Page 6
October 12, 2016
Your Carpet
Best Cleaning
Choice
O PINION
Martin
Cleaning
Service
Carpet & Upholstery
Cleaning
Residential &
Commercial Services
Minimum Service CHG.
$45.00
A small distance/travel
charge may be applied
CARPET CLEANING
2 Cleaning Areas or
more $30.00 Each Area
Pre-Spray Traffic Areas
(Includes: 1 small Hallway)
1 Cleaning Area (only)
$40.00
Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area
(Hallway Extra)
Stairs (12-16 stairs - With
Other Services) : $25.00
Area/Oriental Rugs:
$25.00 Minimum
Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool) :
$40.00 Minimum
Heavily Soiled Area:
Additional $10.00 each area
(Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying)
UPHOLSTERY
CLEANING
Sofa: $69.00
Loveseat: $49.00
Sectional: $109 - $139
Chair or Recliner:
$25 - $49
Throw Pillows (With
Other Services) : $5.00
Police Contract Undermines Public Trust
A failure to
make police
accountable
(Editor’s note: The following
public letter from the City Auditor
and Director of the Independent
Police Review Board was sent to
the Portland City Council to ex-
press concerns about the proposed
Portland Police Association Con-
tract and a draft Body Worn Cam-
era Policy.)
ADDITIONAL
SERVICES
• Area & Oriental Rug
Cleaning
• Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning
• Deodorizing & Pet
Odor Treatment
• Spot & Stain
Removal Service
• Scotchguard Protection
• Minor Water Damage
Services
SEE CURRENT FLYER
FOR ADDITIONAL
PRICES & SERVICES
Call for Appointment
(503) 281-3949
by M ary h ull C aballero and
C onstantin s evere
The proposed contract between
the city and the Portland Police
Association (PPA) that was before
City Council on Oct. 5 failed to
address a number of issues related
to police accountability that may
undermine the public’s trust in the
city’s ability to hold officers ac-
countable.
The city is in the midst of con-
ducting an overhaul of its police
accountability system, which may
require bargaining with the affect-
ed collective bargaining units. The
proposed contract does not take
accountability system changes
into account. It does not address
the Independent Police Review
board’s ability to directly compel
PPA members for administrative
interviews. Out of the three city
entities that conduct misconduct
investigations of police officers -
the Bureau of Human Resources,
Internal Affairs, and the Indepen-
dent Police Review - only IPR
lacks the ability to compel officer
interviews. Currently, IPR uses
Police Bureau Internal Affairs to
compel officer interviews. This
interim solution does not address
the city’s obligation under the
Department of Justice settlement
agreement, which requires that
IPR be provided with the means
to conduct independent investiga-
tions of police officer misconduct.
There are several provisions
within the draft body-worn cam-
era policy that may limit account-
ability. The provision which al-
lows officers to view body camera
recordings prior to writing a report
is problematic; police reports are
meant to reflect the PPA mem-
ber’s own recollection of events.
No provision directly addresses
whether members would be al-
lowed to view or listen to record-
ings prior to administrative inter-
views. Sections 9.2 - 9.4, with the
provision barring random review-
ing of recordings, would poten-
tially limit the Police Bureau from
auditing how police officers are
utilizing body cameras. It would
also limit IPR’s ability to engage
in its role to monitor the Police
Bureau and provide policy recom-
mendations. The draft policy does
not state that IPR is allowed to
view body worn camera footage;
this deficiency may be inadver-
tent, as IPR is given the authority
to tag recordings for internal in-
vestigation. Under the draft poli-
cy, IPR’s ability to have access to
and utilize body camera footage
is ambiguous at best, and could
lead to unforeseen consequences
that undermine IPR’s ability to
provide independent oversight of
Police Bureau.
To its credit, the proposed con-
tract does remove the 48-hour re-
striction on interviewing officers
in administrative investigations.
The Auditor’s Office has consis-
tently maintained that the 48-hour
rule undermined the community’s
faith in the city’s police account-
ability system. In officer-involved
shootings, outside experts hired by
the city have noted that delays in
obtaining contemporaneous officer
accounts of critical incidents have
led to lengthy investigations and
diminished community confidence.
A significant overarching con-
cern is that the proposed collective
bargaining agreement was negoti-
ated with no notice to community
stakeholders, in a break with pre-
vious contract negotiations. IPR
was not notified that the city was
engaged in collective bargaining
with the PPA, and the city did not
request IPR input. We are con-
cerned that the veil of secrecy
that has enveloped the proposed
contract and its creation stands
to do long-term harm to the city’s
efforts to build a stronger police
accountability system.
We recommend that Council
delay action on the proposed PPA
contract until the issues discussed
above can be addressed. The cur-
rent collective bargaining agree-
ment is not scheduled to expire
until June 30. Given the window
of opportunity, enough time re-
mains to craft a proposed contract
that is informed by a more public
process.
Mary Hull Caballero is the City
Auditor and Constantin Severe is
the director of Portland’s Inde-
pendent Police Review Board.