Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Loretta Smith
Meeting to order.
Steve Novick
It is Tuesday, July 7th.
Mic isn't on.
I call the meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee to order.
It is Tuesday, July 7th at 9:30 AM.
Could the clerk please call the roll?
Unidentified speaker
Good morning.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman.
Smith.
Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick.
Steve Novick
Here.
Uh, Dana, could you please read the statement of conduct?
Unidentified speaker
Welcome to the meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee.
To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at www.fortland.gov/council/agenda/communityandpublicsafetycommittee Or by calling 311.
Information on engaging with the committee can be found at that link.
Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting.
In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard.
If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the chair states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The chair preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Today we're going to hear a brief presentation updating us on the Police Bureau's use of the red flag law or extreme risk protection orders.
We're going to continue committee deliberation of an ordinance to add psychedelic health and safety code and create the Portland Psychedelics Advisory Commission.
We may get to some additional deliberation on an ordinance to end code to disallow the affirmative defense for persons with we are not going to hear a report from Portland Street Response, which we expected to hear.
They told us last week they couldn't do it.
So we might have a relatively short meeting.
Last fall, we had a hearing on extreme risk protection orders, and we discussed the fact that the police bureau was not utilizing them as often as some of our sister cities in Oregon, some places around the country.
And the bureau agreed to take a look at that.
And now we have Sergeant John Silverman of the Behavioral Health Unit to tell us what's been going on since then.
Take it away, Josh.
Rebecca Dobert
Can, can, may I read that in?
Steve Novick
Oh, sorry.
Good.
Read the, yeah, read the first item.
Sorry.
Rebecca Dobert
Thank you so much.
Apologies.
Item 1, document number 2026-230, update on the use of extreme risk protection orders.
Steve Novick
All right, Sergeant, take it away.
Josh Silverman
Recap here what an ERPO is.
Uh, extreme risk protection order is a court order that prohibits a person from possessing deadly weapons such as firearms for 1 year when they present a risk of suicide or causing physical injury to another person in the near future.
And I blocked out that in the In the near future part, because that time horizon is quite a bit longer than what we normally see for things like civil commitment and peace officer hold and director's custody holds, which require imminency or immediacy.
So this is somebody who might be at an elevated risk of doing something pretty tragic, but we don't have to prove that they're gonna do it tomorrow or this week like a lot of those other things.
And it makes sense that the governmental imposition of us, like, taking somebody to the hospital against their will, which is like a pretty big thing, That bar should be high, but potentially limiting their access to firearms for 1 year, the bar, it makes sense that it's a little bit lower.
And to recap, who can apply for these extreme risk protection orders?
This list here, as you can see, is pretty similar to what would be for a restraining order or a stalking order, with the exception that law enforcement can apply for that.
And that's pretty important because it allows us to, like, be the bad guy in this case.
So it's you know, in a restraining order or stalking order, it's like pretty adversarial.
It would be, you know, a family member abridging the rights of another family member and saying they're not responsible enough to have a gun or they're unsafe to have a gun.
Instead, we can take that burden, and that's quite a bit safer.
The question that comes up, what about these classes of folks, so doctors, social workers, neighbors?
In our state, they can't apply for them.
I wish they could.
But for now, really, law enforcement, it's the burden is on us to apply for these.
And so right now we have— we're really lucky in Multnomah County that we have a gun dispossession unit that's been in effect even before we were really ramping up these extreme risk protection orders.
And so they're the ones who go to the residences of people who have protection orders who don't have who are not allowed to have firearms, and they talk through what the next step is with them.
So they're the ones who serve the paperwork, they educate the person on their responsibilities regarding the storage of their weapons, and then they coordinate the safekeeping of the firearms.
And that safekeeping can be either that they take the firearms themselves or they coordinate getting them to a third party.
And this happens quite a bit more than you would think, that so this is Deputy Sullivan, Sully, and a lot of what he does is says, hey, do you have a family member, an uncle, somebody who can store these?
We don't need to be from the government collecting citizens' guns.
We don't actually want to be in the business of doing that.
If we can get them to a responsible family member, have the family member sign that they're not in the house anymore, they're at a different residence, we'd actually prefer it that way.
And so that actually works out really well.
And I think one of the reasons we get a lot of buy-in on this.
So where we're at, we kind of had 3 phases here, is from May 2025 to March 2026 is really building the infrastructure for applying for more of these ERPOs.
And I'm going to go a little bit into detail what that looked like.
We're now in the phase where we're going bureau-wide with it, and then I'm going to talk a little bit about a grant I'm applying for as sort of next steps.
So in this earlier phase where we're building the infrastructure, first thing we did is the Behavioral Health Unit became the subject matter experts on extreme risk protection orders.
So we got up to speed on the law and kind of a lot of the backend stuff that we need to do to support these.
And the way we set up the system initially is we basically educated all of patrol to say these are situations where an extreme risk protection order would make sense.
We're not gonna train you on how to fill them out.
Just email us like the case number, email us the report.
We'll fill out the extreme risk protection order for you.
Just be our eyes and ears.
Let us know when there are these cases.
And so we did that for a while, and that worked out pretty well, although we ended up getting a little bit inundated.
Our BHU officers need to do other things with their jobs.
We also set it up so that our administrative staff can e-file these, and then the city end does a lot of backend support related to court calendars and handling renewals and things like that.
And then did a big push to educate our community partners on these.
So Project Respond, Portland Street Response, some of these other public health and crisis city groups to know what is an ERPO and basically what is it, when does it apply, and then call us and we'll problem solve this stuff.
So that was step 1.
Thank you.
Step 2 was we're training every officer, actually every bureau member, on how to apply for them themselves.
So I teach an hour class at in-service.
So tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM, I'll be at the training division teaching my hour-long class.
And we're doing this from now until December and teaching every officer on how to complete an ERPO.
We complete one in class.
We have activities.
It's a great class.
Trust me, I built it.
And then we're still providing technical assistance on the back end.
But right now, the expectation is when patrol officers respond to a crisis call that involves a firearm, they're going to assess whether an ERPO makes sense.
And if it does make sense, the expectation is that they complete the ERPO.
Here are our stats.
So what's kind of exciting is we're halfway through 2026.
And we're at 47 ERPOs.
So that's 7 times our historic rate.
And so it just took a while to get the engine running, but I'm feeling pretty good about that.
Yeah, that's kind of the headline number there.
And then moving forward, I'm applying for a grant here.
We have a Ceasefire grant.
Ceasefire is another program that's great.
That's firearm violence prevention.
But this is sort of piggybacking on this.
And so what I'm hoping to do is to get a little bit of money to pay for some officers to review previous police calls to see where ERPOs should have been applied for but were missed.
And their job would be to review those and then apply for them within a few days of the crisis call and make sure we're not missing a bunch.
And then also— I have a question.
When, when there's going to be some slack in that.
So once they're done reviewing those calls, those ECIT officers— ECIT stands for Enhanced Crisis Intervention Trained Officers— since we have those officers there and they're really good at taking crisis calls, when they're done applying for ERPOs, they're going to go out and take ECIT calls to support patrol.
So they'll take those off the hands of patrol officers.
Uh, so hopefully we get that money and that would start in January of 2027.
And then I can't remember if I shared this earlier.
This is not Oregon data.
This is for other states.
But what the stats currently show, the social science, is that every 17 to 23 ERPOs saves one life from suicide prevention.
That's a pretty high number.
There's not a whole lot of interventions, like short of like tourniquets, that have that kind of save rate.
So that feels pretty good.
We also are trying to prevent homicide.
It's a little bit harder to draw a causal link between these, and there's some methodological reasons why that is the case.
I think a lot of people suspect that they do prevent homicide, but it's just harder to prove that.
And hopefully that was about 8 minutes.
What questions do you guys have?
Steve Novick
Not seeing any questions.
Congratulations, Sergeant Silverman.
This is remarkable progress in a short period of time, and I'm grateful to the bureau leadership for giving you the opportunity to train everybody.
It looked to me like the, the number of non-PPB ERPOs had gone up in the past year as well.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, we're back to 60.
Steve Novick
Do we have any explanations for that?
Josh Silverman
It's getting out in the zeitgeist.
Like, a big part of this is like, uh, there was a chicken or egg problem going on where our community partners who are interacting with folks who are mentally ill in crisis and have access to firearms, they didn't know about ERPOs to even ask us about them.
