragraph.

00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:01.000
Um, we found that the audits were relatively accurate, and that the information that was identified seemed very sound.

00:26:01.000 --> 00:26:06.000
The one area of concern that we had was specifically for, uh.

00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:16.000
Paragraph 75, Section B. Which says that supervisors are required to review all use of force reports to ensure that they include the information required by the settlement agreement.

00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:27.000
and PPP policy. Um, one of the policy directors of PBB has Policy… Directive 910 requires a force.

00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:33.000
Data collection reports, it's a particular report that gets filled out by officers when a force event occurs.

00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:45.000
Those reports need to include whether an officer perceived any injury to a subject of an application with force, whether that subject complained of an injury, or whether there was no injury.

00:26:45.000 --> 00:26:51.000
Um, the form that was used for collecting this.

00:26:51.000 --> 00:26:57.000
Previously, it had a series of checkboxes that allowed officers to clearly indicate whether there was an injury or not.

00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:04.000
Um, and that form was changed in the fall of 2024 to allow officers to sort of streamline that.

00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:09.000
process and not have to, um… spend as much time checking boxes to go through that.

00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:16.000
Uh… Unfortunately, one of the side effects or unintended consequences of that change is that it is now.

00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:22.000
Not, uh, so easy to determine whether or not there was a lack of injury.

00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:30.000
Um, it could be construed as. After forgetting to fill it out, versus there not being allowed… there not being an injury.

00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:41.000
Um, and one of the things that we noticed in doing our reviews of the audits is that this is something that supervisors were consistently not raising as an issue in terms of.

00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:48.000
Uh, how the form was being filled out. Uh, so you've got a… basically, it's an issue of you've got a directive and a policy that's set up.

00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:54.000
It says they need to do one thing with their reporting, and in the process, that's not actually happening.

00:27:54.000 --> 00:27:57.000
Uh, so we raise this as an issue, uh, because that new.

00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:01.000
reporting process no longer meets the requirements of Directive 910.

00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:06.000
And I believe we're under the understanding that that has… form has been changed.

00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:12.000
Uh, so we're looking forward to. Uh, hopefully having a different result and a more improved result.

00:28:12.000 --> 00:28:16.000
Uh, in the next review period, but that was an issue that came up.

00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:21.000
Uh, around paragraph 75. For paragraph 76.

00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:26.000
The requirement there is that the force inspector with the Office of the Inspector General.

00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:33.000
It's required to conduct a quarterly analysis. of their force data and the supervisor's reports.

00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:51.000
They're really intended to achieve 5 goals, um, and… Two of those goals, they are achieving. Um, the first is that they're supposed to report trends, which the data they're reporting on does at least look at the change over time from the previous reporting period to the current reporting period.

00:28:51.000 --> 00:29:07.000
to talk about what has changed, and so they're… they're at least achieving that piece, as well as the component that requires an annual report of their analytic findings to be made publicly available, which is available on the PPB website.

00:29:07.000 --> 00:29:12.000
But there are 3 other requirements, uh, in which we felt the PPV only partially met, uh.

00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:16.000
The requirements based on the documentation that was provided.

00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:23.000
Um, and these are particularly to determine if there was variation in force practice.

00:29:23.000 --> 00:29:27.000
by unit, um, across different units within the department.

00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:34.000
To determine if any officer, unit, or group of officers are using force.

00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:39.000
differently or at a different rate. and determine the reasons for those differences.

00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:47.000
Um, and then to identify and correct any deficiencies revealed by the analysis. It's the third element.

00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:52.000
Um, so for these items, the documentation that was provided to the monitoring team.

00:29:52.000 --> 00:30:02.000
exhibited a few issues that raised some questions. that generally fall around a few different areas, um, primarily.

00:30:02.000 --> 00:30:11.000
Uh, with a lack of direct evidence that PPV was performing all the required analyses and follow-up actions.

00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:16.000
Um… This included, for example, like, reporting cases in which.

00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:27.000
The force use was found out of policy. That does get reported, absolutely, but not organizing that by unit. There's no way to determine whether or not, you know, what the difference is from one unit to another.

00:30:27.000 --> 00:30:33.000
Um, additionally, providing for analysis on force used by individual officers, units, and groups.

00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:40.000
But not necessarily identifying the reasons why those. Variations exist, which is one of the pieces of that requirement.

00:30:40.000 --> 00:30:46.000
Um, and then the third component was identifying deficiencies in reporting follow-up actions.

00:30:46.000 --> 00:30:54.000
However, it wasn't entirely clear to us, based on the methodology that we were providers, how they were coming to the decision regarding.

00:30:54.000 --> 00:31:05.000
which officers needed an intervention? Nor was it clear whether or not the interventions that were used were necessarily appropriate or commensurate with the deficiencies that were identified.

00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:09.000
Um, and so for those reasons, we felt strongly that we couldn't verify.

00:31:09.000 --> 00:31:19.000
Uh, the performance within those 3 pieces of paragraph 76, which led us to a finding of partial compliance.

00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:28.000
Thanks so much, Rob, appreciate that. Uh, I'm gonna move us through the next couple sections pretty quickly. The next one is the Employee Information System. I mentioned before, it's a mechanism.

00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:35.000
to really help identify at-risk employees or problematic behavior, there are just 3 paragraphs that we assess for compliance here.

00:31:35.000 --> 00:31:50.000
Um, and PPV was substantially compliant with all 3 of them. The only recommendations we really made in this area, noting that they are in compliance, um, is to find ways to even utilize the system more. I think it's a really important, valuable tool for any.

00:31:50.000 --> 00:31:56.000
Law enforcement agency, including the Bureau. Um, and the more they can do to utilize it to their benefit, the better.

00:31:56.000 --> 00:32:14.000
Um, moving forward. The next main area was officer accountability. This is the one I mentioned before, involves, uh, administrative investigations into misconduct or allegations of misconduct. Um, there are five paragraphs I've looked at here. All of them, again, were in substantial compliance.

00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:33.000
There are just a number of administrative protocols that have to be met, cross-checks and double checks and reviews that have to be done for these to be appropriate, and PPV met their burden in these cases. Um, the only recommendations we have here to say it very briefly is that we wanted them to demonstrate even more clearly.

00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:50.000
the successful work that they had done to show that they met all the requirements. Um, so I think the work being done is what needs to be done, and we worked with the Bureau to make sure that they were demonstrating that as clearly as possible, because they were successful in this broad area of accountability.

00:32:50.000 --> 00:33:00.000
Moving on to those additional remedies, an addendum of additional remedies that I mentioned, this is the next spot where there are some partially compliant paragraphs. Out of the 6 paragraphs we assessed.

00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:07.000
half or substantial compliant, and the other half were partially compliant. What the city and PPP, I think.

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:12.000
completed and did well, and some of these things they actually did a long time ago.

00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:16.000
or to update their use of force reporting and review forms.

00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:20.000
Uh, to conduct and budget for an independent review.

00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:27.000
of the crowd control response that took place in 2020, and hiring a civilian director of police education.

00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:36.000
What still needs to be done, and I think the Bureau and the city were generally aware of these things. They're ongoing projects, but they need to be completed.

00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:42.000
One is an IPR, or Independent Police Review Investigation into supervisor.

00:33:42.000 --> 00:33:51.000
and decisions made during 2020 crowd control responses. We were fortunately, we, the monitoring team.

00:33:51.000 --> 00:34:05.000
received pretty substantial updates on where this investigation lies, and knowing that it is near its completion, which I think is really good and important, it's a complex investigation. It's actually a series of multiple investigations, but it needs to be done.

00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:13.000
Uh, and completed, uh, before this paragraph can be moved to substantial compliance. Second, I mentioned earlier a body-worn camera.

00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:19.000
PBB has done a good job of rolling out its wide-orn camera program to all of its patrol areas.

00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:25.000
the policy that's required for monitoring cameras that must be adhered to is extensive.

00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:33.000
And it involves PPP conducting audits of its own body-worn camera usage, and they're in the process of doing that now, so we want to see that.

00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:46.000
brought to fruition. And then lastly is launching the new Community Police Oversight Board, the new oversight system that is being created now, um, that's in progress. It has a ways to go, but it's one of the requirements in this section, so we are.

00:34:46.000 --> 00:34:59.000
Looking forward to further progress on that. Um, this is another small chart I recognize, but I'm going to try to summarize, and I'll remind you again, it's available in our report, and it's easier to see there.

00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:09.000
We wanted to try to show as best we could, both in the report and here tonight, uh, during the town hall, what some of the essential changes were from our last report.

00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:21.000
So, last time, uh, for the previous 6-month period, that's the last 2 quarters of 2024, we had 40 paragraphs to assess, more than we did this… the most recent period.

00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:31.000
40 paragraphs. 18 of those moved into self-monitoring status, and I'm going to talk… Russell's actually going to talk more about that in just a second.

00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:39.000
Um, that left 22, as I mentioned before, remaining for our assessment. So last time around, we assessed 40 for compliance.

00:35:39.000 --> 00:35:44.000
18 of them moved into self-monitoring status this time, where the city.

00:35:44.000 --> 00:35:48.000
measured its own compliance, and we had 22 left.

00:35:48.000 --> 00:35:59.000
that we assess for compliance. Last time, 6 of the 40 paragraphs that we assessed were found to be in partial compliance with the remaining ones in substantial compliance.

00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:08.000
This time around, 5 of the 22 paragraphs that we looked at were in partial compliance with the other 17 in substantial compliance. It was.

00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:15.000
Uh, there was one use of force paragraph, that being 69, that moved from partial to substantial compliance.

00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:21.000
a different use of force paragraph, 75. moved from substantial to partial compliance.

00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:26.000
And then, uh, paragraph 118, which is part of that EIS, that information system.

00:36:26.000 --> 00:36:30.000
Uh, moved from partial to substantial, so you can.

00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:35.000
If you'd like to, you can think of it sort of the net gain of one out of the… which is a positive development.

00:36:35.000 --> 00:36:40.000
And there weren't that many to go, but a net gain of 1 from our previous report.

00:36:40.000 --> 00:36:46.000
Moving into substantial compliance.

00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:53.000
Um, just to provide a little bit more historical context, and we're nearing the sort of end of our presentation, I want to try to be true to my.

00:36:53.000 --> 00:36:59.000
earlier statement that we want to reserve some time for questions here. Uh, really brief historical context.

00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:13.000
Um, the DOJ, when it used to do its compliance assessment reports, their last one was done in the summer of 2023. At that time, they found 24 total paragraphs to not be in substantial compliance.

00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:17.000
compares it with, again, our findings of 5 out of the ones I've looked at.

00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:23.000
And the cochle, or compliance officer community liaison, which also did quarterly reports up until.

00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:32.000
through the first quarter of 2024, their last report found 11 paragraphs that they looked at, uh, to be not in substantial compliance as compared with our findings.

00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:36.000
Um, we've got just a couple more, uh, items to go.

00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:42.000
I'm gonna ask Russell to talk about some of those self-monitored sections that we looked at as part of our report as well.

00:37:42.000 --> 00:37:47.000
Thanks, Mark. Uh, if you recall from prior slide.

00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:52.000
Those items that are now in self-monitoring for the city were in blue.

