Portland city officials have decided not to pursue allegations that a group of seven city councilors broke transparency rules, as confirmed on Tuesday.
This decision follows a series of complaints suggesting violations of Oregon’s public meetings law, raising concerns about accountability in local government.
The complaints stem from an August 6 article in Willamette Week, which reported that a left-leaning bloc of council members, known as Peacock, engaged in private discussions via a text message thread during public budget meetings earlier this year.
The city councilors involved are Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo, and Steve Novick.
These seven councilors form a quorum within the 12-member City Council, and public meetings law prohibits such a quorum from deliberating privately, including through electronic communications or intermediaries.
Last year’s Oregon Legislature expanded this law, further tightening regulations around transparency.
Despite the legal framework suggesting a potential violation, the complaints were received too late for city officials to act.
Portland City Attorney Robert Taylor informed the complainants on Tuesday that his office would not examine the complaints due to a statute requiring grievances to be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation.
“Since the grievances were not timely under state law, no additional action is required by the city,” Taylor wrote in correspondence obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive.
As a result, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission will also be unable to conduct a formal review of the allegations, according to Executive Director Susan Myers.
“If the grievances were not submitted to the city within 30 days of the alleged violation, then even if the city responds to the grievance, we would not be able to take any action,” Myers stated.
Legal experts have criticized the rigid 30-day timeframe, arguing it effectively nullifies the enforcement of the public meetings law.
Steven Wilker, a public records law expert from the Portland law firm Tonkon Torp, remarked, “It’s a statute that’s essentially unenforceable.
Somebody should be talking to the Legislature about fixing this.”
Veronica Lozano, one of the complainants, expressed frustration with the 30-day rule, asserting that it is unreasonable given the nature of potential violations occurring out of public view.
“It’s ridiculous and infuriating. I already had such little trust with our elected officials,” Lozano shared.
Despite the decision not to investigate, Taylor indicated that the city attorney’s office would use the complaints as a chance to offer additional training to city councilors regarding public meeting laws.
However, he also voiced his dissatisfaction with the complications introduced by the new public meetings law, particularly the serial communication provisions impacting local government operations.
“The fact that the new form of government is being implemented at the same time the Ethics Commission is beginning to implement the new serial communications rules further enhances the challenges faced by the city of Portland,” Taylor noted.
He implied that there may be a pressing need for legislative revision to clarify the law for local governments, the Ethics Commission, and the public.
This situation continues to unfold as residents and experts alike call for greater transparency and accountability within Portland’s City Council.
Amidst these developments, the existing framework for addressing alleged violations remains a contentious topic, highlighting the ongoing struggle for transparency in public governance.
image source from：oregonlive