And so I think what's happening is like people are aware of them, people know somebody who's applied for them.
Um, so like I think that's a lot of what's going on.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, thank you, and, um, appreciate the presentation.
Thanks for the, the, uh, news here and the good news here.
Um, I wanted to ask, uh, so you mentioned that Behavioral Health Unit is the subject matter experts within the Police Bureau on it.
What's the nature of the relationship between, um, the Behavioral Health Unit Advisory Committee and this work, if any?
Josh Silverman
I'm trying to remember if we've done a presentation with them or solicited feedback okay.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, no problem.
I would love to, I guess, see that that is something that's happening in the context of maybe, well, at least the context of the next question I have, but possibly broader things too.
One of the nice things about advisory committees is you don't know what they're going to bring up until they do.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, it's funny.
I think a meeting's coming up and that's a good reminder of this might be a good excuse to like, you know, I already built this presentation and then solicit feedback from them and concerns that they might have.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, exactly.
And one question I had is, is this data at all disaggregated demographically?
Josh Silverman
Oh, interesting.
So a lot— the short answer is I don't know.
We are really lucky that OHSU has a whole gun violence prevention group.
I don't know their name exactly.
And we get a lot of their data from them.
They have better data than we do, and I bet they could get us the answers on like which groups are we getting ERPOs from, or are some groups getting more disproportionately affected than others.
They've done a bunch of research on ERPOs in general from like a public health lens, so I would sort of punt it to them, but I bet it's gettable.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, great.
Josh Silverman
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, that'd be great the next time, whenever.
I don't know if we're doing this quarterly, annually, whatever the next cadence is.
Courtney Moran
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
And then I had a question around, you mentioned ECIT taking on more high-priority mental health calls in phase 3.
Steve Novick
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
My question is, given that high priority doesn't necessarily mean high acuity, are using those phrases I might be.
Josh Silverman
I think in my head what I'm imagining is we have priority 1 through 7 as like the hot calls.
And so I think that's what I mean by priority, but I get that can mean a lot of things.
Sameer Kanal
So I guess my question is, are these just the calls that are currently being responded to by patrol officers that would be going to ECIT, or does it take any calls that are currently being responded to by going to either PSR or Project Respond and put them to ECIT?
That's the first half of the question.
Josh Silverman
Not that, for sure.
So the idea would be they've done their homework, they did all their ERPO office work for the day, so they go out and they're an ECIT response car.
And so the idea is anything with a mental health flavor, I want them going to that call because they're good at that.
And they would take those calls away from your vanilla patrol officers.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
That makes sense.
And then I guess, and maybe this is a broader question, Chair Novick, about how we get more information about what types of calls go to Project Respond or not.
But I'm trying to understand for the high acuity one, I think we have an ongoing conversation about how low acuity calls can get moved over to PSR.
But in terms of high acuity calls, not necessarily with an end goal in mind of moving any or not, but trying to understand what determines whether or not ECIT is the better responder or Project Respond is the better responder for some of those?
Yeah, so—.
And I'm trying to understand that better.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, I think where that critical decision gets made is in BOEC related to their dispatch protocol.
ECIT has a set of, I think, 7 dispatch protocol.
I don't have it in front of me, but it's like a mental health call plus a specific set of dangerousness criteria.
There's a weapon or the person is threatening suicide.
There's like a set criteria there that requires an ECIT response, and that's within our policy.
For stuff that can move from the 911 BOEC system to Project Respond, I know there's ongoing discussions about how they can move to the— as I understand it, somebody calls 911, BOEC takes the call and then decides, actually, this is a crisis call that police don't even need to be involved with.
Let's get this over to the Multnomah County Call Center or crisis and so the process by which it goes there, Portland Police is not even involved in that.
And so I don't want to speak about it, but it's happening.
I just don't know how it's happening.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
Yeah, my understanding is that we probably need to bring in BOEC on this part.
But I also know that it's not a call type in the same way.
It's sort of like a separate overlay.
So it's worth us exploring that, I think.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, because it's squishy, right?
It's like, you know, somebody's reporting that there's like a military invasion, which would be like a priority 1 weapon call, but it's also like a mental health call.
And so some common sense needs to be made to be like, yes, this is a crisis call, and figuring out how to make that happen.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, so I don't want to make you answer for another member, so I apologize.
Yeah, I just, I think understanding, you know, the limits.
I don't believe that there's like a pro-QA path I think there is a subjectivity, squishiness, I think is the word used.
Yeah, that— just trying to understand that a little bit better for as we get into Phase 3 with the potential of a—.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, I want to be clear about the problem that we're trying to address with Phase 3.
Right now there's a set of calls that require an ECIT officer by policy, and we just don't have enough ECIT officers to go.
So what ends up happening is just a normal patrol officer is going to the call.
And so I think we really want more of those mental health calls to have an ECIT officer to go.
And so having our response car there would be filling that need.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Councilor.
And actually, I think that we should take some time in committee to bring the county over and try to get— talk about the relationship and the overlap and the, you know, mechanics between Project Respond, PSR, ECIT.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I think the Project Respond and PPB nexus, ECIT being a part of that, is really important.
And where we've seen the dispatch side, I think, fail, which is less a PPB question, I think, but I'd like to explore that.
And we've talked about, you know, the high-profile places where that's failed, but I imagine there's other conversations too.
Steve Novick
Yeah.
Councilor Smith, um, just wanted to let you know that, um, we heard a presentation on use of extreme risk protection orders, and the department has ramped up training and usage.
The usage has gone up pretty dramatically in the past, uh, 10 months.
Um, thank you very much.
I really appreciate it.
And, uh, Go forth and keep conquering.
Josh Silverman
Yeah, reach out.
Keep on saving lives.
Yeah, I'm super invested in this, so thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Steve Novick
Could the clerk please read the next item?
Rebecca Dobert
Before I read the next item, I just want to make you aware that we are having some issues with the captions on YouTube.
They are not coming up correct at the moment, um, but after this meeting is over, YouTube will— we will upload a correct version with the correct captions.
So apologies to anybody watching who I was looking forward to captions.
Item number 2, document number 2026-186, add psychedelic health and safety code and create the Portland Psychedelics Advisory Commission.
Add Code Chapter 14B.140.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
The last time we discussed this item, I mean, we talked about 2 elements of it.
Deprioritizing psychedelics for the police.
And the police said that they were already deprioritized, which raises the question, do we need to pass something saying that they should be?
Or the other question is, why not say that they should pass something saying they should be, given that they're already doing it?
And the other question was about the commission.
And some questions that I've had about the commission is, I mean, to the extent that it's intended to sort of give public health information to the public, About the use of psychedelics.
Why does the city really have the expertise to select the members of such a commission?
Isn't that more of a county thing?
And I heard from the advocates that they've had problems engaging the county.
But— and I actually asked for like the names of somebody at OHA or somebody who I could call and ask, how would you go about selecting an advisory committee if you were asked without the expertise?
And actually have a call-in to somebody.
Thank you.
At OHA that the advocates recommended.
I haven't heard back, um, but I'd actually like to have the couple of the sponsors plus whoever else they'd, uh, like to bring up, um, come and just discuss the issue with the advisory committee in particular.
Um, but Councilor Smith, do you have a question?
Loretta Smith
Councilor, um, Chair Novick, I, I, I totally do agree with you and want a better understanding of what we will be voting on today.
Whether that is something to create this advisory committee.
And I do think that we need to look at other governmental bodies that would be better suited to do this.
And so I think we're kind of the Mikey of governments.
If you can't do it anyplace else, go to the City of Portland.
But if we're going to be voting, technically, if we're going to be voting to have the police do something they're already doing, is that necessary?
Is that the question?
Yes.
Question that you're asking us?
Because if they're already doing it, why do we need to, um, to ratify it in, in a resolution?
Steve Novick
Um, well, actually, I'd like to have the advocates come here and give the answer that they gave to me, which is they think that it's more— it's reassuring to people when they sort of hear it formally.
But I mean, I, I agree, it's a very, very reasonable question to ask.
Loretta Smith
But, but, but you do know if they decide to, because they are they are law enforcement.
If they decide to make it a high priority, they can do that.
And it has nothing to do with this resolution.
The resolution will not make them make— not make it a priority if we— even if we pass this, because it is, it is in their discretion to do what they want to do.
They're probably not making it a high priority because we have so few law enforcement officers right now that it, it is not a priority.
But If they were to staff up and they want— and they chose to make it a priority, we could not tell them what to do.
And I think that's where we're crossing the line here in this committee.
So thank you.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Councilor.
And actually, one question I have for the sponsors and the advocates is, would you even want to pass the deprioritization part if you didn't also get the— if you didn't also get the commission?
Councilor Kanal.
Loretta Smith
Hi.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, thank you.
Just really quick fact check here.
This is an ordinance.
So this is actually directing.
And I find the idea that we cannot tell the police bureau what to do through legislation to be one of the scariest things that's been said in this room.
What to prioritize.
I think that is one of the absolutely scariest things I've heard here, that there is no civilian control of law enforcement built into our legal system.
And I know that that's not the intention of most of us up here.
Ask the mayor.
I won't actually ask the mayor.
I think it's—.
Loretta Smith
Ask the city administrator.
Steve Novick
Who has the floor right now?
I'm allowing a little bit of leeway, but—.
Sameer Kanal
There's a bit of the idea here being we have done this before.
We have done several policy changes.
If you read the code, and by we, I don't actually just mean this council.
I mean going back 150 years of council legislating creating code that, that not just for the Police Bureau but for every bureau in the city provides parameters.
We have also had numerous conversations in an advisory capacity as well on, on prioritization, and I want to acknowledge that too because I think that's, that's correct.
But it's not the only way in which the council has indicated its intent all the way through to requiring certain levels of prioritization and otherwise.
I understand in the sense of like We have these 9 priority levels and how the table is formatted and how it's specifically laid out.
That's, I think, separate from what we're talking about here.
That is the next step after legislation is how it's implemented.
And I agree completely with Councilor Smith on that.
But I just had to jump in on this because it's, I think, a little alarming and needed to be said.
Thank you.
Steve Novick
Thank you, councilors.
Councilors, Green and Pirtle-Guiney, would you like to approach and give us your thoughts on the issues that have been raised?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Would you like to start, Councilor?
Mitch Green
I can start.
Thank you.
For the record, my name is Councilor Mitch Green.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee.
Just to respond directly, I would want to pass this legislation even if there was not advisory body component to it, because I do think it's appropriate to codify directives for any bureau, as Councilor Kanal had suggested.
I think it's important to declare that it is a low priority.
That on its own, I think, is worthy of merit for this committee.
But I think just in the context of the other question, which is perhaps the meatier part of this discussion today and the future of this legislation, is I've always thought of the advisory body as a pretty central piece of this.
To sort of create that community bridge between community practice and as well as the City of Portland.
I recognize that there is some concern with the language as written, and I want to acknowledge that.
I'm— Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I have tried to respond to Councilor Kanal's amendments in the time that we have.
Can't get a full-blown amendment done in this time, but we've We've distributed basically some highlights of what we think an amendment could achieve to get us closer to yes on this.
One of those elements is to sort of establish an explicit sunset on the committee, the advisory body itself, that's a year earlier than what's already in Section 3.4 of the code that describes the sunsets of these bodies.
So it'd be a 3-year sunset.
As well as a directive for the mayor to reach out to other jurisdictions with that subject matter expertise in public health and the like.
And so I'll pass it over to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to see if you have some other elements you want to add.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
And for the record, my name is Elana Pirtle-Guiney.
Good to be with you all today, and thank you for considering this.
I want to reiterate what Councilor Green said.
Yes, it is important to move forward with the deprioritization in code, whether or not we include the advisory body.
If we don't put this in code, then our bureau can say this is the current practice, but changes in leadership happen, and that means changes in policy happen.
And if this body wants us to continue to have this enforcement be a low priority, then we need to proactively say that.
Otherwise, we don't have any— I think that's a good point.
Any assurance other than that of the folks who are in leadership today that that will continue?
Also, though, as Councilor Green said, the advisory body I think is a critical piece of this because if we are going to make legislation in this area, which as Councilor Novick has suggested, there are not a lot of folks within the city who have expertise, we need a way to bring in those experts.
Thank you.
And an advisory body is how the city has historically ensured that we have experts at the table to help us make good policy and to help our bureaus make good rules and implement that policy appropriately.
And so if we are going to look at this body of policy, we need to have an advisory body.
You have language in front of you that was just passed out, which is what we will be working off of to draft a formal amendment.
I apologize that we couldn't have that done in time for you all today.
We've also asked the clerk to post that so that anybody watching online has access to the same information.
But for folks who are watching, it lays out, as Councilor Green said, a 3-year sunset.
And certainly we'd be open to a conversation with you all and with the advocates who are here about whether an even shorter sunset would be appropriate.
We thought 3 years would give us time to get something up and running within the administration.
That sometimes takes a little bit of time.
And then still complete the work.
And then language advising the mayor, directing the mayor, who makes nominations, which we then formally appoint, to consult with local and/or state public health entities to allow them to provide their expertise, as well as the expertise of folks within the community who would likely reach out as soon as this was passed.
To make sure that the appointees to this board represent a broad array of experiences and backgrounds.
Mitch Green
And if I may just add, add one more piece, uh, as speaking for myself as one of the co-sponsors, I'm more interested in us getting this right in this committee than moving it forward.
And so if, if this item needs to be held over to take more time on this, referred to a later date, I'm very comfortable with that.
I would prefer that over passing an amendment that completely strikes wholesale the advisory body altogether, because I think it gives us time to maybe have that call with OHS that you've tried to have, Councilor, and then as well as kind of circle back with some of our advocates here.
It's better to get it right than I think pass something, in my view.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And I would add that I think we could have amendment language drafted in a formal way by your next committee meeting if it was your preference to bring this back at that time.
Steve Novick
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Uh, to the co-sponsors, have you all taken this ordinance language through, um, legal counsel?
Have they looked at— is it— did it pass legal counsel?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The ordinance has been through the full review process, including both the legal and the clerk review.
Amendment language we were not going to be able to have through the full process today, which is why you have an overview of that language.
Instead of a formal amendment before you from us.
Loretta Smith
Did they change some things in there, and that's the reason why you can't get the full ordinance?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The underlying ordinance has been through full review, and we incorporated changes that we needed to, to make sure that it complied with what our lawyers at the city needed to see.
Loretta Smith
So you added additional language that they have not approved, and that's what we're waiting for?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No, we saw that Councilor Councilor Kanal had posted an amendment, and given the concerns that we heard raised last time and that amendment, we wanted to bring you an alternate idea, which we've not yet been able to run through legal counsel.
We will be working with them to make sure that any language that comes to you as a formal amendment has been through both legal and—.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so it has not gone through legal counsel yet?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The document you have in front of you is a proposal which we will put into formal reviewed language that has not been through legal counsel yet, Councilor.
That has not.
The underlying ordinance has.
Loretta Smith
But you're— in the way that you're going to put it forward with the new language, it has not passed legal counsel yet.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Correct.
And that is why we're not asking you to pass anything today.
Loretta Smith
Okay, that's, that's what I wanted to find.
That's all.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Councilor.
So one question that I think that needs to be aired, and I think I understand this, but what is the role of the advisory council committee supposed to be?
My understanding from Dr.
The advocate is the role is largely to sort of like give public health advice.
There's like something on the city website that says something about the safe use of psychedelics.
Mitch Green
Do you wanna go?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Go ahead, Councilor.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I mean, I see the body as a way for the kind of non-governmental sector that has a community of practice that's rooted in an evidence-based approach to this work to provide formal recommendations and a venue to understand this, the need for any policy adjustments in the future and how this is and so it, to me, is a bridge between that community and the city of Portland.
Steve Novick
But would the committee be giving, in effect, public health advice?
That was my understanding talking to the advocates, that the committee would be saying something about, here's how you safely use the following kinds of psychedelics.
Mitch Green
I mean, I think that would be fair.
Yeah.
Steve Novick
Have you raised concerns about the safety of psychedelics?
Talk to the city attorney about liability concerns, like whether somebody could read that on the city website and then use psychedelics and get sick or die and then sue the city for bad advice?
Mitch Green
I have not raised that question with the city attorney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, we didn't ask that question specifically, but that is not a concern that they raised when we were going through the drafting process with them.
Steve Novick
Okay.