00:37:52.000 --> 00:38:00.000
in the most recent chart that you saw. What happens is, after a paragraph or the requirements of a paragraph.

00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:07.000
are assessed, and there's a determination that the city and PPB are in substantial compliance.

00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:14.000
With the requirements of that paragraph. The self-monitoring process is intended to.

00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:24.000
allow the city and PPP. to come up with a plan and an approach for maintaining that compliance over time and into the future.

00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:31.000
So there are 33 paragraphs that are now self-monitored by the city and by the Portland Police Bureau.

00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:37.000
the list on this slide shows the sections of the agreement where those paragraphs are located.

00:38:37.000 --> 00:38:45.000
And the requirements for self-monitoring. are dictated by the specific language of the settlement agreement. That is to say.

00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:50.000
Once something is found to be in substantial compliance, it moves into this self-monitored mode.

00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:59.000
Um, what will happen then is the city and the Bureau will submit written plans, and those plans are intended to explain.

00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:03.000
to the monitoring team, how they will sustain the progress that they've made.

00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:08.000
Including the methodology by which they'll review documents and data.

00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:13.000
To determine whether and how they remain in compliance over time.

00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:19.000
So, our team has provided feedback to the city and to the Bureau on these plans that were submitted to us.

00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:24.000
And that's intended to help ensure that both the plans and the supporting documentation.

00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:31.000
in connection with the plans are going to be sufficient to assess ongoing compliance over time.

00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:39.000
Looks like… Those 33 self-monitored paragraphs.

00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:49.000
had already been found in substantial compliance. I'm sorry, the cities that maintain substantial compliance for 31.

00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:59.000
Of the 33 self-monitored paragraphs. The remaining two, uh, investigation timelines and PPV stop data and annual reporting.

00:39:59.000 --> 00:40:04.000
The settlement agreement does set specific requirements to, uh.

00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:08.000
satisfy those paragraphs, and they have not yet been fully met.

00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:16.000
For investigation timelines. We acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for some investigations to exceed.

00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:26.000
The 180-day limit. By which the PBB is required to complete these misconduct allegation investigations.

00:40:26.000 --> 00:40:34.000
However, um… As part of the process for self-monitoring, EPB is required to.

00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:39.000
Appropriately identify the sources and contributing factors for the delays.

00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:46.000
Additionally, the settlement agreement. requires that PPB implement a concrete plan.

00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:55.000
to reduce delays after those causes are identified. The core efficiency here, uh, that we determined was that the.

00:40:55.000 --> 00:41:06.000
Implementation of those plans is not fully operational. Where they stop data and annual reporting piece, the agreement does require that specific demographic data.

00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:11.000
are collected, and there has to be a clear documented approach to collection of those data.

00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:18.000
And our team determined that during the reporting period, the Bureau didn't provide the required demographic breakdowns.

00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:23.000
to the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing, also known as PSAP.

00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:29.000
And the self-monitoring plan itself. Would benefit from greater clarity and specificity.

00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:39.000
Uh, to demonstrate how the Bureau will meet the obligations of the settlement agreement going forward.

00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:50.000
Thanks very much, Russell. So, as we begin to wrap up our portion of this with conclusions and next steps, what's the upshot here? What's the bottom line? If I can try to summarize.

00:41:50.000 --> 00:41:57.000
a majority of the remaining paragraphs in the settlement agreement are in self-monitoring status, as Russell just described.

00:41:57.000 --> 00:42:01.000
Of the ones that the monitoring team is responsible for assessing.

00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:10.000
We found just 5, still in partial compliance. Um, where work needs to be done. The areas of focus that, uh, need to be.

00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:21.000
Um, that we need to see progress on involve use-of-force audits and analysis, less about the use of force themselves, but really about the audits and analysis that's done by the Bureau.

00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:28.000
completing the investigation, sort of a long-standing investigation into conduct, uh, and crowd control responses during 2020.

00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:34.000
particularly by supervisors. A full implementation of the body-worn camera policy.

00:42:34.000 --> 00:42:41.000
And standing up and operationalization of the new oversight system. So those are the areas of focus that we look for.

00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:59.000
Um, as we get finished here, I'm going to ask to see if Antoinette would like to say any words about just acknowledging some of the community stakeholders that we always try to work with as we do this work.

00:42:59.000 --> 00:43:07.000
Wow. I'm really… proud, and uh… grateful for the opportunity that I had, that the team has.

00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:15.000
to really meet folks where they're at, and to let them know about who we are. Surprisingly.

00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:24.000
many folks haven't heard about the settlement agreement. And it really feels really good when we go away and, okay, I didn't know that. And when I say empowered.

00:43:24.000 --> 00:43:28.000
Folks get to be involved. celebrate what's working well.

00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:32.000
and support where we need to get. And I'm just going to highlight a couple of these.

00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:38.000
And next, I think the next time. City Council, we gonna come out your way. We gonna come east.

00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:45.000
Because she said, I remember you said, meet people where they're at. And, uh, one of the places that we went was to the Miracles Club.

00:43:45.000 --> 00:43:48.000
How many of you are familiar with the Miracle Squad?

00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:57.000
community. This is what community looks like. We went to the Miracles Club. Wonderful folks that were in recovery.

00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:02.000
Minnie had served some time. And they had no idea about the settlement agreement.

00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:04.000
When we went away, it was Chay and I.

00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:13.000
The next day, we received emails giving us information about community engagement and other things that we can do, and I thought, wow!

00:44:13.000 --> 00:44:30.000
We've gone to the residential at VOA. And we ask, what's been your lived experience? And again, it was exciting. And what I'm going to ask you, if you can see… Can y'all see this? Next, I want to make them bigger. Click and read this? Jorge, I would ask you to read the…

00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:37.000
Last 10, please. Young, young eyes, come on with it. Come on up, get on there.

00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:41.000
Can you see? Yeah, I'm trying to think which one's, like, the last 10.

00:44:41.000 --> 00:44:52.000
The bold ones, the ones in bold? Uh, Latino Advisory Council Black and Journal Recovery Center, Volunteers of America, Oregon.

00:44:52.000 --> 00:45:02.000
Uh, tea projects, Japanese American Citizens League. I'm gonna pronounce Cervical for Solidarity. Yeah, thank you. Uh, the Miracles Club.

00:45:02.000 --> 00:45:10.000
Cascadia Health Project, Respond, Pride Northwest, Multnomah County Health Department, Local Public Safety Coordinating Council.

00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:12.000
Very good, and that's just to name a few.

00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:19.000
And I'm going to ask you, you can have a break, there's so much food, but what I'm going to ask you to do, and you get a 10-minute break.

00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:26.000
It will start right after everyone stands and gets a picture. This is because.

00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:35.000
We would, uh, the Portland Observer yesterday, and he wanted to come, but he had a family emergency, so he asked me, would I please take a picture of everybody.

00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:48.000
And you want to talk about the food? Take it back, Dr. Hayes. So he has definitely take a picture, then y'all can eat and get a 10-minute break. It won't start until the picture. So, can I just get a… stand up and go to where Dr. Haynes is? Thank you.

00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:54.000
And then I tell you, when your brain starts.

00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:06.000
And my daughter go take the picture. I'm sorry, right?

00:46:06.000 --> 00:46:14.000
Barbara, where you at? Everybody's a picture.

00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:19.000
Ah, Marta, you're beautiful. Please get up and take your picture.

00:46:19.000 --> 00:46:24.000
I'll walk with you. Okay.

00:46:24.000 --> 00:46:52.000
Okay. Oh, so you're…

00:46:52.000 --> 00:47:22.000
Okay, yeah, is everyone here?

00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:43.000
Yeah.

00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:53.000
Are we all in trouble? Any violence.

00:47:53.000 --> 00:48:02.000
It's awesome. Okay.

00:48:02.000 --> 00:48:31.000
Cut, pine nuts.

00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:37.000
So, just a quick note, everyone, we're gonna take a 10-minute break into our folks virtually, a 10-minute break.

00:48:37.000 --> 00:48:44.000
Yeah. Restroom break or some food if you're here in person, and then we, uh, look forward to welcoming your feedback and input and questions.

00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:49.000
Do note that the report is not finalized, so this would be great to hear from you all. Uh, enjoy a nice little break.

00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:56.000
And, uh, we'll have a conversation shortly. Thank you.

00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:04.000
Thank you.

00:49:04.000 --> 00:49:34.000
Um, you know…

00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:16.000
Are you unmuted?

00:50:16.000 --> 00:50:22.000
If you can hear me, sit down.

00:50:22.000 --> 00:50:35.000
Turn it back up! Yay! It's time for the second part! If you can hear me, sit down, Marta.

00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:51.000
Thank you, Anthony. You're welcome.

00:50:51.000 --> 00:50:57.000
Yeah, if anybody can make an announcement.

00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:03.000
Before we move forward, does this phone look familiar to anybody?

00:51:03.000 --> 00:51:15.000
I… we have identified the owner. So, what we're gonna do is move forward with the Q&A as soon as we get settled, Mark, I'll let you introduce the segment.

00:51:15.000 --> 00:51:20.000
And, uh, I'm gonna work to make sure that everybody can be heard once we get started.

00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:39.000
Thanks, Russell. And just one more time, we're happy to get into this portion of the evening. We want it back and forth, we want communication. Um, for those of you who are on Zoom, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. We're going to try our best to alternate sort of back and forth between in the room and on Zoom, and we'll go as best we can sequentially as you raise your hands.

00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:47.000
Um, on Zoom, and we'll come and unmute you. Uh, and lastly, if you do want to write us a question, again, you're very welcome to. We absolutely.

00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:53.000
Would love to have that, send it to our email at info at portlandpolicemonitor.com.

00:51:53.000 --> 00:51:59.000
Um, and so I think we'll get started with it. If there's any questions in the physical room first.

00:51:59.000 --> 00:52:05.000
Thank you, and so what I'd like to do is try to ask people to come to the mic if you're able.

00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:16.000
Uh, this way you're visible to people online. And we only have a corded mic. I'm trying to avoid tripping hazards, so if you are able to come to the mic with your question, please do. If you're not.

00:52:16.000 --> 00:52:20.000
I'll work to try to bring the mic toward you.

00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:33.000
Maybe let's move forward with our first question. Come on up, and… Feel free to introduce yourself if you wish.

00:52:33.000 --> 00:52:38.000
Thanks, y'all. Um, I'm Bertrained Simca Charles Johnson, uh.

00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:44.000
Been doing this off and on since the first meeting, probably, of the.

00:52:44.000 --> 00:52:56.000
Coab, the long deceased Community Oversight Advisory Board. And, uh… In that vein, I'll, uh… Do some generalisms first.

00:52:56.000 --> 00:53:04.000
I was glad that Antoinette brought up, uh. Community intersectionality at the Miracles Club in other places, because.

00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:08.000
Uh, when we talk about people who've been impacted by policing.

00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:14.000
And then you come to a room. Where… let us introduce our panel.

00:53:14.000 --> 00:53:27.000
of 19 ex-law enforcement personnel. Um… Uh, I think that in the oversight community, uh, broadly, even though there's specialist reasons why bringing in.

00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:31.000
People who served in law enforcement. Uh, and then some of our only adjacent, uh.

00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:45.000
Look for ways to either recruit people from. Uh, the, uh… civil law side, um, and of course the people who've been, uh.

