justiceprotestreforms.jpg
Protesters chanted "No more killer cops" outside the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in downtown Portland in late February 2014. Members of the public were testifying before a federal judge on whether they felt a settlement agreement on a package of Portland police reforms was "fair, reasonable and adequate.'' (Maxine Bernstein/The Oregonian) (Maxine Bernstein/The Oregonian)
(Maxine Bernstein/The Oregonian)
Federal prosecutors and the city of Portland have agreed to mediation to solve their stalemate over court and community oversight of their three-year-old settlement on police use of force against people with mental illness.
The City Council voted in December to appeal a judge's order that city attorneys return to court the following month to explain how the city will come into compliance with the community engagement piece of the settlement.
It marked the second time the council has appealed a judge's order dealing with court hearings in the case.
The city's settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice called for reforms to police training, policies and oversight after a 2012 federal investigation found Portland police engaged in excessive force against people who have or are perceived to have a mental illness. Investigators also found that police improperly used stun guns against suspects.
In its petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the city objected to additional in-court conferences before the judge beyond the already-scheduled annual progress report hearings on the settlement.
City attorneys also challenged U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon's authority over the settlement, objected to members of the public addressing the court at the hearings and asked for a different federal judge to oversee the case.
The city also suggested in the appeal that Simon has exceeded his authority and inappropriately entangled himself in police operations to the detriment of the city's "bargain'' with Justice officials.
"The District Court has taken an escalating series of steps to enlarge the proceedings, to insinuate itself into and take control of the settlement agreement, and thus fundamentally to alter the bargain struck by the parties,'' City Attorney Tracy Reeve wrote. "The District Court is without jurisdiction to conduct ongoing proceedings regarding the parties' progress in effectuating their settlement.''
The city requested that another judge be assigned to the case. The city questioned whether it's "getting fair treatment'' with Simon and questioned his ability to limit his involvement, Reeve wrote.
On Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrian L. Brown filed an unopposed motion with the 9th Circuit to refer the city's petition to court mediation.
The city and the Portland Police Association, the union representing Portland police officers, sergeants and detectives, have agreed to mediation, Brown wrote.
Meanwhile, the Community Oversight Advisory Board - a citizens group set up to monitor the reforms and provide input on police policies - dissolved early this year after taking a two-month hiatus last year.
City officials have been meeting with federal prosecutors, police union representatives and members of the Albina Ministerial Alliance's Coalition for Justice and Police Reform to craft a different model for community oversight.
That effort is ongoing, Reeve said Thursday.
The appeal isn't intended to delay progress, Reeve said. The city is "actively engaged'' in working with the other parties to re-establish another community board, she said.
The Albina Ministerial Alliance's coalition, a group of community members who advocate for police accountability and improved relations with law enforcement, has challenged the city's appeal and supports Simon's continued role in the case.
Simon is familiar with the case, well-acquainted with the parties and respectful of their concerns, and has demonstrated a "deep understanding of the issues,'' the coalition's attorney, Shauna Curphey, wrote.
The city also should be required to conduct its business in public, the coalition's brief said.
"The City claims it participated in the settlement of the DOJ's allegations in part 'to enhance transparency, and to build trust and legitimacy with the community,'" Curphey wrote. "Its petition, which asks this Court to limit the number of status conferences and to prohibit public comment, undermines that goal.''
Simon also responded to the city's appeal, noting that Justice attorneys asked him to hold additional status conferences in court because of their concern about "significant barriers'' with the city meeting its community engagement obligations.
Less than a third of the last court hearing was devoted to public comments, the judge said. The rest of the time was taken up with presentations from city attorneys or people they asked to speak and the other parties to the case, he said.
In 2014, the city appealed a different ruling by the judge, who then said he might ask the city to present evidence at periodic court hearings about the progress of settlement reforms.
City and federal officials ended up spending months in mediation and coming to an agreement in early 2015 that set out who would provide updates to Simon and on what in annual hearings and made clear that the city and all other parties wouldn't have to present evidence at the proceedings.
Court documents:
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon's response
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian