Two months after a federal judge told Portland city attorneys and federal justice officials that’s he not likely to approve their negotiated settlement on police reforms without requiring annual status hearings in his court, the parties to the case haven’t accepted the idea.

“Unfortunately at this time, we’re not able to report we have reached an agreement,” said Michelle Jones, attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division.

Jones and attorneys for the city, the Portland Police Association and the Albina Ministerial Alliance’s Coalition for Justice and Police Reform spoke by phone to the judge during a brief conference Friday afternoon.

Deputy city attorney Ellen Osoinach echoed Jones’ report to U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon.

The judge gave the attorneys until June 24 to submit legal briefs outlining their positions on his request and until July 2 to submit any responses to the initial briefs filed.

Simon said he doesn’t anticipate hearing any further oral arguments and intends to issue a written ruling sometime after July 2 whether he’ll accept the negotiated settlement on Portland police reforms.

The court’s involvement stems from a Justice Department investigation in 2012 that found Portland police engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force against people with mental illness or perceived to have mental illness. The investigation also found that police use of stun guns was unjustified and excessive at times. A negotiated agreement calls for changes to Portland policies, training and oversight. Federal and city officials are seeking the judge’s acceptance of the agreement without a trial.

In April, the parties to the case returned to the judge and offered an alternative to his idea: annual hearings before Portland’s City Council. The judge quickly shot that idea down, saying that would be insufficient.

Simon on Friday reiterated why he wants to hear in his courtroom each year on the progress of the reforms from either the city, federal officials, the police union, the Albina Ministerial Alliance or the person who is hired as the city’s community liaison officer.

The agreement is expected to extend for at least three years.

“I want to make sure either we’re proceeding apace and making good progress towards implementation – or if there was a problem, I’d want to hear about it sooner than later,” Simon said.

City attorneys in the past have questioned the judge’s authority to hold annual hearings.

In March, Simon said he didn’t want to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, as requested by the two main parties. That would mean that the suit would be over and no one could bring it back to court. At the time, he said he’d prefer to place a hold, or a “stay” on the case and require at least yearly status hearings in open federal court, he said.

Federal officials told the judge in March that the parties are opposed to a hold on the lawsuit. If a stay was then lifted, they argued, it would “reinvigorate the case,” and the U.S. government doesn’t want to keep the suit in litigation.

Instead, they suggested the court might conditionally dismiss the lawsuit, with the requirement that annual status hearings be held before the court that are limited in scope but would allow for continued oversight. In essence, the lawsuit would be placed on the court’s inactive docket until the Justice Department returns to the court with a motion to dismiss the case once there’s substantial compliance with the reforms.

Simon Friday said he’d only agree to “conditionally dismiss” the lawsuit if all parties to the case, and the city’s community liaison, would agree that they’d appear yearly in his court to discuss the reforms’ progress.

The Rev. T. Allen Bethel, co-chair of the Albina Ministerial Alliance’s coalition, said he was disappointed and disturbed by the refusal of the city and other parties to the case to agree to annual court status hearings. The community coalition had asked to intervene in the case and the judge allowed the group limited status.

He issued this statement Friday: “The limited review on the status of compliance sought by the Court should be welcomed by the City, given the City’s assertion that it is already in compliance and on track with the implementation of the Agreement. The City has been operating under the expectation that the Agreement will be entered; it makes no sense to negate all the work that went into negotiating and implementing the Agreement by rendering it unenforceable.”

And, the Rev. LeRoy Haynes, co-chair of the AMA coalition, said: “The
failure of the Mayor, the city commissioners, and the PPA to accept Judge
Michael Simon’s limited annual review represents a missed historical
opportunity to unite our diverse communities and take a leap in resolving
the rift in our city between the police and the community, particularly
communities of color and person with mental disabilities.”

–Maxine Bernstein