© 2019 Portland's Resistance

​​Call us:

(503) 893-2121

Email us:

communications@pdxresistance.org​

A FAIR CONTRACT

The following are the areas of emphasis for Portland’s Resistance in revising the contract between the City of Portland and the Portland Police Association:

 

Most Important

Meaningful civilian oversight through Independent Police Review (IPR). Update contract to specify that:
  • IPR has authority to compel officer testimony (related to City Code 3.21.210)

  • IPR has authority to recommend disciplinary actions, the recommendations go to Chief of Police who must provide written response sustaining or denying/overruling recommendations.

  • Deadly force incidents are not exempted from IPR’s jurisdiction and “deadly force” is expanded for IPR to include anything that can cause death, not that necessarily resulted in death

Some of these can be achieved by removing 62.1.3, which currently limits the scope of IPR. Others would need to be spelled out elsewhere.

 

True police accountability
  • Remove binding arbitration for disciplinary proceedings (significant reworking of Article 22).

  • Make any contract changes necessary to specify that employees can be fired with cause outside of the Discipline Guide. The Discipline Guide includes a clause that allows the Police Chief, or Police Commissioner to deviate from the guide as conditions and circumstances warrant, but the legal status is unclear. The Guide could also be updated as part of negotiations, and the community should be involved in that conversation.

  • Remove clauses that limit the scope and length of interrogations of officers (61.2.2.6 and 61.2.2.7)

  • Information in the Employee Information System can be used as the basis for disciplinary proceedings (update 20.4) as well as promotion, demotion, and other performance decisions.

  • Specify that the information relating to sustained complaints remain permanently in the officer’s file.

  • Rewrite clause 20.2 about discipline occurring in the least likely way to embarrass an officer to state that discipline involving police-community interactions is in the public interest and shall be made public.

  • Sustained complaints, discipline, termination, and other information relevant to public safety will be disclosed to state licensing agency, police decertification databases, and future employers seeking reference from PPB.

 

Secondary Goals

  • Require mandatory drug testing after use of force incidents (relates to 61.10). Drug panel includes performance enhancing drugs (steroids, etc.).

  • End Retire/Rehire program by removing Article 65.4

  • End the Extra Employment program (Article 57), allowing private entities to hire uniformed officers.

  • Change firearms clauses (in Article 58) to specify

    • Later date of issue (for example: first day deployed after completing all required deescalation and use of force training). 58.1.1

  • 8.2 Wording should be changed away from gender binary

A Fair Process

The best outcomes will result from a public process that involves and elevates the community voices most impacted by policing. In contrast to the 2016 contract negotiation process, where the public was disregarded, disparaged, and ultimately violently thrown out of City Hall, the public must be involved in the upcoming process from the beginning. That involvement must start at the very beginning, when city decision makers are determining what the priorities for the city's negotiators will be and must continue throughout the entire bargaining process.

  • City Officials must be clear about the intended timeline for negotiations AND the timeline for setting the city’s bargaining priorities.

  • Bargaining priorities should be set through a public process involving the entire City Council with numerous opportunities for community to provide meaningful input.