This body is being established per Ballot Measure 26-217, which was approved by 82% of the voters on November 3, 2020. It amended City Charter, establishing a new oversight system. The Police Accountability Commission (PAC), appointed by Mayor Wheeler and confirmed by then-City Council, spent two years gathering information from community members and made recommendations to the former City Council. Using existing federal, state, and local laws, the former City Council took some of the PAC's recommendations and directed that bargaining occur with Portland Police Bureau's two unions, Portland Police Association (PPA) and Portland Police Commanding OfficersAssociation (PPCOA). In order for the City to be in compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ)'s settlement agreement, the City must establish "a new Community Police Oversight Board to replace IPR for investigations of certain complaints of police misconduct and to replace the Chief of Police for imposition of discipline." (195)
Official proposal and impact statementWhat is Portland deciding about appointment of members to Community Board for Police Accountability?
This body is being established per Ballot Measure 26-217, which was approved by 82% of the voters on November 3, 2020. It amended City Charter, establishing a new oversight system. The Police Accountability Commission (PAC), appointed by Mayor Wheeler and confirmed by then-City Council, spent two years gathering information from community members and made recommendations to the former City Council. Using existing federal, state, and local laws, the former City Council took some of the PAC's recommendations and directed that bargaining occur with Portland Police Bureau's two unions, Portland Police Association (PPA) and Portland Police Commanding OfficersAssociation (PPCOA). In order for the City to be in compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ)'s settlement agreement, the City must establish "a new Community Police Oversight Board to replace IPR for investigations of certain complaints of police misconduct and to replace the Chief of Police for imposition of discipline." (195)
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Appointment of members to Community Board for Police Accountability
Will the voter-approved civilian oversight system become independent, fair, timely, and durable in practice?
What 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 public safety and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordDuring the application process, Onboarding and Administration Coordinator for the Office of Community-Based Accountability Kristen Thorp sent over 250 emails that advertised the volunteer opportunity to the following community partners: 1000 Friends of OregonACLUAll Hands RaisedAlliance for a Healthier GenerationAPANOBasic Rights OregonBlack Parent InitiativeBlack Reliance FundBlack United FundBuilding Power for Communities of ColorBusiness for Better PortlandCAIR OregonCAIROCoalition of Communities of ColorCommunity Investment TrustCultivate InitiativesDisability Rights OregonDivision Midway AllianceDress for SuccessEast Portland Action PlanEducate YaFriendly House Inc.Health Justice Recovery AllianceHispanic Chamber of CommerceKarios PDXLatino NetworkLeague of Women VotersLewis and Clark – Gender StudiesLewis and Clark – Health StudiesLewis and Clark – Latin America and Latino StudiesLewis and Clark – Political ScienceLewis and Clark – SociologyMercy CorpsMultnomah County Public Health Advisory BoardMultnomah County ReachNAACPNeighborhood Associations - AllOur Just FutureOregon Justice Resource CenterOregon WalksPartners of DiversityPolice Accountability Commission (PAC) - former membersPortland Chamber of CommercePortland Community College – Alcohol and Addiction CounselingPortland Community College – CommunicationsPortland Community College – Criminal JusticePortland Community College – ParalegalPortland Community College – Political SciencePortland Metro ChamberPortland Public School Principals – AllPortland Public School Parent Teach Organizations – mostPortland Community College- Race, Indigenous, Nations, and GenderPortland State University – College of Urban and PUblic AffairsPortland State University – School of Social WorkProsper PortlandQ CenterReed College – Political ScienceReed College – SociologyReimagine OregonRosewood InitiativeSafety and Justice OregonStreet TrustUnited Way of the Columbia-WillametteUrban LeagueVenture Portland And attended the following public meetings to share the volunteer opportunity: Citizen Review Committee meeting - March 5, 2025PCCEP meeting - March 26, 2025Citizen Review Committee meeting - April 2, 2025East Columbia Neighborhood Association meeting - April 8, 2025Irvington Neighborhood Association Meeting - April 9, 2025Social Media Outreach: Rose City Connection - sent to 4,000 recipients on March 11, March 18, March 25, April 1, April 8.City Insider Employee Newsletter - sent to more than 6,800 recipients on March 11, April 1, April 8.Our City in the News internal news roundup - sent to more than 850 subscribers on March 5.CivicLife newsletter – includes 4,144 subscribers.Posted to many City Councilor's newsletters and social media posts.The City’s social media websites – posted twice. Statistics from initial posting below. Second posting beginning April 4, with boosts on platforms through April 11Instagram:First postPost interactions: 94 likesLikes: 41Saves: 16Comments: 2Second postPost interactions: 115Likes: 57Shares: 41Saves:17Comments: 0Facebook:First postViews: 369Interactions: 21 share1 commentSecond postViews: 474Interactions: 1Link Clicks: 1X:First PostViews: 343Interactions: 52 reposts2 likes1 commentSecond postViews: 420Likes: 3Shares: 1Comments: 3Next Door:Impressions: 2,133LinkedIn:Impressions: 3,581Total Engagement: 63Likes: 46Reposts: 15Comments: 2
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.