00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:51.000
actually victimized, or family and victims of survivors, um, I think, uh.

00:53:51.000 --> 00:53:56.000
You know, it's an overarching thing outside the settlement agreement, but this line of work.

00:53:56.000 --> 00:54:01.000
To see that… a high percentage of people are all.

00:54:01.000 --> 00:54:12.000
X costs. And of course, it's specialized work, so there's reasons for that, but uh… To get community involvement, you know, to hear that people at the Miracles Club meeting stuff have never heard about.

00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:17.000
The United States of America versus the city of Portland.

00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:32.000
Um, which is, you know, historic now. I think we're over a decade. Um… And also, just on the general issue of community… of tightness and respect for community.

00:54:32.000 --> 00:54:42.000
Um, it might be good to… Name, uh… The deceased victims, and when we do this work.

00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:47.000
Um, and… Uh, when there's annual reviews.

00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:52.000
I know, of course, you're limited to the scope of work that you're contracted for.

00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:58.000
But, uh, hopefully… With two elected officials in the House, each with one staffer present.

00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:04.000
Um, they might… Slightly expand the scope of the work to.

00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:12.000
Look at the legal costs. And maybe does the scope of work you've been given.

00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:19.000
Ever soup out. How many of these incidents have preceded litigation.

00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:23.000
And outcomes. Um, I know that the post-scope into your work or not.

00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:28.000
Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead as well.

00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:36.000
Uh, let me make sure I understood the question. So the settlement agreement does have one aspect that deals with litigation.

00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:50.000
Uh, resulting from, um… potentially use of force cases. It's one of those sort of double checks or cross-checks that I mentioned really briefly when we talked about the accountability portion. The, uh… The summer group doesn't focus so much specifically on.

00:55:50.000 --> 00:55:58.000
payouts the city may be having, what amounts, and then numbers of cases. But there is a requirement that when.

00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:05.000
litigation occurs, and there's a judgment awarded to someone based on force used against them.

00:56:05.000 --> 00:56:10.000
that the Bureau is required to take a look at their own investigation into that incident.

00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:15.000
and determine what age, um, did it miss anything that is pointed out by the litigation.

00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:25.000
Um, so I think it's a… if I understand correctly, it's a little bit adjacent to the question you're asking. It's related to litigation. Yeah, it's also very good to know that that's incorporated. The expensive.

00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:38.000
in life, and expensive and money mistakes. To get an extra level of review to try and perfect the system is good news. Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you. One of the… just a quick comment. I appreciate what you said at the beginning of your question with regard to the.

00:56:38.000 --> 00:57:01.000
Um, the backgrounds and what's appropriate as far as oversight, and I don't want to belabor the point too much, but we… it's why we took, I think, a little bit of time that we did to talk about the backgrounds on this team for our nine people. I think the blend that we have, which does include former law enforcement executives who have great knowledge about organizations undergoing the same process that Portland has undergone.

00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:09.000
with civilian professionals is really one of the strengths that allow us to have different points of view, so I appreciate you mentioning that very much.

00:57:09.000 --> 00:57:24.000
She's muted, but two J.J. For sure, she'll be happy to hear that. Thank you so much for that question. I think we're going to move to any online questions that may have come up, or any hands that are raised there, checked.

00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:32.000
And I'll just remind folks online, uh, please, if you do have a question, raise your virtual hand, that will be the way to let us know that you have a question.

00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:44.000
Well, while we wait for any online hands to come up, we do have another question in the room.

00:57:44.000 --> 00:57:50.000
Doctor. care person and the Afghan Minister Alliance.

00:57:50.000 --> 00:58:02.000
Coalition for justice and police reform. Also, uh… point of the, uh, sediment, uh, suit against the city of Portland.

00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:10.000
Um, my question has… To deal with accountability from.

00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:20.000
the supervisors. One of the, uh, critical questions through the last 10 years of the.

00:58:20.000 --> 00:58:28.000
Settlement agreement, in particular, operated insults.

00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:38.000
The immediate ones on the scene. And then I asked the incident of, uh, use of force.

00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:47.000
And, uh, process of, uh… Both intervention and… process of reporting.

00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:58.000
Now, the settlement agreement does not elaborate in. Detailed any aspect of their accountability.

00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:05.000
Uh, and so… Oh, uh, can we enter mom?

00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:16.000
And increase the accountability, the reporting accountability. Of these, uh, that sergeant and their corporate level.

00:59:16.000 --> 00:59:23.000
That is the first… Supervisory level on the scene of an incident.

00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:31.000
How are they reporting? What, uh, in terms… of the retail reporting of the.

00:59:31.000 --> 00:59:36.000
By incident, as well as in terms of their.

00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:48.000
engagement and participation. Of, uh, whether the officers are following policies and practice. Now, when you don't have that.

00:59:48.000 --> 00:59:54.000
Uh, you have a breakdown. in this system itself.

00:59:54.000 --> 00:59:58.000
And enforcing the… points of the settlement agreement.

00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:07.000
And also, uh, points of policies and practice, and you don't get an objective report.

01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:12.000
from taking place. Maybe you can elaborate a little more on that.

01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:19.000
Thank you very much. Thanks very much, Dr. Haynes. I'll do my best to elaborate. Just, I mentioned this to you a moment ago, it's good to see you.

01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:25.000
two days in a row, a treat for… treat for me and my colleagues. I'm so happy that you're here, and thanks for your question.

01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:31.000
Um, I certainly agree with you that supervisor responses in cases of use of force.

01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:37.000
and how they are reporting on those uses of force, and how those incidents are investigated.

01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:41.000
is critical, and a place where potential breakdowns can indeed happen.

01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:46.000
That is one of the things that we look at when we examine a set of cases.

01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:54.000
And I'm gonna ask, I'm hoping that my colleagues online, um, if they're available to unmute and tell a little bit more about what they look for.

01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:00.000
With regard to supervisors' responses. to use as a force, and how we fold that into.

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:11.000
Of the assessments that we make when we look at four cases. So, hopefully, I have the colleagues of mine aligned. Um, Corey or Val, if you are able and would like to unmute.

01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:19.000
Um, and contribute, I would appreciate it.

01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:23.000
Thank you, Mark. Um, I'm sure Val will help, um, as well.

01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:30.000
Uh, so we have a pretty lengthy, um, what we called a standardized evaluative Instrument, which is basically

01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:36.000
a lot of, um, questions that we look at when we're evaluating a use of force investigation.

01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:44.000
Um, and so there's a lot of requirements on supervisors. Um, as Dr. Hainju said, they're the first ones there.

01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:48.000
Uh, they are responsible for a lot of things when it comes to use of force.

01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:51.000
Either on-scene or through the investigation of

01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:56.000
Uh, the forest after the fact. Um, so we go through, uh,

01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:02.000
it's called the SEI. The SEI has a lot of questions, um, based on their policy.

01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:11.000
And their directives. And so, through that, we ask very specific questions, um, you know, perhaps very simple, um, you know, did the supervisor

01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:14.000
go on scene. That's one of the very first things that has to happen.

01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:20.000
And so we… we account for each of those requirements, um, for every single one.

01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:26.000
Um, quite honestly, PPB does a pretty good job with on-scene responsibilities for supervisors.

01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:28.000
Um, they do have missteps, um, here and there.

01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:36.000
Um, but regularly, the chain of command catches a lot of that stuff, and they remedy it through a variety of different ways.

01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:40.000
Um, it's very common for the chain of command to speak.

01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:43.000
to a supervisor, and to document that.

01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:54.000
And the way that they're gonna try to take some corrective measures. Um, but yes, it could be better. That's always going to be the case. You're always going to have mistakes, especially when you have

01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:03.000
Um, multiple uses of force in one incident, or you have a younger supervisor, and there's a multitude of reasons for that kind of stuff.

01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:09.000
Um, but we do look at that very succinctly, and we take a good look, um, but overall, they're doing pretty good.

01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:13.000
Val, I don't know if I… if I missed anything.

01:03:13.000 --> 01:03:22.000
No, um, you said everything, um, but one of the things I want to point out is that, um, PPB has put into place, uh.

01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:32.000
several layers of review. So, that allows the command officers to, um, identify issues and resolve them.

01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:39.000
or provide some sort of training to their supervisors to ensure that they are adhering to.

01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:44.000
their set policies and the, uh, settlement agreement. And as, um.

01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:48.000
Corey said, PPP is doing a pretty good job.

01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:52.000
of that. Um, and I know we've had some, some, um.

01:03:52.000 --> 01:04:05.000
conversations and discussions with PPB, and they've been very open and, um… And welcoming of the conversations.

01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:14.000
That is theoretically true. But I've been with this for 10 years.

01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:24.000
And my point is… that when the issue is found of supervisors.

01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:34.000
I'm not carrying out their goodies and responsibilities. Uh, how are they held accountable?

01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:43.000
So, thank you, Dr. Haynes. Um… There is an internal discipline process for when a supervisor.

01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:47.000
is determined to have not met the policy requirements.

01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:55.000
on that supervisor in responding to use force incidents. There's, as you kind of indicated, there's a number of things that they need to do. I'm not going to attempt to list them all.

01:04:55.000 --> 01:04:58.000
But they include looking for any injuries to anyone involved.

01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:10.000
interviewing witnesses and involved parties, interviewing the person upon whom the subject upon whom force was used. A number of requirements that they must meet. If they fail to meet those requirements.

01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:17.000
They are and should be subject to disciplines for that violation of policy.

01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:27.000
For our purposes, when we looked at a sample of cases, and I mentioned before, 49 cases in total as our sample for this 6-month period.

01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:36.000
Um, what we found, by and large, was that supervisors were meeting their responsibilities. The investigations that were conducted were sound.

01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:42.000
The multiple levels of review up the chain of command, where it goes from that supervisor that you mentioned.

01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:47.000
To a reviewing potential lieutenant, all the way up to a captain, and possibly beyond that, depending on.

01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:52.000
What happened to the incident. That process, by and large, was working as intended.

01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:57.000
Uh, and that's, I think, a positive with regard to PPP, according to our sample.

01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:00.000
We did… this is a little bit different than your question.

01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:12.000
the concerns that we had. With regard to use of force, and I know I mentioned this a little bit before, focus less on those investigations and the accountability for those supervisors, because we thought that was done.

01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:18.000
Well, it focused more on the audits that are also required by PBB to.

01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:26.000
measure its own uses of force, and to look at the data it's producing for patterns and trends, and we thought there could be some strengthening there. But to your question.

01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:35.000
Um, yes, supervisors absolutely should be held accountable. It must be held accountable if they don't meet their requirements, but when we looked at cases.

01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:41.000
We found that they generally did overwhelming.

01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:47.000
Thank you, Chay. I'll check with you to see if there are any hands raised on Zoom.

01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:55.000
Uh, yes. We'll take a question from the… Zoom attendees.

01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:04.000
Hi, um, this is Ryan Peck. I am counsel for the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition. It's nice to see you all.

01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:09.000
Um, I just wanted to ask a follow-up question to Dr. Haynes' question.

01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:19.000
Um, Mark, in your response, you just said that, by and large, supervisors are following the rules and doing what they need to do in their review.

01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:26.000
And Dr. Haynes' question was about accountability that they face if… for those who were not part of that, by and large.