Another question is, Why isn't the county doing this, given that the county is the public health authority here?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Well, Councilor, I think that there are a lot of places where our work touches the county's work, and some of them create bright lines of difference in, in who takes on what policy areas, and some of them create gray lines of difference where our work rubs up against each other.
I would say that there is certainly a role for the public health experts at the county but as long as we are moving forward with a conversation about the public safety space, which is within our jurisdiction as the city, it makes a lot of sense to me to have an advisory body that is looking at how that works, if there is anything else we should be doing, and what our policy as the city should be as well.
Steve Novick
To me, I think there's a distinction between law enforcement and public health.
And I would mean, if the county considered this and decided not to do it, then I want to know the reason why.
Because if the public health authority decided this was a bad idea, that seems like their reasoning is something that I'd want to look at here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I certainly think that any or all of us could check in with the county to see what their position on this would be.
I have not reached out to their public health department.
We've been talking about this pretty publicly for 2 months at this point.
And I will tell you that I talk regularly with the county commissioner whose district overlaps my own, and she has not raised any concerns to me about us moving forward in this direction.
Steve Novick
I think that some of the advocates in the room might want to answer that question.
Is that correct?
Could you come up?
Loretta Smith
Hello.
Nate Howard
For the record, Nate Howard, God-given name Nathan Howard.
Great questions, like every single one.
The last one, the answer to the question, have we met with County Public Health?
Yes.
And the guidance that we've received from folks in City Hall and from that meeting was essentially, go forth and host this in the city.
We like the idea.
We can talk about that and deliberate.
Maybe Courtney and Max want to share more about that meeting with the director's office.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah.
Courtney Moran
Hi, I'm Courtney Moran.
For the record here, on behalf of the Portland Psychedelic Society Action Fund, we were able to meet with the Multnomah County Health Department and had a conversation about the full context of the ordinance, not only the deprioritization piece, but about the commission as well.
And there was general support for the ordinance as a whole.
Regarding the deprioritization piece, they indicated that the personal use of natural psychedelics is not where we should be spending our police resources.
So just reaffirming the conversations we've already had before this committee.
Regarding the commission, it was advised that while the public health authority traditionally does rest with the county, that this is an instance and an opportunity for the city to to lead by convening experts and the right representatives to engage in conversations around safety and education and economics and health perspectives in relation to the natural use of psych— um, the use— personal use of natural psychedelics and how the city can effectively use resources and allocate resources that in ways that can reduce emphasis on criminal enforcement for the personal use of natural So the conversations that we had were very favorable.
There was a recommendation to have a specific reference to not only having someone from the— sorry, to specifically have the county public health director or the director's designee in the commission membership to help with the information and just the overall—.
I think that's a good idea.
Structure of the commission and how the commission operates.
So that would be a potentially additional clause that we could add as an amendment to specifically include the public health director or their designee in the commission.
Steve Novick
I think I'd want to hear directly from the public health director before including that.
Courtney Moran
I mean, but so my understanding is you didn't at any point ask the county We did ask that question specifically, and the response back was that given other political issues that are happening at the county, that it would be more effective for us to work with the city on this.
Steve Novick
Okay, that's a little disturbing.
What political issues were they talking about?
Courtney Moran
About— there's an ordinance that they're working on to not have needle exchanges within 1,000 feet of a school or a library.
Steve Novick
I— okay, I find that a little confusing.
They don't really see the connection.
Eric Zimmerman
Public health—.
What?
So is the county public health counselor.
Nate Howard
I think beyond that, we've also heard from at least one council office that stated a preference for it to live in the city, um, and be short-term.
I think to the questions from Commissioner Smith's Chair Novick and others, just the idea— this idea as a concept, a phenomenon.
We've been here, I think, not a perfect parallel, but we've been here before when the city and the state, you know, the first in the country to pass a sanctuary state law, had all the same concerns.
When we updated it in 2017, given the federal administration changes, all of these same concerns were brought up, reasonable, valid ones around expertise, Should we already do it?
It's already a cultural practice.
And we did the same thing when we have been trying to restore, you know, the Willamette River to its former glory.
Do we have the expertise, liability?
I think the goal here is someone— and to date, no one's really taken the ball— should offer something around what is the least risky way, for example, to swim in the river.
Thousands of Portlanders do it.
Tens of thousands of Portlanders do it.
And there is an imperative, was our argument starting in 2016, to recognize that it's happening, offer very concise science-based recommendations, you know, around swimming, for example.
And that lives on the city now.
That took, I don't know, 7 years.
It also took 7 years to install swim docks or ladders on some of the swim docks.
I view this similar as to why this commission Councilmember Herbold.
Tens of thousands of Portlanders are finding a relationship, is what we say, instead of doing drugs, a relationship with things that grow out of the ground.
The outcome is that they're consuming something that has essentially no risk profile, and instead of engaging with alcohol or whatever, they're finding that they love their mom again, they're finding forgiveness.
But there's not a resource, there's not something around Um, the least risky ways to do it.
There's no, there's no resource they can trust that's in the city or the state.
Everything's through the legal model.
But we do know tens of thousands of Portlanders are doing it.
So the goal is to essentially allow for some, um, education, some resources, something that someone can trust.
And I personally, you know, have served on advisory boards and commissions, and it kind of hurt my soul to— for us to propose another one.
In this case, I I think it makes sense and I think it should go away as soon as the job is done.
So I'll end there, but I wanted to just touch on some of the good questions and explain that what we're doing here is not new, it's just a different topic.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Let me just get this on the record since evidently a singular— before I do that, I support the deprioritization.
I said this last time.
If this is— if the amendment I propose passes, I will not only support this but proudly champion it at the council.
I'm very supportive.
I have many concerns, as noted earlier, on the advisory body.
To get this on the record, since evidently one county commission office saying it is relevant here, I have a preference for it to live at the county.
I want to be very clear about that, or the state.
And given there are other political issues that are happening here too, I think it's very easy for the county to pass the buck to us when higher levels of government normally have greater taxation authority can take on more work.
We're severely limited and preempted by doing— of doing financially, but in a policy sense.
And so the idea of us taking this on has significant concerns for me.
As I go through the exhibit, I was making notes and I had, you know, 40, 50 comments on it ranging from it doesn't make sense for this to advise the council if it's and be a council advisory body, but be appointed by the mayor.
That's a non-starter for me.
It doesn't make sense for me to have, you know, the law enforcement practices part makes a lot of sense, but there's a lot of other things here in terms of basically serving as a think tank housed in the city that would ideally be either philanthropically funded or would be done by the public health authority.
So If there was an option of narrowing this down to be specific to law enforcement practices, I'd be very open to that.
And I'd be open to that in either an administrative sense with the mayor doing it for the chief to advise the chief, or for it to be about future legislation and funding decisions advising the council and living within the council jurisdiction.
Either of those makes sense to me.
I'm not sure what the advocates would prefer in that scenario because I think it's been— we haven't really gotten to that because we've been talking about, I think, some of the other pieces.
Um, I'm interested in, like, there's, there's parts— I'm just going to pick a paragraph to illustrate the point.
Um, the duties of the commission include, but are not limited to, the following.
Part B: study the use of natural psychedelics in alleviating opioid or alcohol or opioid dependency and other addictions, including reviewing well-documented research on the role of natural psychedelics in successfully treating substance use disorders and reducing recidivism.
I think the reducing recidivism part is squarely within our lane as a city, right?
That relates to law enforcement, relates to public safety.
I think reviewing well-documented research is a good practice for any advisory body to do.
I think as I look at those other pieces, it's relevant.
Is it our lane or not is an open question.
And I picked one that's deliberately ambiguous to say we should talk this through.
Insofar as some of the other pieces here, Um, I marked a lot of things that are like, I think, squarely within our lane as a city as well.
Um, but I did want to ask, um, has anybody talked to the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing, who has had a, uh, who is, who is required by law to provide a member to this if we pass this ordinance?
Nate Howard
Okay, there has been a conversation with them about the need for a conversation with them.
Which is not a compelling answer to give you, uh, and also not a necessity to have them.
But that was a recommendation, I think, from, uh, counsel, like legal counsel.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, and I'm not— I, I staffed PCEP.
I think they're great.
I, I think they would be a good partner in this work, whether through this mechanism of, of a designated member being sent or another mechanism.
I think that makes sense.