Passed · 11–1
Read the exact motion or vote question
Final action on 2025-246: Appointment of members to Community Board for Police Accountability
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.
The 21 members of the CBPA receive a $500 a year stipend for their service to the Board. The year cost of $10,500 will come out of the oversight system's budget, which is required to be 5% of PPB's operating budget. An additional $3,000 will be set aside for the alternate member's stipend.
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 implementation evidence will show whether the intended result occurred?
Official testimony on this decision has closed. Residents can still contact their district Councilors about implementation and follow-up.
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 documents3 sources
The operative official record after Council action.
Open at Portland.govRead the full official text
TO COUNCIL: As Mayor, I request the appointment of members to the Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA). Code 35.20.010 outlines that the Board be comprised of 21 members and 6 alternates. The Nominating Committee reviewed all eligible applications in a multistep process and submitted 40 majority-supported applications for your consideration. As background, Ballot Measure 26-217, which was approved by 82% of the voters on November 3, 2020, amended City Charter establishing a new oversight system. The Police Accountability Commission (PAC), nominated by Mayor Wheeler and confirmed by then-City Council, spent two years gathering information from community members and made recommendations to the former City Council. Using existing federal, state, and local laws, the former City Council took some of the PAC's recommendations and directed that bargaining occur with Portland Police Bureau's two unions, Portland Police Association (PPA) and Portland Police Commanding Officers Association (PPCOA). In order for the City to be in compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement agreement, the City must establish "a new Community Police Oversight Board to replace IPR for investigations of certain complaints of police misconduct and to replace the Chief of Police for imposition of discipline." (195)In 2025, the current City Council was established, and each district selected their district representative to be on the Nominating Committee for the CBPA recruitment. As established by City Code, the Nominating Committee was comprised of:Two CBPA representatives (initial committee will have two members from the Citizen Review Committee (CRC));One community member from each Council district as designated by the Council members of that district;One representative from the Office of Equity and Human Rights;One representative designated by the Chief of Police;One representative from PPA; andOne representative from PPCOA.The application opened on Friday, February 28, 2025. Throughout March 2025, members of the Nominating Committee received the scoring instructions, NeoGov training, training document of bias in interviewing process, and signed confidentiality agreements. They received applications on Mondays throughout the process to allow for review and scoring on a rolling basis. The recruitment closed on Monday, April 14, 2025 at 5:00pm. The application was open for 45 days. As a proactive measure to mitigate unintentional biases in scoring, personal identifying information such as names, addresses, education, and similar information that was supplied by the applicants were redacted prior to being sent to the Nominating Committee for review. 121 applications were submitted.118 applications were initially deemed eligible and reviewed and scored by the Nominating Committee. An application was ineligible if the applicant did not meet one of the membership requirements outlined in City Code.4.4 applications were received for every Board position available.77 applications received a passing score from the majority of Nominating Committee of 60% or higher. The Nominating Committee debriefed each of these 77 applications in their meetings. At the end of each discussion, that application was voted on. If an application received majority support, six or more votes, it was recommended to Council.43 applications received the majority of votes that were needed to advance further in the process, though one applicant withdrew prior to the next step in the review process for personal reasons.The next step was a conflict-of-interest check. Two applications were removed because they were identified as having a conflict-of-interest and/or failed to meet another eligibility requirement.40 applicants are presented to Council in Exhibit A. The Nominating Committee reviewed all 118 applications that were initially deemed eligible. At each step of the process the Nominating Committee advanced applications each step in the process with a majority score or vote. City Council has developed their own process for reviewing and scoring the 40 applicants.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes1 meetings · 1 votes
Read all 1 exact motions
Motion to accept the report: Moved by Kanal and seconded by Avalos.
Final Council action · Jun 18, 202511 yes · 1 no
Final action on 2025-246: Appointment of members to Community Board for Police Accountability
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
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.
The official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
The official impact statement includes financial information.
The impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.
2 linked supporting documents found; presence alone does not verify their internal completeness.
The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.
The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.
Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 1:13 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 14, 2026, 2:22 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- 6f1b2f443b76ce44
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- SOURCE UPDATED
Accepted
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Confirmed