01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:33.000
Have you seen any evidence of supervisors being disciplined or held accountable for not

01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:38.000
Following the proper policies,

01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:44.000
Thanks, Ryan, and it's good to see you, and then Corey and Val, I'm gonna invoke your assistance again.

01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:49.000
Um, one thing that… I hope will help clarify the answer.

01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:54.000
Is it our review, uh. of use-of-force cases.

01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:00.000
does not necessarily focus on disciplinary outcomes. Not that that is unimportant by any stretch.

01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:19.000
But rather, whether or not, um. Policies were indeed followed. We don't necessarily look specifically to see when it wasn't followed, what was the outcome, was the discipline fair? Would we have issued a different discipline ourselves? Were we in that decision-making seat?

01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:25.000
That's a little bit beyond, I think, what our evaluation looks at. However.

01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:31.000
Uh, we do look in detail at every case and every aspect of the investigations.

01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:37.000
into these uses of force. And so, to your question, if we, um, did see instances.

01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:45.000
of supervisors not completing their responsibilities. I can say that those instances were not systemic and were exceptions to the rule.

01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:51.000
But I'll ask Core and Val if there's anything that you have to add based on the cases that you looked at, that sampled cases.

01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:55.000
Where you did find supervisors not completing their responsibilities, and if you know what the.

01:08:55.000 --> 01:09:01.000
Results of that work.

01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:07.000
Thank you, Mark. Well, there's a… there's a couple things, and Mark already explained a couple things.

01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:14.000
Accountability isn't always going to be discipline, and so what we look for with Bell and I, so keep in mind,

01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:24.000
If it goes through the IA process, and there's gonna be, like, formal discipline, that goes into the accountability section of the settlement agreement. So what Val and I are looking for

01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:30.000
is, like, the immediate corrective action. Um, and say, for instance, um,

01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:35.000
And I've not even, like, identifying one specific case this reporting period, but I think this is a good example.

01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:39.000
of, you know, a failure to, if a supervisor failed to

01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:44.000
Um, canvass the area, or check something that they were supposed to.

01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:49.000
And it wasn't a major issue, wasn't a major policy violation.

01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:55.000
Then there is the ability for the chain of command. Again, the way that the use of force is evaluated through the chain of command.

01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:00.000
Um, there are discussions, and that's what we mostly saw.

01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:05.000
is the chain of command having discussions and communications with the folks below them.

01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:09.000
Um, to make sure that the issues were, um,

01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:18.000
addressed within the case, um, and again, I can't speak on the accountability disciplinary component, but we saw, by and large,

01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:27.000
that the supervisors did a good job, and if they didn't do something right, and it wasn't major, and again, it didn't go to IA, at least it wasn't identified as something that went to IA,

01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:30.000
They did the corrective action within the, um,

01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:32.000
uh, after-action report.

01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:35.000
Uh, Val, do you have anything to add?

01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:42.000
No, that's absolutely accurate, um, because that's one of the areas of their, um, protocol, of their policy.

01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:47.000
That's… so that is something that we did look at once they were identified.

01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:55.000
that there was a, um… something that was not completed or wasn't done in an actual way that it should have been done.

01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:01.000
Um, by and large, once it went through those levels of review, it was caught.

01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:09.000
And it was then addressed, and there's generally documentation that it was addressing in what manner it was addressed within.

01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:14.000
But if it was a personnel complaint or something that was more severe such as that.

01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:22.000
That is not something that Corey and I would be, um, privy to.

01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:31.000
Thanks, yeah. Yeah, I just… I wanted to add to that also that in our reviews of the OIG audits, we would see.

01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:39.000
in those audits, um, that same process playing out in terms of the chain of command review and that sort of iterative back and forth.

01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:51.000
Um, again, to echo what Valen and Corey said, we didn't see any major issues or any major policy violations that we identified, but there certainly were those minor, uh.

01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:55.000
issues, uh, some documentation things, and there were certainly, uh, there was that.

01:11:55.000 --> 01:12:09.000
feedback loop from the chain of command back down to supervisors to talk to them about, hey, you missed this, and it should have been done differently, and that's part of their process, that sort of feedback loop that goes in there. So we were able to see that not only.

01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:17.000
in the documentation, but also. their audits look at that, um, and so they're, as part of their internal mechanism.

01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:21.000
to audit that the process is working the way it's supposed to.

01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:26.000
They look at the feedback mechanism, and so that we were seeing the same thing on that end.

01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:31.000
And I want to try not to bogus down too much on this question, but I want to also.

01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:34.000
Um, as clear as I can, and Ryan, I appreciate.

01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:47.000
that question on the following of Dr. Haynes. We obviously look at a lot of things for our assessments. That's kind of the job of what we spend our time doing, and when it comes to use of force, and use of force investigations, we do look at.

01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:52.000
our sample cases in great detail. But there are a lot of things that we don't look at.

01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:57.000
Um, they're not part of the settlement agreement. We are very much.

01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:03.000
Um, required to and responsible for. looking at the specific paragraphs of the agreement.

01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:09.000
Some of the disciplinary things, the questions that I think are really valid, important questions about.

01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:15.000
What happens? What's the result when something… when there's a failure that's found?

01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:22.000
Please understand, I'm not minimizing the importance of it at all, I believe in the importance of that, and my career's been spent on looking at those things.

01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:27.000
But the settlement agreement and its accountability section, which was mentioned a couple times.

01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:33.000
It doesn't really, uh, call on the monitor to follow cases through and follow a thread.

01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:36.000
all the way through to see what was the discipline, was it right or wrong.

01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:44.000
The accountability section does look at a number of procedural issues that must be completed for administrative investigations in general.

01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:58.000
Complaints against a supervisor, against any other member. Um, were certain rules fallen? Were appeals processed that are available, uh, that should be available, were those adhered to? A number of procedural requirements, we look at those.

01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:01.000
But it's less about following a case to say, hey.

01:14:01.000 --> 01:14:04.000
when the supervisor did something wrong, a complaint was issued against them.

01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:07.000
Did the monitor go and see if it was.

01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:17.000
disciplined correctly. That's a little bit outside what's called for by the agreement, um, and so not something we specifically do.

01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:25.000
Before we move on to the next question in the room, I'll just add that, for example, one of our responsibilities is to ensure the implementation.

01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:34.000
of a structure to do just that. to investigate misconduct or policy violations. And you can see that's more of a meta approach.

01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:40.000
rather than a micro approach to looking at the issues that have been raised here by Dr. Haynes and by Ryan.

01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:48.000
So, you're up. Thank you very much. I don't want to keep beating all of them, so my question's gonna follow.

01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:53.000
According to Pastor Robert Laxner, again, as far as spirit, amen.

01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:58.000
I follow the legacy, and… Exactly.

01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:04.000
Um, and I do thank you for your explanation through that, Mark, and my team.

01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:16.000
Uh, back to Corey and Val, the question will go directly again. Um… in the report where it says, uh, paragraph 69 was partial compliance last time.

01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:25.000
And then this time is substantial. But in the areas of when you go to 118 ESI, that is found out partially.

01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:31.000
compliance, and then it's substantial. Uh, maybe to help clear my thoughts.

01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:37.000
Uh, in the use of force assessment, where there was a tracking performance.

01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:47.000
That you found that needed to be more. Uh, improved, or you found this to be… Uh, out of compliance, I got a little lost there.

01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:55.000
Yeah, thank you, Pastor Weiser. Help me out if you would, I want to make sure we zero in on the right place. You mentioned a tracking of performance. I want to make sure I understand.

01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:11.000
Which area you're talking about, uh, tracking with these units, use of force. The units… I'm not able to identify the units where that they… so that's where I'm kind of lost in there, because again, that's the area that I believe the guidance.

01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:14.000
system. Is that correct, or am I far from that?

01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:29.000
Uh, there is a lot of interplay between systems, between the audits that are required by PBB, and also their employee information system, or EIS, um, but as far as tracking, sort of, units in terms of use of force, um, Rob, are you comfortable.

01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:34.000
Uh, speaking to that a little bit, about what we… what we found, or… Yeah, sure, sure.

01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:39.000
Yeah, so, um, in terms of tracking the units for.

01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:42.000
uses reports that were found to be out of policy.

01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:50.000
Um, so PPV is reporting. the number of incidents and cases where, uh.

01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:55.000
an application of force is found to be out of policy, right? So you can have… and you can have.

01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:02.000
in any given event, you could have multiple officers involved with multiple applications of force, and so you can have.

01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:06.000
Multiple allegations regarding. related to each one, right?

01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:11.000
And so, they will report. that out in terms of.

01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:16.000
When their investigation was done, was a use of force found to be out of policy?

01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:25.000
Uh, what we were not seeing then was… Any sort of delineation about what unit were those officers a part of?

01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:37.000
Where were they in the department? What… who… Who are they reporting to? What is the responsible unit, or the reporting unit that's involved? And so that's where, in that particular instance.

01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:44.000
You know, for that requirement in paragraph 76. Um… they're reporting on how many.

01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:46.000
Uses of force are found to be out of policy.

01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:58.000
But not the… specific unit. So, it's not… Clear if it's North Precinct, East Precinct, Central Precinct, or some other unit that's involved.

01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:03.000
Does that answer your question? Yes, because it goes to the point that they multifast.

01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:10.000
area, which is going back up here, performance-wise. Of where that accountability.

01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:15.000
is where that I see, where we're… they're not able to follow.

01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:20.000
The employee, if he's working in fit, or if he's working over in.

01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:26.000
Uh, crowd control, and he's the same officer that's having the… a performance issue.

01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:33.000
Over here, over here, over here. I don't know how are we identifying that account?

01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:37.000
That's the part I just wanted to kind of.

01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:49.000
ask a little bit more clarity… not clarity, but maybe a little more depth of… When you're reporting and looking for those things, because again, um… I recognize systematic.

01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:55.000
And I also understand the agreement, um… Boundaries and limitations.

01:18:55.000 --> 01:19:03.000
But if you're identifying just that in itself. That should be explaining to why or where these tracking pieces.

01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:07.000
When they're disappearing a long way of use of force, that's my comment.

01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:18.000
Right. No, appreciate it. Thanks, Pastor Wisner, and I'm glad you invoked and talked about the employee information system, the EIS. I think it does get to… some of the aspects of your question.

01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:30.000
Um, so the system is required to be operational by Portland Police Bureau to sort of track officers and behavior, etc. Um, and the settlement agreement specifically requires that.

01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:40.000
Commanding officers, supervisors. Um, review the EIS records for officers who are under their command to see what's going on with these officers.

01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:48.000
And if officers transfer into their command, or if the supervisors transfer, and as new officers reporting to them, there's a requirement, again.

01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:59.000
That they look at those records to see what's been the behavior of these officers, what's been the trends, are there negative trends that I should know about? Um, that's a requirement in the settlement agreement. It's one of.

01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:06.000
We did find substantial compliance with it, and I'm not positive if this goes to your question, but just in case, I want to mention.

01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:16.000
Um, one of the changes for… there was in the EIS, I mentioned there were 3 paragraphs that we measured this last time. There's one paragraph, 118.

01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:23.000
that was in partial compliance last time, and this might have been where you were getting at, that's now in substantial compliance.

01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:28.000
The main reason it was in partial compliance last time around was part of their.

