Resolution repeals City Attorney authority to pursue appeal of a judgment by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. The appeal addresses the application of Oregon’s laws regarding the use of deadly force.
Official proposal and impact statementResolution2025-149
What is Portland deciding about repeal authorization of City Attorney to appeal the judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael…
Resolution repeals City Attorney authority to pursue appeal of a judgment by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. The appeal addresses the application of Oregon’s laws regarding the use of deadly force.
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Repeal authorization of City Attorney to appeal the judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael Townsend v. City of Portland (Repeal Resolution 37674; Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case 22CV05575)
Next appearanceNo future appearance is published yet.
Follow this matterWhat this proposal would actually do.
Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.
The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.
Official matter recordThis proposal concerns government & democracy and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordThis resolution involves direction from the Council to the City Attorney’s Office, based on privileged attorney-client communications, so there was no public outreach or input.
Official community impact statementWhat the record establishes and what it does not.
Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.
No named decision vote is linked yet.
A missing vote is not treated as approval, opposition, or evidence of a Councilor’s position.
Rationale review not yet published
We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.
The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.
During the pendency of the appeal, interest is accruing on the judgment at a rate of 9% per annum under ORS 82.010. Dismissing this appeal would cause the judgment to be paid without further accruing interest during the appeal.
Official financial impact statement- The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
- What amendments, conditions, or new evidence could change the proposal before final action?
Can residents still participate?
Check the official Council agenda for current testimony instructions and deadlines; this guide is not official testimony.
Official Council agendaInspect the complete research record.
Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.
Official documents1 sources
Current proposal · not final actionResolution 2025-149
The proposed legal text currently moving through Council.
Open at Portland.govRead the full official text
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 37674 authorizing the City Attorney to appeal from the trial court’s judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael Townsend v. City of Portland, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case No. 22CV05575 (“Townsend Case”). WHEREAS, the case involves the use of deadly force by Portland police that led to the death of Michael Townsend on June 24, 2021. WHEREAS, the trial court’s judgment was in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,030,661.00, and that verdict is accruing post-judgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum while on appeal. WHEREAS, the issues on appeal comprise the jury instructions provided by the trial court to the jury, including the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense offered by the City and the trial court’s interpretation of ORS 161.242 concerning the justification of the use of deadly force by a police officer. WHEREAS, the vote on Resolution 37674 was split 3-2 in favor of the appeal. WHEREAS, the City Code allows the City Attorney to pursue an appeal “on direction by resolution of the Council or upon written approval of the Mayor.” PCC 3.10.020.I.1.WHEREAS, the current City Council may reevaluate the previous Council’s decision to authorize the appeal in this case. WHEREAS, this City Council finds that the appeal was improvidently authorized by the previous Council and that the appeal should be dismissed by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Attorney’s authority granted by the previous Council to pursue an appeal in the Townsend Case is hereby repealed, and the authority granted to the City Attorney by Resolution 37674 is no longer in effect as of the date this resolution is adopted by Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council no longer supports the appeal in the Townsend Case, and if the appeal is to be continued it must be authorized by the Mayor in writing as provided by City Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council urges the Mayor to decline to authorize the continued appeal in the Townsend Case, and this Council urges the Mayor to direct the City Attorney to immediately dismiss the appeal.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes1 meetings · 0 votes
Referred to CouncilorAgenda item 3
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Why technical findings are hidden above
Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.
Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats
This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.
Decision definition
CompleteThe official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official legal text
CompleteOfficial text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
Financial impact
CompleteThe official impact statement includes financial information.
Funding source
CompleteThe impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.
Supporting documents
UnknownNo linked attachments were found on the official page.
Referenced exhibit integrity
Not ApplicableNo explicit exhibit reference was detected in the official text.
Counterparty acceptance
Not ApplicableThe reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
Implementation
CompleteA direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.
Document stability
UnknownStability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 1:15 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 14, 2026, 2:24 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- ce54c47ae769164c
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- SOURCE UPDATED
Referred
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Referred to Councilor