Part H, where it talks about reviewing implementation reviewing any instances of city law enforcement action related to natural psychedelics and making recommendations to ensure alignment with the intent of this chapter.
I have—.
The context makes sense.
I have concerns about superseding a review system that obviously, if some of our colleagues defund it, maybe there'll be a need for more capacity.
But, uh, as it stands right now, we have a ballot measure that gives control of civilian review of police action to the civilian sorry, Community Board for Police Accountability.
So I think there's a lot in here that raised questions.
It refers to an initiative.
I think clearly it was intended that this would be put forward as a ballot measure at first and then later proposed as an ordinance.
But as a result of all that, and given the complication of getting through that, my anticipation was that there was a desire to get this At least the deprioritization done quickly.
So I put forward an amendment to strike the part that is sort of ancillary and would take a lot longer to get through so that the core thing could get done.
I think I may have operated off of incomplete information there because it may not be the desire of the sponsors to get this done today, and it may be more core to the advocates than I initially thought.
So I apologize if that was something I didn't have.
Thank you.
I did flag this, you know, 35 days ago when we talked about it, that this is a sticking point for me.
But I did want to just kind of get that on the record again and say I have a lot to work on with this if I were to be able to get to a yes personally on the advisory body.
The rest of it, I think there's probably some polished commas kind of stuff that we could fix in the rest of the document, but I'd be very happy to vote that forward today.
Because I think it's really important.
And I do think it's relevant, exactly as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney said, that in the event that leadership changes, we should have a policy in place so that the prioritization level remains constant regardless of that leadership.
So I appreciate that point.
I'd be very happy to vote it through if my amendment passes, or we can have a longer conversation about how to do this.
But I really do think this— I don't like the idea of another governmental entity or jurisdiction being non-responsive or not wanting to spend their money on something means it's our responsibility when it's not our lane.
That makes me really uncomfortable.
Steve Novick
Thanks.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
Some good points there by Councilor Kanal.
Um, I want to uplift the aspect of if this advisory board was advising on something related to the city's actions, that, that seems quite So when he talked about enforcement practices, how do we make sure it goes well, like, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Um, but he is raising a county-city role that we continue to see be, um, I think kind of abdicated right now by the current county leadership.
Um, and I think that's because at this point, the county is the only one that can County Public Health is a little bit scared of their own shadow, right?
I'll remind you of a few years ago, we had the foil and straw debacle, which they couched it in the term of harm reduction.
Flat fail.
It took a hell of a lot more effort than it should have probably to do the no needle exchanges next to schools ordinance, right?
That should have been an easy, straightforward thing.
And County Health Department was also, you know, late to the game on PrEP, something that is now widely accepted in our community, but over 10 years ago they were late to the game.
But they are focused on things like hookah bars, right?
So I say that to my colleagues because on many occasions our County Public Health Department has got the wrong target in its crosshairs.
And this is one of those where I'm not surprised that they're passing the buck because I don't think they actually have the language to even I don't think they have the leadership to have this conversation right now.
So, but I— but that doesn't mean though that I want us to necessarily take on a public health role here.
And there are some aspects in this write-up that is a little much in terms of what an advisory board to the city would be.
And so I'm open to some language finessing, Councilor Kanal, and, and to the sponsors, if there's something that helps in there.
I think that would be favorable.
I do think that the that idea of having a public health advisory board having— I, I wish that we'd had more of an advisory board in previous experiences of decriminalizing, deprioritizing legalization to say like— because here, here's what the county board will never talk about.
Excuse me, the county public health department will never talk about.
They will never talk about the harm reduction to the rest of the community.
They will only talk about the harm reduction for the user, and their ethics stops and I think that having an eye toward the community impact is something that this broader community would do well to think about.
And I think that in my conversations with sponsors, with advocacy groups, is that that's something that is welcomed.
And so I, at the same time, think the county health department has to get better at what they do, but I just don't know that they've got the tools or the perspective to do that.
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
The—.
Eric Zimmerman
I, I, to the chair, I think, um, hearing the invitation from the sponsors and hearing some of the description that Councilor Kanal brought up, about maybe the duties of the commission are something I'm open to.
You know, if there's, if there's time that needs to be had for that to get a good product, I think that's a good idea and I'd be favorable to it.
Um, at, at this point, I didn't think, uh, frankly, that I would be in favor of, of the amendment to get rid of the commission.
It seems shortsighted.
But then the more I think about it in terms of the roles between county and and city, that matters a lot to me.
And I think there's more here that Councilor Kanal is highlighting that is worth investigating.
So I offer that up, Chair, as a supporter of if the sponsors want to finesse some language around this.
And just to put the flagpole out there, I would be quite comfortable if an advisory committee was advising us on that's something I can be very favorable of.
Um, I, I think there's an industry kind of wrestling point, which is public health will advise on harm reduction, right?
That's in the wheelhouse.
But some of the language here almost— I think there has to be an acknowledgement that perhaps investigating what is out there that's possible in a favorable manner might push their ethical limits or push their industry's limits.
And I say that not fully knowing.
I'm just saying there's a difference between harm reduction and then advocating that a person take something or participate in something.
And that may put the health department in a different space where they can't comment.
And I'm not advocating that we take on that role.
I'm just acknowledging that that might exist here in some form or fashion.
So with that, I'll just leave it open to the timeline as was discussed.
Thanks, Chair.
Steve Novick
So I'll put myself in the queue.
I have to say that I think we're in a bit of a muddle.
I mean, one question I have for the sponsors is, I'll give you like a yes light.
Nate Howard
I like everything that was just shared.
I think that what might be— what I'd like to infuse into this is a little bit of a public health lens.
Is that we don't necessarily want to— going back to a metaphor, because I love this organization and the river— we're not telling people you got to go swim in the river.
We're saying— we're recognizing that tens of thousands of Portlanders swim in the river, and there's some really sketchy spots, and there's some spots where there is no wake, no current, no fast-speeding boats.
And the city you know, I understand for many years has said, nah, we can't do that outside jurisdiction.
Just, just, it's a very clear public policy phenomenon over and over.
So we don't want to encourage, but we do want to create at the end of this commission, and, and that's why we can scale it back, I don't know, 90%.
Um, we— I would like there to be something.
This is the goal.
This is the, the hope of, of, uh, experts that we've consulted for, for years, and that has happened in other cities, a version of it.
Councilor Smith.
We'd like there to be something that steers people towards basic— a basic set of science-based information on toxicity levels, what it looks like, and least risky behavior if people are going to continue, as tens of thousands of Portlanders are, swimming in the river or, you know, enjoying personal use.
And so that's the goal.
And so in that spirit of shrinking the, the commission.
Yeah, I mean, let's figure out how to reduce it by 90%.
Uh, I mean, law enforcement is already doing it.
There's, there's something that's fluffy here, except for it's really not, which is changing laws to reflect cultural practices actually allow the public to enjoy the same psychological safety that sometimes folks who previously have had good relationships with law enforcement are the only ones that feel it until that change happens.
We do this all the time, updating constitutions, updating charters, blah, blah, blah.
So that piece, yeah.
And then to go a little further, something in the city around— I'm imagining a resource, a single page.
I don't know what comes out of the commission, but something like that is, I think, within our domain and makes sense.
And it's why I wouldn't want it to only be related to public safety.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Nate Howard
When we shrink down the commission.
So I don't know if that makes sense, you know.
Steve Novick
Okay, I think the bottom line is you don't want it to be only public safety, you want there to be a public health aspect to it.
Nate Howard
Yeah, even if it's 90% less than what's currently written.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Steve Novick
Yeah, I actually have a question for the city administrator.
I mean, this would have the mayor appointing this committee, would direct the mayor to seek guidance from state and local health departments when nominating appointees to the committee.
Do you have any thoughts about whether— I mean, the mayor's not here— about whether what the mayor might think about taking that responsibility on.
Sameer Kanal
I would hate to speak on behalf of the mayor on it, but I wouldn't see this any different than any other committee, uh, that we have that the mayor is appointing individuals to and taking recommendations from.
But he would ultimately have to make that kind of judgment as it relates to how he thinks he may interpret this or move forward with it.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
And I also want to just make a personal statement about this.
I actually institutionally might be inclined today to just say that we should get rid of the committee because we're talking about stepping into the public health lane.
And I think that we'd have the votes for that today.
A hesitancy I have is that I sort of grew up with psychedelics, didn't take them myself, but I was in Northern California in the late '60s, and I remember that when you eat Amanita muscaria, you're supposed to get 10 of them and chop them up into pieces and only one piece from each one and to avoid poisoning yourself.
I remember that my parents the reason I didn't watch it, have a television for 8 years of my childhood, was my parents stayed up all night on mescaline one night and watched the Saturday morning cartoons with me and thought they were fascistic, so they threw out the TV.
So I sort of come from a psychedelic culture, and I'm sympathetic to those.
I mean, my mother actually tells me now, hey, we should be talking about the, you know, the health benefits of psychedelics.
So partly because of that, I mean, I frankly think this is an issue like foie gras where probably if the public knew we were spending so much time on this, they're saying, what the hell are you doing?
But I'm sympathetic enough to the cause that personally I'm willing to spend a little more time talking about it and seeing if we, within the context of public meetings law, if each of us individually— I mean, each of us individually can meet with the sponsors and some of the advocates over the next couple of weeks and see if we can individually get to reasonable places.
But I also would really like to have the county here itself to answer questions about why they're not doing this.
So that's just my personal statement, and I'll move on to Councilor Kanal.
Mitch Green
Chair, if I may, because you did ask, uh, the question was originally posed to the sponsors as well as the advocates.
I think personally, I, I want to respect the process that we have for the legislative, um, You know, the committee process.
And this is one of those big sticking points where I have to make a decision on what do I support.
Do I think it's better to pass something rather than nothing?
I think deprioritizing is great on its own merits.
It'd be a huge missed opportunity if we didn't take a beat to say if there was a way to winnow this down to make it more narrowly focused on city business, which I think gets to the concern of the committee Uh, um, primarily, I'm all in.
Um, it— I don't want to try to do that after it's passed out of this committee and then try to have that conversation at full council, because we've, we've all experienced the pain of that.
Uh, and we, we want to, you know, as maybe one of the only councilors who's actually experienced the ego death of a psychedelic trip myself, I'm happy to sort of take a backseat in, in this and make sure we get good policy out of it as well.
And so, uh, I'm very much for that.
I do think that we have an opportunity to hit that public health piece in a way that's in our lane.
Thank you.
And clearly we have time for that, or it would take a little bit more time than we have today.
So I just wanted to lay that on the table for you guys, for you to consider.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Chair, if I may.
You know, I said earlier that there are some places where there are clear lines and places where there are less clear lines between our work and the county's work.
And I wonder if we could take a stab at trying to figure out where that public health language is clearly about public health only and where that public health language starts to border on, um, some of the work of the city and the places where our work does touch the work of the county and find a bit of a, a narrow path between those 2 pieces of the public health information in the, the policy before you.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I appreciate this conversation.
I did want to mention a few things that I appreciated here.
I actually did not mean to imply that we should have no nexus to public health.
I think we have a— as long as it's a related point to our core function, I think we have conversations in this committee that relate to public health all the time in the context of mental health.
So I do see that.
This felt like very much focused on the latter with a little you know, seasoning of public safety put in the way it's written.
So I'm not saying zero out that, and I appreciate, Nathan, your point about— Nate, sorry, your point about that relationship and how that works.
I also really wanted to say I appreciate a lot of the intent behind certain membership categories here.
There's a concern I have about fixed membership.
We have a resolution as a city where we should have fixed membership for all advisory groups.
But I do think that the desired qualification, as well as including someone from indigenous groups or tribal nations, was really important, and I wanted to appreciate that.
So there are some things in here that definitely need to be maintained in the event that we go down the path of having an advisory body at the city.
I did want to float 3 things.
One is we— it's more complicated, it would take longer, and it would need to be probably a separate document, but we have examples of city-county partnerships like the Multnomah Youth Commission, for example, that might be an appropriate thing to consider here because it is something that relates to both of us.
And I think that's— it's going to be harder to do.
I don't want to bury that in any way, but it is something that I think might benefit.
The second thing is I think we should have a conversation about yes.
What—.
And I understand from the perspective of a topical, uh, focus, it doesn't necessarily matter how it's housed, who it advises, who appoints, and all that sort of thing.
But I, I am, again, uncomfortable with the idea of the mayor appointing people to a thing that advises the council, that's established under council authority, things like that.
That's just a separation of powers thing.
And I— this has been, um, a portion of legal guidance that's been expressed publicly already, so I'm going to say it again.
Um, we do need to create ongoing bodies code.
So in the event that there's a, a short-term body, that, that's— there's some limit.
I'm not 100% sure what the best course of action is, but so I think that's another thing we have to work out.
But, um, just wanted to, to flag that.
The third, um, the third thing is I, I would prefer to start from scratch instead of trying to whittle down Exhibit B. Um, I, I don't mean that to disrespect the work that's been put in on it, but I, I think it, it, it would look like, um, it, it would be more red ink than not red ink if, from my personal perspective— that's me, I'm one voter— um, if I was working on, on this, um, in terms of how to, to fix the exhibit.
Uh, so I think it, it might make sense to have a broader conversation, start over on that, um, with sort of what is the intended outcome here?
And I had a couple questions that maybe are longer term and don't need to get addressed right now, but about like strategic plan.
A strategic plan is mentioned, but it doesn't say a strategic plan for what.
It just says like it has to include these component parts.
I'm not 100% sure what the point is.
Is this a think tank?
Is this a—.
Yeah.
Public health advising the public situation?
Is this— which seems better as an agency or an office or a requirement of an administrative component of the city instead of an advisory body, but maybe attached to the work?
Or is this something where it is actually advising some sort of city decision maker or decision makers?
And I think the answer is it's a little bit of everything right now.
And that's okay.
It doesn't have to be one of these 3 lanes and there may be 4th lanes.
That clarity is missing for me.
So, and I just wanted to get also on the record, I worked, for those who don't know, I worked supporting advisory bodies for years at the city.
My perspective on this is informed by, I have been the city's agent hired to support an advisory body that put volunteers in a position to fail.
I didn't know that at the time.
I was hired to do that.
Yeah.
I thought it could be more successful than it was.
I've also supported other advisory bodies that were set up to succeed.
I don't believe in putting volunteers who aren't even being paid to be here in positions to fail, and I'm very concerned about that.
And that's why I take this so seriously.
It's not a matter of disrespect to the work that's been put in by anybody up here, anyone who's in the, in the back as well.
I just wanted to, to get that on the, the record because I, I don't want to put volunteers in a position where they expect that more can be done than we have actually allowed to be done, because that's just delaying a disappointment, um, that I, I would prefer not to create in the first place by trying to either go forward with the policy change without the advisory body or create it in a way where people can be successful at achieving the goals that I think, I think most of us in this room share many of the goals here of the underlying.
Josh Silverman
Thanks.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Councilor Green, what bureau will staff the Portland Psychedelics Advisory Commission, and what is the expected administrative cost if existing resources are used?
Mitch Green
I don't know which bureau staffs this generally.
I, um, it's a question that I could Uh, get back to you.
We're not, you know— yeah.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
And let's say this passes, how will this improve the lives of Portlanders?
Mitch Green
I mean, as we have already communicated, there are some 10,000 Portlanders who have an experience with psychedelics in the city of Portland.
And so this will contribute to the health and wellness of, of that, that community.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
And so I'm trying to figure out what exactly changes for PPB officers on the ground if personal use of natural psychedelics becomes a low-law enforcement priority.
I'm talking to Nathan.
Um, what, what changes from what's going on today?
Nate Howard
Great questions.
Thank you all.
Thanks for spending so much time on this, by the way.
It wasn't our intention, but, uh, really appreciate the thoughtfulness.
The intended impact is, uh, clarity, which I think most officers we've talked to, including leadership, already have.
This is not a target of law enforcement, but it is underscoring that this is not a priority to spend their limited resources on.
What I really hope changes as well, and this could be— this is in the initial version of the ordinance, and everything that Councilor Kanal talked about was also clearly outlined in a previous version and pulled out.
We can bring that to you.
It'll answer the questions you had prior.
Part of that was to offer a volunteer training PowerPoint, whatever it is, showing what we're actually talking about.
This is a cactus.
This cactus produces mescaline.
Native Americans have consumed it for millennia.
Now you can get it at Home Depot.
This is what it looks like when people process it.
It looks like, you know, like a Capri Sun or something.
This is what psilocybin looks like.
It's a mushroom, but it's a particular type of mushroom.
The goal would be able to distinguish between those 2.
And further, and we don't need to necessarily go this far, but we do want to hopefully highlight this, This is how it changes officers on the job.
You know, I grew up across the street from Taboo Video on 82nd, and, you know, my parents are trying to hold it down, but the 3 of us boys were pretty much left to our own devices.
And I probably should not have been able to, as a very young person, although it was positive and life-changing, have my older brother go into Taboo Video and buy salvia, amongst other psychedelics, bring them home and, uh, you know, at Mount Tabor Middle School experience ego dissolution.
Now granted, I think it was much safer than malt liquor, which proliferates in Portland as well, but it was illegal then and it's illegal now.
And as Councilor Zimmerman has noted, when he worked in the mayor's office, they ran tests at like mushroom chocolates and psychedelics bought at head shops in Portland, and every single one tested positive for fentanyl.
So there's things on the books right now, laws and actual dangerous drugs out there.
And this is no commentary other than, you know, PBB, we're a fan.
We want to support them.
This is to highlight that there's a difference.
These things sold, these places that have things that can kill you currently being sold right now, go buy them.
That probably should, you know, have— that continues to be a target.
I would say that's probably a priority.
Thank you.
People picking mushrooms out of the bark chips from the county courthouse and then reconnecting with their mom and, you know, loving each other and, oh, thank you for paying for college.
That's not a target of law enforcement.
And this is what it looks like.
We're not saying people have to take trainings, but we would like to provide those types of resources.
Loretta Smith
And I'm glad you said that.
So why is this the right time for the city to create a law enforcement priority for psychedelics while the city and state are still implementing broader drug policy changes under House Bill 4002?
Nate Howard
Excellent question, because public interest as a result is at an all-time high.
So the adoption curve of individuals finding psychedelic medicine, whether it's through clinical pathways through the FDA, which is far less than the 25,000 or so people have moved through the state-regulated model, which I've helped to build out over, you know, we passed it on the 50th anniversary of the drug war in 2020.
Whether it's those 25,000 people or Colorado and New Mexico, or where most people are still finding psychedelics, which is through the unregulated space where there is no guidance, everyone's turning a blind eye, there is nothing like this in terms of like a discussion of a resource or something that would come out of this commission.
Those folks are essentially left to the devices of whatever, calling their uncle who might have information or not.
And so because we are implementing these programs, uh, first in the, in the world publicly available psychedelic healthcare model in the state, which has been an unmitigated success in a lot of ways, right?
And because a Netflix documentary is coming out every 2 days, the rate— uh, it would be equivalent of why are we talking about making the river, uh, something that the city talks about and where, where people should swim or not?
It's because climate change.
It's because the Big Pipe Project, you know, stops CSOs.
It's because So many people are swimming in the river that we want to offer them a resource and a place to do it in the least risky way.
So that's the reason the time was probably years ago, but now is a good time too.
Loretta Smith
Exactly.
And so thank you.
So Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, uh, in this legal review, um, that's being done, are they planning to ensure that this does not conflict with the state or federal controlled substance laws?
Is that what they're going to be looking at?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, as with much of the work we do, there are some details that need to be figured out through the rulemaking process and through the implementation of the advisory body itself.
I would say in terms of intent, we absolutely want to make sure that any work that happens through this body is taking into account and working within both the knowledge and also the acknowledgment of the work that's happening at the state level as well.
I don't want to put us in conflict with that work happening at the state level.
Right.
And I think it is important as we look at appointments to make sure that we have folks either on the staff side or our volunteers who are on the body who have a clear understanding of what's happening at the state level so that we can have that again, as with anything we bring forward, there's that balance of exactly how much detail do we put in.
But in terms of intent, I think I'm very comfortable saying yes, we need to make sure that we're operating—.
Loretta Smith
And so I will have my office call legal counsel to make sure that we are not, that we're not in conflict with that, the substance abuse law.
If I had my way to to do a magic wand.
How I see this going, I would like to see us approve an advisory committee as an ordinance, and then the charge that I'd like the advisory committee to do is to tell us, should this go into ordinance?
I think we're, we're bringing the cart before the horse.
I, I just don't think that they need to go concurrently.
I think the advisory board they can tell us better if we should continue to go forward, to put an ordinance forward.
So maybe I'm wrong about this.
I hear some mumblings up here, but that's expected.
If— would that be wrong to say let's just do the advisory without doing the ordinance so that the advisory committee could actually tell us that this We should probably put this into law because I don't have the expertise to say that.
I, I know, um, some of the tragedies that have happened in, in my family as a result of using drugs, and this has the same potential.
While Nathan said that, that these psychedelics are not as powerful as some of the alcohol, um, do you have any data of that?
Nate Howard
Yeah, I love that question.
Um, about 60 years of frequently federally funded university-led research showing on a continuum of risk profile, um, alcohol and alcoholism, which has killed a lot of my family, um, yeah, and I'm still trying to kick it, uh, pretty far end.
And this is, this is SAMHSA, this is all the federal agencies that have kind of come behind this, pretty far over here in terms of risk profile and impact.
And causing cancer, et cetera.
You got booze and you got around there, you got fentanyl, you got tranq, and all the way over here, natural psychedelics.
The only thing we're talking about, zero risk profile in terms of toxicity.
Loretta Smith
And that's what I want the advisory committee to tell us.
I want the advisory— I want the advisory committee to recommend to us that we should do an ordinance and do this.
I don't think we should do this out of order.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, the reason that I am comfortable doing these 2 things at the same time is that, um, we know that that deprioritization is already happening within our law enforcement bodies.
So we are not making a today change.
And so what we're doing is we're ensuring that the current enforcement mechanism continues as this advisory body does its work.
And that's why I actually think doing them together If this were a high priority within law enforcement, I might agree with you that we need to have that advisory do their— that advisory body do their work first.
But instead, what we're saying is let's maintain that status quo, which is this is a low level.
This is not a priority.
Loretta Smith
Let me tell you where I'm coming from.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Let's do the advisory body work so that we can understand the whole of what we need to be doing.
And then if we need to make further changes, we can do that.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
I want the advisory committee to tell me if someone abuses— you all are talking about people who use it responsibly, but if a person abuses the psychedelics, how that will impact a community.
You all have been talking from one standpoint.
I know for a fact how alcohol can be abused.
I know how drugs can be abused.
How drugs can be abused, and how that can have an impact on a community.
So I want all that research that you got from SAMHSA, other agencies at Health and Human Services.
I want that advisory committee to— they should have a— they should have lots of things to be able to tell us.
Okay, based on this data from XYZ date, we think it is now appropriate for the council to come forward.
And based on what we've seen from the Portland Police Bureau and who has been arrested or cited or anything, that this probably should be put in an ordinance form.
I think it's— I just think that we're being very Pollyannish about how we look at these mushrooms as if they don't get overused.
And we need to go to the other extent because you guys have been talking from the happy extent of what can happen.
You know, you can, you can have some medical uses for it.
But I'm saying I need somebody to tell me when these psychedelics are abused, what can happen?
And no one is telling me about that.
You're telling me all these fancy things.
Yes.
I don't get it because I have a very narrow view about alcohol and drugs, and I've seen it devastate communities.
I don't want this to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people who abuse psychedelics, and then they come back and use our ordinance to say, well, you all kind of decriminalized it of sorts, so It's okay.
And then they sue us.
They will sue us if we put this on the books and somebody gets picked up for abuse of the psychedelics.
Nate Howard
I like where your head's at, Commissioner, because we've talked about this for years and not just here, but also in Seattle, where a version of this passed we worked on a while ago.
And the reason why what you just proposed is a good conversation and the one that we've had Is because there is a question as to what is responsible and what's the right order of operations.
I would offer for your consideration, the goal of this is to offer the opposite of, I hope, although I realize we've come off in terms of the wrong vibe here, the opposite of a Pollyanna perspective, which is that it is happening, it can be risky, and there are other policy phenomenons where if we want to reduce unplanned pregnancies and we want to reduce STIs, the single worst way to do that is to have no education, absence of any education.
If we want to actually reduce it— this is documented, you know, a century— if we want to reduce it and act like there is risky behavior, then you have to have a policy structure, a culture that allows education and discussion to happen without penalty or without fear.
Similarly, if someone's having a bad trip, Thank you.