01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:39.000
PPV's tracking system. was down, frankly, for a couple months due to an information technology error. The tracking wasn't working as it was supposed to.

01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:49.000
That's what's required by the agreement. And so we held them in partial compliance because there had no bad intention, the system just didn't work for a part of.

01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:53.000
what it's supposed to look for for a couple months. They rectified that.

01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:58.000
Um, this time around, they gave us information demonstrating.

01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:07.000
That all of the required thresholds in the settlement agreement, and I believe the total is around 8 required thresholds.

01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:16.000
Uh, for that EIS system. That all of them were operational and active during this reporting period, and that's what moved them from partial.

01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:21.000
to substantial compliance in this reporting period. So that tracking piece was going as supposed to.

01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:27.000
But that's a little more clear. Uh, thank you for asking the question, I'm glad you did.

01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:33.000
We'll move to an online question. Looks like Babs is up next.

01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:42.000
Hello, thank you very much. Babs Vinelli here, 77-year-old lifelong Portlander, currently in Northeast Portland, and a board member on the Northeast Coalition for Neighborhoods.

01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:58.000
I'm speaking just for myself at this point. I have followed the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing for quite a while now. I also, um, listened in to another report by the Independent.

01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:06.000
Uh, police monitoring, uh, team earlier this year. Uh, and I thank you to Dr. Haynes for all the issues he raised.

01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:13.000
Um, and… what I'm still wondering about, though, is it would get to the point of.

01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:21.000
Here's all we did. Um, and then… but then in terms of the.

01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:26.000
exactly what? disciplinary action was.

01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:33.000
taken, and… Was it effective? Did the person who needed.

01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:38.000
discipline was their behavior changed, and how was that.

01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:58.000
Monitored. And I apologize if I missed that. Um, and I did just tune in a little before 7, because I was in another meeting, but… How, uh, whoever can address that, that would be helpful. Thank you. How is that tracked?

01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:03.000
Thanks for that, perhaps. Um, we did talk about it briefly, but it's worth mentioning again.

01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:04.000
Okay.

01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:10.000
You know, with regard to… Uh, specific incidences of discipline.

01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:19.000
It's not really something that the monitoring team assesses. It's not laid out in the settlement agreement as one of the.

01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:26.000
enumerated paragraphs, I mentioned 22 paragraphs that we monitor to determine whether discipline in a particular case.

01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:31.000
was effective, change behavior. It's just not something that we measure.

01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:38.000
Uh, we do measure, as I mentioned before, accountability in general. It looks at administrative investigations broadly.

01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:44.000
It looks at certain benchmarks that they're required to meet. We also.

01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:51.000
look at in some of these paragraphs are in self-monitoring regarding accountability. Whether or not there is a.

01:23:51.000 --> 01:23:56.000
an appropriate disciplinary guide. Uh, so that the procedure of discipline.

01:23:56.000 --> 01:24:00.000
is done fairly, is done objectively, is done according to.

01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:05.000
the facts of a particular incident or the results of a particular investigation.

01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:09.000
And that they're not done unfairly across different parts of the Bureau.

01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:11.000
Those are all things that are in the agreement.

01:24:11.000 --> 01:24:21.000
However, I believe, to your question about specific instances of discipline, what was meted out? Was it appropriate? Did it create change for the officer who was found to have committed misconduct?

01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:28.000
It's not something that is specified as far as a paragraph for our assessment in the agreement, and therefore it's not.

01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:29.000
Specifically, part of what we report on. Thanks for your question.

01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:43.000
Okay. Oh. Well…

01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:48.000
Was there a follow-up there, Babs?

01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:53.000
Well, yeah. Uh, wait, am I… Can you hear me okay?

01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:56.000
Yeah. We can hear and see you.

01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:02.000
Okay, thank you. Well, and thank you, and yes, I understood all that.

01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:10.000
But I'm still wondering, Ken. Does the police department itself, then.

01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:19.000
Have a team that specifically. Uh, tracks what disciplinary action is taken. I understand.

01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:29.000
That's out of the realm of what. the Independent Police Monitor does, but then who does do it? And again, is there a specific.

01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:34.000
team on the police force that does that.

01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:47.000
I want to be careful to not speak for the Bureau. Discipline… I've had to say discipline cases do have a tracking mechanism for what the outcomes are.

01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:52.000
what disciplines meted out. That is recorded, it goes into personnel files for officers.

01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:59.000
And that's pretty common to law enforcement agencies, um, including Portland Police Bureau, with more… with any regard to any more specifics about.

01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:06.000
Exactly who looks at that, um, or how they track it within the Bureau, I will leave that to them.

01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:14.000
Thanks again, Bob. Thank you. We're moving to another question in the room.

01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:25.000
How you doing? My name is Terrence Hayes, I'm a community member. I just want to… language is a funny thing, so as you continue to answer those questions, you would say things like, we don't specifically look at it, but.

01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:33.000
When you… when you were… the language you were using before that kind of said you don't. Like, you really don't go beyond this generalization of.

01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:41.000
the implementation of a certain policy, you're not following… I just want to be clear, you're not following discipline on the other side of.

01:26:41.000 --> 01:27:01.000
what your questions or what your concerns is, right? Because when you say, like, we don't specifically follow that, you either really do follow that, or you don't, and if you're in the middle somewhere, what does that look like? Because that doesn't… SAN specifically doesn't really answer, like, very clearly, can we expect to have answers about disciplinary and outcomes from you?

01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:18.000
Or not, right? And I think community would be okay if it's just not, and we can ask a different kind of set of questions, because the reason I feel like you're getting that back is because we're not getting the clarity, like, look, after this very, um, after this paragraph applies to the question for us.

01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:23.000
We don't follow or track on the other side of that, right? And maybe the next set of questions for it is.

01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:32.000
for community is, hey, you guys gotta get to PPP and be very clear, so I just want to… if we… like, that wasn't my question, but I would like some clarity about, like.

01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:38.000
At what point are y'all stopping? And just, we are not on the other side of disciplinary from this point.

01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:51.000
4. Yeah, so we do not… assess disciplinary outcomes in individual cases. We do not. You asked about sort of a middle ground, and if I can.

01:27:51.000 --> 01:28:03.000
weighed into that middle ground a little bit. Um, what we do… everything that we do is in the settlement agreement, and it's, again, up on our website, and you can access and read it if you've got the time and energy.

01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:16.000
Uh, but every paragraph that's in there is what our guide is. And that middle ground that you mentioned, I think, is an appropriate term for it, so I appreciate it, is that we do look at a number of accountability paragraphs. Accountability means investigations of misconduct.

01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:23.000
They could be investigations about misconduct involving use of force, involving miscourtesy, involving anything else for that matter.

01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:30.000
But rather than looking at those individual cases, because that's not, to your point, what's called for by the agreement.

01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:35.000
It does call and look at the process for those investigations. Are there protocols being followed?

01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:43.000
are certain double checks for those investigations being done? Are they being done in a timely fashion? If not, is there a reason for the delay.

01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:49.000
We look at all those things, but they're more processed things, not case outcomes. Perfect, thanks, I really appreciate your clarity.

01:28:49.000 --> 01:28:59.000
So, my real question was, after I hit the… be behind the brothers and kind of ponder that is, when I look at, um, substantial compliance, partial compliance.

01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:09.000
moved into self-monitoring. If you can talk a little bit about what that matrix looked like, I know you talked about, like, 8 things. So, if there's 8 things, and you're like, well, they hit all 8.

01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:19.000
Why aren't we just compliant at that point? Or if you don't hit two… if you only hit two of the eight, why are we just not compliant? So, from, like, a community standpoint.

01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:27.000
That language, um, leaves a lot of room of unsurity, and maybe you can explain why you use that language, because it seems like.

01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:36.000
like a soft touch. on the subject, not either we're in compliance, we're out, or we're halfway through, so if you can just talk a little bit about that, it'll help me.

01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:41.000
Um, kind of understand how y'all come up with the language and what comes from it. Yeah, good, thank you.

01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:49.000
I'm going to take a shot, and I might tee up and ask a team member of mine or two to be ready, Russell, maybe Brian, if you're available and ready.

01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:59.000
Uh, so I mentioned during our presentation kind of the buckets that you just went through, substantial compliance, partial compliance, those are the two that we focus on in our report, the third clock, and we did not.

01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:04.000
have any findings for. Um, the definitions of those have been.

01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:11.000
have been maintained throughout the course of the settlement agreement, and we talked about, sort of, its history and how long it is.

01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:17.000
It's how PPV and the city have been judged, really, for the life of the agreement. If you go back to.

01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:22.000
quarterly COCA reports going back a decade. If you go back to the DOJ's assessments.

01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:29.000
It's really using those definitions. Uh, so substantial compliance meaning, again, not perfection, as I mentioned.

01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:35.000
Uh, but is the requirement in the agreement, those number paragraphs, being met, um.

01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:39.000
in a comprehensive fashion, with a high level of integrity.

01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:43.000
and any violations, so notes that those violations may occur.

01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:49.000
are minor or occasional and not systemic. That causes a judgment call.

01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:56.000
And that's our responsibility to do. Um, what… what is minor? What is occasional? What is systemic?

01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:04.000
We have lengthy discussions about those as a team, quite often, because that's how we need to determine, does it meet this bucket or not?

01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:10.000
It is not a hard and fast percentage. In other words, hey, you looked at 50 cases, I'm making this up.

01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:17.000
uh, were 95% compliant, we're 90% compliant, um, and that's going to be adjusted. It's not done that way.

01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:28.000
When we came in, sort of late on the scene, and I know this was one of our earlier slides, and hopefully everyone has forgotten about by this point, when we came in on the scene as the monitor appointed by the court.

01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:37.000
We're pretty deep into the agreement. And it didn't, um, appear right to us to change those standards.

01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000
The last thing I'll say is the definition of.

01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:47.000
substantial compliance is the one that is explicitly stated, at least in part, in the settlement agreement.

01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:53.000
It doesn't really talk about the other ones, but that's what's been used, but substantial clients, that language that we use.

01:31:53.000 --> 01:32:02.000
That's our minor occasional, not systemic. Um, to make those judgments, that is explicit in the settlement agreement, and so we thought that's the appropriate judgment to make.

01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:09.000
Um, I wanted to thank you for that. I want to check and see. Sometimes my… Perspective isn't the only valuable one.

01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:18.000
Um, don't put people on spot, but Russell, is there anything you'd like to add? And if not, that's okay. Or Brian, I don't know if you're out there, if you have any other thoughts that you think would be helpful.

01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:26.000
Um, please feel free to add them. I think I may just reiterate an example that came up earlier.

01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:36.000
with regard to what does systemic mean? Um, what does minor mean? As Mark said, we have conversations about how to interpret.

01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:42.000
the outcomes, um, and the requirements that are specifically listed in the paragraphs for compliance.

01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:47.000
Um, an example that I provided earlier, which may be a helpful reminder in this moment.

01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:58.000
has to do with requirement that. investigations into alleged misconduct by police officers must be completed within 180 days.

01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:03.000
There are reasons that that can't happen sometimes, and sometimes those reasons.

01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:13.000
are absolutely understandable, and they make sense. However, um, when that happens, there is a requirement that the Portland Police Bureau.

01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:17.000
Well, identify the reason that it took longer than 180 days.

01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:23.000
And then have and implement a plan intended to mitigate that, so it doesn't happen again.

01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:28.000
So, it's an example to say that of the 6 times.

01:33:28.000 --> 01:33:34.000
that we saw that they took over 180 days. The reasons might have been reasonable and understandable.

01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:44.000
Um, but if they didn't fulfill the. specific requirements of the language to then also implement a plan to mitigate that.

01:33:44.000 --> 01:33:49.000
That becomes something that we determine whether it is minor and or systemic.

01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:54.000
Uh, if it happens across. all 6 times.

01:33:54.000 --> 01:34:00.000
Then it leans into the systemic, and it may still be minor. The reason for the delay.

01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:07.000
But it becomes systemic. And this is the kind of analysis that we're doing, looking specifically at the language of each paragraph, and then.

01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:15.000
doing our best as experts in the field with various perspectives and experience, to determine whether that is a systemic problem.

01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:19.000
Um, the failure or the miss is a systemic problem.

01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:24.000
Along with whether it's minor. This is the… this is the work of it.

01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:32.000
I hope that's helpful. Uh, we do have a next question coming up.

01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:38.000
from the Zoom, uh, group, uh, Charlie. Please go ahead.

01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:48.000
Hello. Uh, good evening. All right, so I'm probably just gonna be here as a community member, but dabbling towards.

01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:58.000
some cop watched, uh, questions as well. Um… So I want to be clear, just for others in the room or online, that.

01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:06.000
You're monitoring a certain time frame, correct? And could you say what that is?

01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:12.000
That's my first clarification. Before I go into the next questions…

01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:23.000
Sure, absolutely. Thanks, Charlie. Um, yes, our assessments are done on a semi-annual basis, and so the current draft report that we have available now with our.

01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:33.000
recommended findings at this moment, uh, covers a reporting period from the first two quarters of 2025, so from January through June of 2025.

01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:45.000
Okay, um, so I just wanted to make that clear. And you were just talking about systemic versus individual… individual, um… Can someone tell me.

01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:51.000
in that particular time frame, although I wish, uh… This could have taken on.

01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:57.000
a much longer time frame to get an. more accurate picture of what's going on.

01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:02.000
how many systemic issues have you actually come across?

01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:15.000
Anybody got that information? Because I am talking about, uh… racial, uh, incidences, and how then would you determine that?

01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:22.000
When it's like, the world knows. that Black lives are taken disproportionately.

01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:28.000
How do you all determine that?

01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:32.000
Charlie, as far as systemic issues that we fund, again, our assessments come via.

01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:39.000
The remaining paragraphs in the settlement agreement, and so that's what we look at, that's all we're authorized.

01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:45.000
Uh, to look at. When we look at those, we found in this 6-month period that we reviewed.

01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:48.000
There were 5 of the 22 paragraphs that we looked at.

01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:55.000
Where we felt that there were issues substantial enough that were not minor or occasional, or that were systemic.

01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:10.000
with 5 of those paragraphs that they did not meet the standard of substantial compliance. So it's stated a little bit differently than, I think, the way you asked, a really important question before the compliance assessments that we're charged with doing.

01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:16.000
Again, based on the 22 paragraphs that we looked at, and we found 5 that had issues we felt rose to the level of.

01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:21.000
more than minor occasional and possibly systemic.

01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:31.000
Okay, then the, the, uh… Hold on, uh, substantial… compliant versus, um, partially compliant.

01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:38.000
Um, so once these go into self-monitor at some point.

01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:45.000
Uh, and let's say they fall from compliance to partial, and maybe from partial to non-compliant.

01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:53.000
Uh, so you're saying that now the police will be self-monitoring that? So, in other words, the police will be policing the police?

01:37:53.000 --> 01:37:56.000
Right?

01:37:56.000 --> 01:38:02.000
Yeah, so the self-monitoring process, um, as with everything else that we focus on.

01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:14.000
is set out by the settlement agreement. And paragraphs move to self-monitoring only after certain things happen, only after, for instance, the monitoring team.

01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:21.000
finds that paragraph insubstantial compliance for two consecutive semiannual reports.

01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:27.000
Or, there are some other combinations of. our reports, uh, and previous COCAL and DOJ reports.

01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:44.000
That would apply to the last reporting period, but going forward, and for this reporting period, uh, it's… only move… paragraphs move to self-monitored status only when they have been found in substantial compliance for two consecutive monitoring reports.

01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:48.000
When they get to that status, uh, you're correct, it's the.

01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:54.000
Bureau, or the city's responsibility. To come up with a self-monitoring plan.

01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:00.000
how they're going to measure their own compliance. We consult with them on that plan.

01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:06.000
Uh, to make sure that it is geared toward evidencing continued substantial compliance.

01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:10.000
And then the city and PPP are required to follow that plan.

01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:15.000
And come up with an assessment of whether or not they maintain substantial compliance.

01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:23.000
The last step, uh, that I want to mention in the process, and this is laid out in our report for 33 of the paragraphs during the 6-month period.

01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:30.000
Our team evaluates. the self-monitoring process undertaken by the Bureau.

01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:38.000
To see, did they indeed evidence substantial compliance, continued compliance, in accordance with the plan that they created?

01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:44.000
Or did they fall short? We looked at 33 of those paragraphs, we conducted evaluations of each one.

01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:54.000
We felt that they met their burden, followed their plan, and evidenced compliance, substantial compliance, in 31 of the 33 paragraphs.

01:39:54.000 --> 01:40:00.000
There were two where we felt that they didn't, and more work needs to be done.

01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:06.000
Okay, so that's gonna be the same kind of, uh, situation with the body cam audits.

01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:12.000
Uh, they are going to be the ones who audit themselves.

01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:21.000
Part of the Bureau's Bio and Camera policy. requires the… that the Bureau conduct audits of itself.

01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:27.000
They are, to my knowledge, working on the methodology to.

01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:32.000
to conduct a comprehensive audits, and yes, to your question.

01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:40.000
by policy, it's a requirement for the Bureau to conduct audits of its own auto-in camera usage and identify.

01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:41.000
And then, uh, I guess my final question will be.

01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:44.000
Where problems are found.

01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:52.000
What if the self-monitor fails? I mean, because what I'm seeing here is actually more.

01:40:52.000 --> 01:41:00.000
lack of accountability. So, what… What if the self-monitoring fails? Who's going to be overseeing that?

01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:12.000
who's gonna hold them accountable for those being actually, um… what's the word I'm looking for? Um… Accurate.

01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:17.000
And what I can tell you is, as far as the paragraphs in self-monitoring.

01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:24.000
It's our job, our monitoring team, our job. to conduct those evaluations to see, did.

01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:31.000
the Bureau or the city. conduct its self-monitoring appropriately in accordance with its plan.

01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:37.000
evidencing continued substantial compliance. And so, in our report, if we find that they didn't.

01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:40.000
Which we did for two paragraphs that we looked at this time.

01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:45.000
We write that in the report. And then to get to your question, it's not until.

01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:53.000
The city shows that it has indeed. maintain substantial compliance for two consecutive reporting periods.

01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:57.000
that the paragraph can ultimately be terminated. So they need to…

01:41:57.000 --> 01:42:04.000
What about when you guys are gone, though? Because, alright, you guys will be wrapping this up at some point.

01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:10.000
Correct. At some point, when all the paragraphs have been terminated.

01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:17.000
the case that led to the settlement agreement. will presumably be resolved.

01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:31.000
Monitorship will end. Um, and that is sort of the nature of these types of agreements, or consent decrees or settlement agreements, that they do have and end once compliance has been reached and shown to be sustained. And so, yes, that is the case.

01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:38.000
Um, and when our term ends, we will… leave with the knowledge and hope.

01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:43.000
That reforms were implemented, that they are being adhered to, and that there is durable, lasting change.

01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:48.000
That's the goal, and so that's what, uh… our aim will be.

01:42:48.000 --> 01:42:49.000
Okay, thank you.

01:42:49.000 --> 01:43:01.000
Thanks, Charlie. Good to see you. Thanks for that. Thanks for that question, Charlie. I do want to acknowledge that we're nearing the end of the allotted time that we have. We do have a couple more folks that want to ask questions in the room.

01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:06.000
Uh, we have at least one more hand on Zoom, but we are going to try to move toward.

01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:14.000
Uh, wrapping us up out of respect for the venue and the church and folks that are working here with us, um, and providing food.

01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:22.000
Uh, so let's try to be respectful of that goal to wrap up close to 8 o'clock, which is the time that we allotted.

01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:31.000
Yeah, we took a little bit of a longer break, we started a little bit late, so we want to be a little flexible without being disrespectful.

01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:51.000
Uh, of anybody's time. Uh, I've appreciative that everybody is hanging in there for this. We're going to move to… Uh, a question in the room, and um… Then we'll wrap up with the online hands, Chay, after that one. Yeah, thanks for your patience.

01:43:51.000 --> 01:44:01.000
Thank you, I'm trying to be quick. My name's Philip Tchka from Portland Cupwatch. I have a question about paragraph 116. That was about, um, annual performance reviews.

01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:13.000
Uh, it was put a substantial compliance. Um, because the PPP reports the 93.9% on-time completion rate.

01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:21.000
Which seems like a reasonable amount, but it seems like one department is kind of nubbing their nose up the settlement agreement.

01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:29.000
Um, with 67% out of compliance with that, and that's the Chief's Office and the Criminal Investigation Unit.

01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:37.000
You're part of that 33… they only had 33% on-time compliance rate with poor performance reviews.

01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:43.000
Um, can the independent monitor confirm that the chief's office in the criminal investigation youth.

01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:50.000
Unit are actually completing their evaluations, even though they may be late.

01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:56.000
And also, number 2, can you speak to the quality of the performance reviews?

01:44:56.000 --> 01:45:01.000
Thanks, thanks very much for those questions. Um, I'll try to field them, but I want to see first, uh.

01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:08.000
Rob, do you recall looking at those? Wanna start? Doesn't matter.

01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:17.000
Yeah, so to answer your question about, um, are the performance reviews being completed? We have no evidence that they're not completing those reviews.

01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:21.000
Um, so, that's the short… Evidence that they're not.

01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:26.000
We're not ruins whether we have evidence that they are not completing them.

01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:31.000
Right, no, we have no evidence that says that they're not completing them.

01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:49.000
Yeah, thank you. We have no evidence that they are completing them either, but… Uh, that is the number that is reported by PPP in terms of their internal reporting for.

01:45:49.000 --> 01:46:01.000
compliance on completing those reviews. Meaning, meaning, so, like, if you're asking, have we gone through and… comb through their records to verify all of the chief's office reviews were completed.

01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:08.000
On time, and looked at the reviews ourselves, the answer is no, we have not done that.

01:46:08.000 --> 01:46:13.000
Yeah, just so that the people on Zoom, do you need me to try to move the microphone over?

01:46:13.000 --> 01:46:25.000
That section was set up substantial compliance. I didn't hear your question. That one was in substantial compliance, that paragraph? Was that paragraph in substantial compliance?

01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:34.000
Yes. Yes, yes, guess what?

01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:36.000
And could you repeat for me what the second?

01:46:36.000 --> 01:46:58.000
Part of that question was? And the independent monitor speaks to the quality of the performance of the valuations, like… Are they thorough evaluations for the performance of the monitor speak to whether those evaluations are thorough or otherwise to the quality of them?

01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:08.000
So the… this may be one… Uh, for, I believe that I looked at some of those as well, but there are a number of different requirements they have to go through in terms of.

01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:14.000
The performance reviews, uh, in terms of the information they need to look at in terms of.

01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:22.000
the EIS information, the performance data tracker, whether or not there's been disciplinary issues, whether or not training has been completed.

01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:26.000
Um, a number of different things that have been done there, and then.

01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:31.000
Their job is to document that. review that they've gone through and done that.

01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:35.000
And… had any follow-up that might be necessary with the.

01:47:35.000 --> 01:47:40.000
Uh, officers involved. So, we're able to verify that they.

01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:54.000
are going through those… processes, uh, and that they're documenting them. And this is… Part of the, uh… this is where part of the separation comes in, is because Parag 116 is particularly around.

01:47:54.000 --> 01:48:01.000
Um, that review being done and being documented in the EIS, so we know that that's being done.

01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:07.000
I know that when looking at some of the other paragraphs, for example, in training, we also had to go through and verify.

01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:13.000
That certain training requirements were being documented in the EIS doing that.

01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:22.000
So, um, we can verify that those pieces are being done, for sure, um, but this, in some ways, this question is a little bit like.

01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:27.000
The question, um, related to the outcomes, like disciplinary outcomes, like.

01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:31.000
You're sort of asking, what is the quality of the review that's being done?

01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:37.000
Uh, it's sort of like asking… What is the quality of a disciplinary effort that was.

01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:43.000
Given to an officer, um, which is not what we're looking at at this point. It's the.

01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:50.000
They are doing them, they are documenting them. Um, where that goes from that.

01:48:50.000 --> 01:49:04.000
is not part of that particular assessment. One other hopeful clarification, so this parent 116, um, and thank you for the question about it, subpart A.

01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:12.000
The requirement of the settlement agreement is that PPB require its command staff, its commanders and supervisors, to conduct.

01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:18.000
these reviews. There are other. segments of the settlement agreement that.

01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:28.000
talk about, um… tasks that need to be completed, so… So many reviews must be done in a certain amount of time.

01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:33.000
That we could take a sample of and see.

01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:45.000
The settlement agreements language here is a little bit interesting. What is required of the Bureau is that it require its commanders and supervisors to conduct prompt reviews. Does it have a policy.

01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:55.000
require them to do that? Is it part of what the requirement is? It is. Um, did they show us evidence to show that they are holding their supervisors to account for that?

01:49:55.000 --> 01:50:04.000
And naming the percentages that you name to see, hey, are they meeting this requirement? They are. And so they provide us that data to show, hey, we do have this requirement.

01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:09.000
We're supposed to, according to the settlement agreement. It's there, and here's what the results were.

01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:13.000
So, what our assessment was, was did they meet that requirement of 116A.

01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:19.000
And it's hard to talk about because you use the word require to require, it's a bit of an odd concept.

01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:27.000
Both Summer Agreement calls for. is that PPP required its commanders and supervisors to conduct these reviews.

01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:32.000
That requirement is in place. And they gave us evidence to show that they are.

01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:36.000
accounting for when supervisors do it and don't do it well.

01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:45.000
Uh, or don't do it as promptly as they… Uh, could do it, but the requirement is in place, and that's what we verified and held them in compliance for.

01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:53.000
A little bit of a nuanced concept. So, looks like we'll be moving to our final question in the room.

01:50:53.000 --> 01:51:02.000
I want to, I think, address some of what I'm hearing both in the room and online, and acknowledge that there can be frustration.

01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:13.000
With different processes intended to. Improve policing. Uh… There are different approaches, uh, and different levels of responsibility.

01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:18.000
Based on the structure or the settlement agreement, or the consent decree.

01:51:18.000 --> 01:51:27.000
Uh, or the oversight body. There are many tools that can be employed to improve policing in the jurisdiction.

01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:31.000
I think it's important to recognize that no one tool.

01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:39.000
is intended to be the panacea. for all of the issues that are detected by the people that are served by police.

01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:44.000
And I think it's appropriate to ask where those limits and boundaries are.

01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:48.000
Uh, and hear from us. why we do or don't.

01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:54.000
assess things like the disciplinary outcomes. Uh, and I think those are great questions.

01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:59.000
And I just want to highlight that, um, this is not necessarily the tool.

01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:03.000
By which you can accomplish all of the things you'd like to see.

01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:18.000
Uh, your police department, um… achieve. I know we have, I think, one more question room before I get to that, I wanted to fill in maybe another piece of information, hopes that'll be helpful. I don't know if that'll be a satisfactory answer, but hopefully helpful anyway.

01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:24.000
One of the things we looked at for this requirement and settlement agreement, the one that you pointed out within paragraph 116.

01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:33.000
again, I talked a moment ago about. what's called for on the part of PPP is that they require their supervisors and commanders to do this task.

01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:36.000
They did present us with those percentages of how it's done.

01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:44.000
But as we stated in our report, the evidence that we looked at to see, are they… are they requiring the supervisors to do that?

01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:53.000
We looked at their relevant directives, Directive 215, which Jill's Member Performance Evaluations, Directive 345, dealing with the employee information system.

01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:58.000
And a standard operating procedure from Professional Standards Division.

01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:05.000
about tracking of yearly member performance evaluations. Those documents showed us that the Bureau does indeed.

01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:10.000
Require performance reviews of employees, including their EIS records.

01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:14.000
So they showed us that they indeed do require.

01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:19.000
the people named in the settlement agreement, Supervisors and commanders, to do these reviews promptly.

01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:28.000
in some cases, as you pointed out. They weren't so prompt, and they reported that, and we said so, but what we were looking at was the settlement agreements call.

01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:31.000
that a requirement be in place for these reviews to happen.

01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:39.000
The requirements are indeed in place, and that was what really based our judgment on. And I'm sorry it took me actually a minute to kind of circle around to.

01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:42.000
to that reasoning, as I re-familiarize myself with that.

01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:50.000
Thanks for your patience. But we are going to have one final question on Zoom, one final question in the room.

01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:56.000
believes that there is going to be food for you to take away with you when we're done.

01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.000
So don't just run out when we wrap up here.

01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:06.000
Please make sure you avail yourself of that. So we'll go… Zoom, I don't see… oh.

01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:11.000
I can't read it from here, I'm sorry. Abel? Abel. Thank you, Abel.

01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:24.000
Just need to unmute.

01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:29.000
practitioner? Uh, just needs to unmute on his side.

01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:35.000
Yep.

01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:41.000
We had you unmuted for a moment, let's try again.

01:54:41.000 --> 01:54:42.000
Hello? Uh, this is Avel Gordley.

01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:47.000
Hello.

01:54:47.000 --> 01:54:48.000
Hi, Bill, we sure can.

01:54:48.000 --> 01:54:54.000
Can you hear me? Okay, uh, I'd like to know what we can expect from.

01:54:54.000 --> 01:55:02.000
The monitoring team. Going forward, uh, since the grand jury finding.

01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:10.000
Reported today. In the Johnson case.

01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:17.000
Thanks for the question, Abel. Um, so I want to be careful. There's nothing I can really speak to with regard to.

01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:22.000
the finding that came out today, um, with regard to any.

01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:35.000
in-custody death investigation or lethal force investigation. Uh, during a reporting period, we're looking at during a 6-month period, when those investigations are completed.

01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:47.000
They will be part of what we would look at with regard to use of force. However, that's only when an investigation is completed. In this past reporting period, for instance, there were two such cases.

01:55:47.000 --> 01:56:00.000
Where the investigations were completed, they were both officer-involved shootings, but not until investigations completed as it's something that we would have the authority to look at it. So, I… on the one hand, I appreciate the question, I feel badly that I think I'm not.

01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:11.000
Uh, giving you a whole lot of answer with regard to any finding that came out today. Um, it's not something that we would have response to at this moment, but I certainly appreciate you asking.

01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:19.000
I appreciate the response, it helps me understand the kind of… the time frame that we're looking at.

01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:23.000
where we might expect. a response from.

01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:28.000
the independent monitor. Am I making myself clear on this end?

01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:36.000
You certainly are, and the only other thing I want to say, and I realize we're long on time, I don't ever want to minimize the.

01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:44.000
impact the import. of incidents like the one that I believe you're discussing, I know how serious they are.

01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:58.000
Um, I think I know it well, I think our team respects that and knows it well. Uh, so I appreciate the question. I think it's appropriate to ask, and I… Important to ask, but I also appreciate your understanding that there is a timeline that we go by, uh, not by our choice, but by.

01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:03.000
how the settlement agreement is structured, and we will abide by that timeline, and we will look at every lethal force.

01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:09.000
investigation or in-class death investigation when it's completed in the time period we're looking at.

01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:10.000
Thank you for your response, and thank you for your work. Thank you.

01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:15.000
But thank you again. Thanks so much for the question, appreciate it.

01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:31.000
Thanks for your patience. Hi, my name's Allison Seifer, and I'm a resident of Portland, and I'm a supporter of the Pacific Northwest Family Circle. They support families who have lost loved ones to police violence.

01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:44.000
And, um, I want to respect everyone's time, I appreciate people going over. I really am thankful to be here, and for everyone for being here. Um… My first question is, why the 6-month time period of the 2.

01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:49.000
Terms, what was… how was that decided? That that would be the period that was looked at.

01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:54.000
That's mandated in the settlement agreement.

01:57:54.000 --> 01:58:04.000
Okay, so I will just… I'll try to be succinct, um… I'm very concerned that that is not long enough for a comprehensive.

01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:10.000
And thorough. evaluation of the police conduct.

01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:24.000
This, um… this began, as was mentioned, in 2011. So that's a period of almost 15 years. The fact that we are distilling it down to 6 months and looking at 49 incidences.

01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:28.000
I am concerned, as a resident of Portland is not enough.

01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:35.000
I think we need to do 5 years, 10 years. I think we need to go back to 2010, when Keaton Otis was shot over 30 times.

01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:41.000
by police officers. It was a mental health, uh, ish… he was having mental health things, was pulled over.

01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:44.000
We're looking like a gangster. He was a young Black man.

01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:49.000
I'm concerned about systemic. issues within the police bureau.

01:58:49.000 --> 01:59:00.000
the side of the car says to protect and to serve. I… as much as I would like to believe that they want to do that, they are not doing that, and I would like to say that we do need to look at the exceptions to the rule.

01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:06.000
I understand that your investigation is not looking at those, and is saying those are the exceptions to the rule.

01:59:06.000 --> 01:59:18.000
That's what we need to really look at. So, I, um… And I'm concerned at the self-monitoring. Um, I hear that that's going to be what we're going to segue into.

01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:28.000
I don't… there's not enough trust there. There's not enough trust there. I think that the Portland Police Bureau needs to earn more trust of the citizens, because key notice should still be alive.

01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:31.000
Um, Damon Lamar Johnson, who was killed this year in the summer.

01:59:31.000 --> 01:59:36.000
should still be alive. That was a welfare check, that was a mental health crisis.

01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:43.000
And he lost unconsciousness due to excessive force and being pinned to the ground.

01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:46.000
Police question whether they should be there or not.

01:59:46.000 --> 01:59:58.000
I don't understand why… was that case looked at? And I… I just… I'm shaking saying this. I just, um… One life lost is too many.

01:59:58.000 --> 02:00:09.000
And, uh, I don't have a solution today, but I'm sad to hear that after 5 check marks of the partial compliance is done, the nine of you will be done.

02:00:09.000 --> 02:00:16.000
And then it will be left to the police department here, and the city council, and the powers that be.

02:00:16.000 --> 02:00:22.000
to continue this work, maybe that will be what we'll have, but I just will ask you, the nine of you.

02:00:22.000 --> 02:00:28.000
to please look at the lethal force, and that it's not just going to be a checkmark, and then.

02:00:28.000 --> 02:00:40.000
given deferred to the police officers, that we can find a greater, um… Dr. Reverend Haynes said that we can look at accountability, please.

02:00:40.000 --> 02:00:47.000
Oh, thank you. Thank you. Can you speak to that, and if you could speak to the timeline of 6 months, and if you… anyone feels that's sufficient.

02:00:47.000 --> 02:00:51.000
And that the 49 cases, if that really is sufficient to look at.

02:00:51.000 --> 02:00:56.000
Um, long-term sustained. Evaluation.

02:00:56.000 --> 02:01:01.000
Thanks so much for that. Um, there was a lot of things you said that, uh.

02:01:01.000 --> 02:01:06.000
Resonate, I think you're important. Uh, one of them is just the phrase and the sentiment.

02:01:06.000 --> 02:01:13.000
one life lost is… it's just… it's too many. You want that to never be the case, no matter what department you are.

02:01:13.000 --> 02:01:17.000
You are what city you're in. Um, so I appreciate you saying that.

02:01:17.000 --> 02:01:24.000
And I appreciate you expressing your skepticism. Your frustrations, your worries, your uncertainty.

02:01:24.000 --> 02:01:30.000
about what's to come, I… I think it's important for us to hear that feedback.

02:01:30.000 --> 02:01:35.000
it may not change what our authority is. Under the agreement that we're.

02:01:35.000 --> 02:01:43.000
Court appointed to abide by. But it's still valuable for us to hear that that sentiment is out there, for us to have it in our minds.

02:01:43.000 --> 02:01:50.000
As we go through the work of doing these assessments in accordance with our requirements, as I've talked about multiple times.

02:01:50.000 --> 02:01:53.000
It's important that we hear that and know it.

02:01:53.000 --> 02:02:02.000
Rather than be blind to it. So I appreciate all that you said. With regard to the 6-month period, I answered briefly before, but it is the case. A 6-month.

02:02:02.000 --> 02:02:10.000
semi-annual assessments that are done. That look at every 6-month period. That is mandated by the settlement agreement, um, and that's what we will follow.

02:02:10.000 --> 02:02:17.000
But I do understand the question about it, the concern about it, but I take your opinion as valid.

02:02:17.000 --> 02:02:22.000
Um, the sampling that we do in terms of looking at cases in that 6-month period.

02:02:22.000 --> 02:02:30.000
For instance, use of force cases, we do feel it provides us a reliable sample to go with. We would love to be able to review every case.

02:02:30.000 --> 02:02:40.000
Um, I think any agency, like our company like ours, would. That's not necessarily realistic, and so sampling is something that we need to do, and is traditionally done with, uh.

02:02:40.000 --> 02:02:50.000
agreements like this one, like Portland. We do feel that we have a reliable sample, and we basically doubled it from the previous 6-month period in terms of number of cases we reviewed.

02:02:50.000 --> 02:03:01.000
Um, but we do feel it's reliable, and if I can just ask Dr. Fourango to say just a couple words on why we feel confident about that with regard to these horse cases.

02:03:01.000 --> 02:03:13.000
I've learned what you mean by why we feel confident about… I mean, the… so are the… sampling that we've done, um, throughout the report, if you're looking at this, depending on.

02:03:13.000 --> 02:03:22.000
The statistics that are being reported. When we have used a sample data, we've calculated margin of error based on.

02:03:22.000 --> 02:03:26.000
The size of the sample that we have, and if we know the size of the population.

02:03:26.000 --> 02:03:30.000
We've taken that into account as well, so, you know, if it's several hundred.

02:03:30.000 --> 02:03:36.000
use of force cases we sampled from those, and we have both the fact that we looked at 49, and we know they came from the.

02:03:36.000 --> 02:03:42.000
Population of several hundred. We're able to take that into account and provide a margin of error estimate.

02:03:42.000 --> 02:03:48.000
Um, so, our margins of error on these are.

02:03:48.000 --> 02:03:56.000
Um… They fall into a region where we're generally looking at.

02:03:56.000 --> 02:04:07.000
somewhere around plus or minus 5-10%. Now… asked a question about, do we think that 6 months is enough, and is 49 cases enough?

02:04:07.000 --> 02:04:13.000
One of the things I would remind, um. Everyone, when we're talking about this, is that.

02:04:13.000 --> 02:04:20.000
This isn't just a decision that's made on. 6 months and 49 cases, but these are ongoing.

02:04:20.000 --> 02:04:25.000
reviews. The COCO previously had been doing quarterly reviews.

02:04:25.000 --> 02:04:30.000
When the independent monitor came in, that switched into semi-annual reviews.

02:04:30.000 --> 02:04:44.000
We've increased the sample sizes accordingly for that. Part of what's happening here is the ongoing review and sort of evolution and comparison of what's been happening from previous periods to the current period.

02:04:44.000 --> 02:04:50.000
Um, and so… You know, as we've mentioned before, in some cases, we're not.

02:04:50.000 --> 02:05:00.000
tasked with performing root cause analysis for specific cases, but rather looking at the system as a whole and its behavior and how.

02:05:00.000 --> 02:05:06.000
You know, what is happening in that system. And so, from that.

02:05:06.000 --> 02:05:12.000
perspective, we're looking for the continued improvement over time.

02:05:12.000 --> 02:05:16.000
Um, and when we get to this point where we're seeing.

02:05:16.000 --> 02:05:21.000
What appears to be only occasional minor and non-systemic issues.

02:05:21.000 --> 02:05:28.000
Uh, in what we're reviewing. Then we move for a substantial client finding.

02:05:28.000 --> 02:05:32.000
At the moment, about 49 cases that we have for those use of force.

02:05:32.000 --> 02:05:42.000
Um, reviews… Generally is giving us a fairly decent margin of error, though. I know we don't time for this, but within the systemic, if you look at the training that the police officers are given?

02:05:42.000 --> 02:05:53.000
that tend to escalate situations rather than tease. We do have a role with regard to review of training materials.

02:05:53.000 --> 02:06:03.000
Yeah, your statement assumes escalation, um, so without addressing that part, I just want to make sure that I'm being politically accurate, that.

02:06:03.000 --> 02:06:09.000
Yes, the settlement agreement that we are assessing compliance with.

02:06:09.000 --> 02:06:14.000
Requires us to review trainings. Uh, for quality.

02:06:14.000 --> 02:06:20.000
Gotcha. Yeah, I just wanted to share a few words on a piece that I thought was really important that you highlighted about.

02:06:20.000 --> 02:06:38.000
What happened? I think a few others did as well. When the moment comes that we're no longer here, or our job is complete, right, in terms of this role, and the lane that we are in to assess compliance with the settlement agreement. I think that's why these spaces are so important, and these are conversations that Antoin and I have had very intimately and with our team.

02:06:38.000 --> 02:06:46.000
Uh, how valuable and critical it is on the community engagement side to make sure folks are aware of the settlement agreement, what it is.

02:06:46.000 --> 02:06:51.000
Uh, to make… to be aware of what our team, uh, who our team is and what we do, and what we don't.

02:06:51.000 --> 02:07:01.000
Because the day is going to come when our role will be complete, but the work continues, right? And so I think you have some tremendous leadership and engagement from your community on this issue.

02:07:01.000 --> 02:07:07.000
Uh, that will be critical, right, moving forward in terms of accountability, in terms of continuing to evolve, um.

02:07:07.000 --> 02:07:19.000
Uh, more progress. And so you have, you know, leadership from PSET, um, that's a part of critical work. You have the community board for police accountability, you have your elected officials to continue to hold the city department accountable.

02:07:19.000 --> 02:07:25.000
Right, so there's going to be a number of ways to continue to do that important work. And I think that's why it was important for us.

02:07:25.000 --> 02:07:37.000
Uh, every… every reporting period, one of the things you want to continue to do is cast a wide net and engaging folks in this conversation, finding creative ways that we can go to the community instead of asking them to come to us.

02:07:37.000 --> 02:07:43.000
And so we also invite you to continue to share with us opportunities to do that more. And in this period in particular.

02:07:43.000 --> 02:08:00.000
Um, we heard a lot from folks that, um, thought it would be great to engage people with lived experience, and so we were very intentional about that. Um, so just want to invite that opportunity to continue the conversation, to keep us informed, to make sure we're engaging with folks that maybe we haven't engaged with.

02:08:00.000 --> 02:08:10.000
And just know that you have some tremendous leadership and representation here, in person, online, and with other bodies within the city that I think are going to continue to be a critical part of this work.

02:08:10.000 --> 02:08:17.000
Really well said, Jay and Antoinette. Not just me to remind you now that any emails.

02:08:17.000 --> 02:08:22.000
That you want to send to our info at portlandpolicemonitor.com.

02:08:22.000 --> 02:08:28.000
address, uh, we pledged to respond to and address every single.

02:08:28.000 --> 02:08:36.000
Uh, we understand that 2 hours or 2 hours plus may not be enough time for you to.

02:08:36.000 --> 02:08:41.000
fully engaged us and feel that we are addressing all the aspects of your inquiries and questions, and.

02:08:41.000 --> 02:08:53.000
Curiosities about our process and our role. Please do forward your additional questions to us via email or via telephone. The number's right there.

02:08:53.000 --> 02:08:59.000
And our promise is to respond to every single one and address every single question.

02:08:59.000 --> 02:09:05.000
Uh, any… Ms. Edwards, anything you want to say as we begin to wrap?

02:09:05.000 --> 02:09:11.000
I just want to thank you all, and I was really commend the leadership team.

02:09:11.000 --> 02:09:17.000
Thank you. Oh, you're taking it all in, and I just appreciate.

02:09:17.000 --> 02:09:23.000
They're not hard questions, they're real questions, and they deserve all the answers that we can give.

02:09:23.000 --> 02:09:31.000
and others beyond. So I just want to appreciate you, and take some food home, please, or I'll have to clean up, and I'm not your mate. Thank you.

02:09:31.000 --> 02:09:44.000
Thank you all so much. Uh, Chay mentioned this once before, this report that we discussed tonight is not finalized. Uh, we will be taking public comment until… through December 2nd, I believe, and every comment we receive.

02:09:44.000 --> 02:09:49.000
We'll factor in before we finalize this report. We will respond… we will take into account.

02:09:49.000 --> 02:09:55.000
every single one. So if you have cones, please send them. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for your questions and your engagement.

02:09:55.000 --> 02:09:57.000
And everyone have a good night. Thanks so much.

02:09:57.000 --> 02:10:01.000
Thanks