Or something's happened, or abuse, whatever it might be, which is according to all the federal data for the things we're talking about, next to nil.
But when it does happen, if the cultural practice is that it's not a problem, but the vast majority of Portlanders don't know that, which they don't know it, they are not going to call their mom and say, I need help.
They're not going to call law enforcement.
And so I just would offer your point, which is a good one, is actually addressed by enshrining a cultural practice into law.
I think— I mean, I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that is—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That is the intention.
Loretta Smith
I hear what you're saying, and that's fine, but I have one last question, Nathan.
Did you talk to Portland Police Bureau about this?
Are they saying they're in support of this ordinance going forward?
Nate Howard
I would say every conversation we've had is positive.
Uh, people have talked about—.
Loretta Smith
No, no, no, no, answer my question.
Nate Howard
Oh, I'm about to.
Loretta Smith
No, no, don't do that to me.
Nate Howard
Do you just want to hear yes or no?
Loretta Smith
I, I want you to tell me yes or no.
Do they say they support this?
Have you talked to Chief of Police?
Nate Howard
Yes.
Loretta Smith
And they said they want you to do this?
Nate Howard
Neutral.
Yeah.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so they're not in support of it?
Nate Howard
They're—.
They—.
If you remember, they came here to the last, uh, hearing on this.
And I love how much you all like spending time with us.
I did not think we were gonna be such a dominant topic, and apparently we're invited back.
Loretta Smith
Very seriously, because it's very personal.
Nate Howard
I'm serious.
They came back.
Loretta Smith
Very personal for me.
You don't know how personal it is, but it's very personal for me.
So you just answer the question.
Are they— are they— this end with the new additions, are they in support of this ordinance?
Nate Howard
I, I, I take your seriousness.
I'm with you as well.
Uh, yes, right here, I believe, or right here is where police sat, uh, their representative, and said they are neutral, that they understand.
Loretta Smith
They are not in support of it.
Nate Howard
They didn't take a position.
That's what neutral means.
Loretta Smith
And they didn't take a position in support of it.
I get it.
I So let me ask you this.
Would it be appropriate for the police to be the administrator of this advisory committee since Councilor Green said he doesn't know who's going to implement it, which bureau?
Wouldn't it be appropriate for the PPB to administer this?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, I'm happy to take that one.
My assumption has been that this would be assigned to an entity within the Public Safety Service Area.
But I would defer to the administration on whether the best place is within the police bureau, within the service area itself, or somewhere else.
Happy to let the city administrator weigh in on that or let him off the hook, but I do think that the appropriate place—.
Loretta Smith
I'm not talking to the city administrator.
What I'm trying to figure out of the sponsors of this, you have to think about this entire thing from 1 to 10.
You just can't give me the high notes on it.
You have to do your due diligence and say, This is going to be administered here.
This is where we'd like to see it administered.
We have all the people that are going to be involved with this PPB.
You're going to make this a low priority.
I want to see the people that it's going to impact who have to do this in practice, that they support this.
And they don't support this right now.
They're neutral.
They don't support it.
Nate Howard
Those are 2 different things.
Not supporting is the opposite of neutral or positive.
I just— there's 3 different definitions, and I like what you're saying.
Councilor President, uh, Brother Jamie has said, you know, good bill should pass, uh, want to do it even before we reform commissions and make it a bit tighter.
And he has also noted that he doesn't know, and because we have not heard from the city that they know, uh, I don't know if it's our role to tell you who that person is that staffs it, but it's not within a bureau.
It's a standalone commission.
Loretta Smith
I have written policy before for clients, and we have to know A through Z where I expect the dollars to come from, which account it's supposed to come from, and who will administer it.
And I have to have the answers to those.
And I've done this before, just on that other side of that, that dais over there.
And I have to be able to answer all those questions.
You want to come here and tell me a specific public safety change that you want us to put in ordinance form before we even have an advisory committee to the city has not provided the answer.
Nate Howard
We've asked the city and they don't know.
I feel like this is circling around.
Loretta Smith
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You cannot get the PPB to say that they support this.
So that's obviously— when they don't want to support something, they'll tell you, I'm not going to go against you, but I, I'm just going to stay neutral.
That to me, I know what that means.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That means they don't like it, because when they like something, Councilor, if I may, um, I have and my staff have spent significant time talking to the chief and to, um, Robert King about this.
I've got a pretty decent relationship with both of them.
They're pretty honest with me, and they have both said to me that they're going to stay neutral on this because they don't think that it's appropriate for them to support, um, changes like this through the legislative body, not because they oppose it, not because they have a problem with it, but because there are roles for the executive and roles for the legislative, um, but that they don't have concerns.
I can only take them at their word, but there is a difference, I believe, between neutrality that is I don't want to tell you I oppose it, but I oppose it.
And neutrality, that is, I don't have concerns with this, and I'm telling you I'm not going to weigh in, but I don't have concerns.
And the latter is what I heard from our bureau, which is why I was comfortable moving forward.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Steve Novick
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Again, I think it's, it's I think it's important for us to recognize that, um, in a, in a legislative body with civilian control, it's actually up to elected officials to decide the future of the city, not up to bureau leadership.
But I appreciate the clarification because I do think, um, PPB has been, um— careful is not the right word, but been— had exercised discretion in how it's going to approach this, and I think that's the appropriate way to do that.
And I, I know that that's something that the administrative side of the house from top down has, has focused on, so I appreciate that.
Um, I, I think I, I, I, I wasn't 100% sure in terms of the, um, the— I appreciate the clarification on the, the cart before horse argument.
I, I get it.
I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.
I think given not, not only the point that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney made, but also the idea that, um, we already know a lot.
There, there's already a lot of knowledge out there about the, the lack of harm, relatively speaking.
Um, there may not be as much information as people would want on beneficial use, best way to use, things like that, that it doesn't necessarily make sense to delay something that we already kind of could have an opinion on or know.
And, and it appears at least most of us agree on that, not everybody, but most, um, in order to have a multi-month to multi-year process of an advisory body first.
Um, I also appreciate that the way that this is written has talked about sort of— it's written to be in parallel, right?
It's written to be, uh, let's monitor implementation, um, the portion of it that I do think is relevant.
So I just wanted to get that on the, on the record as well.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Councilor.
So here's my suggestion.
I would suggest that the sponsors ponder what they've heard today and see if they can come back with something that might address the concerns that they've heard.
I would also suggest that the next time we take this up, I really want somebody from the county here to answer questions about, you know, what their thoughts are about this and why they're not doing it themselves.
And I also do think that it would be helpful to have somebody from PPB here to weigh in again on the questions Councilor Smith was asking.
My guess is that we're not going to— you guys aren't going to have that worked out in the next 2 weeks.
So I would imagine hearing this again maybe on August 4th.
Does that make sense?
Nate Howard
That sounds good.
I think we could get it done in 2 weeks.
But I'm also, you know, we'll yield to the wiser of us.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Given that it sounds like we'll need a little bit more time to work on the amendment and the review process through legal, I think August 4th is probably safer, but I do think we can have it done by then.
I don't think we'd need to move further out than that.
Steve Novick
Okay.
And I, speaking of the legal process, I would like somebody from the City Attorney's Office to opine on liability if we're putting something up on a city website about use of psychedelics.
Mitch Green
Yeah, Chair Novick, I think that August 4th at the earliest, we can commit to, I think, working up a draft amendment, making sure that someone from the City Attorney's Office is here, and making sure someone from the county is here as well.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Really appreciate the discussion.
And now, could the clerk read the next item?
Thanks, everybody.
Unidentified speaker
Item number 3, document number 2026.
Rebecca Dobert
Yes.
Motion passes.
Unidentified speaker
Agenda Item 6-123, amend code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain city buildings to disallow affirmative defense for persons with concealed handgun licenses.
Amend City Code Sections 3.18.050, 14A.0— sorry, 60.010, thank you.
Steve Novick
So if we were really going to have a significant discussion about this, I think we should take a break, but I'm not quite sure that we're going to.
I'd like to ask the council president to come forward.
Last time we took this up, there was a discussion about whether we needed an ordinance or whether something along these lines could be done administratively.
Councilor Zimmerman raised concerns about making people felons for violating the ordinance.
And I think that we were thinking in terms of Councilor Zimmerman having a discussion about that with the council president.
And Councilor Zimmerman has been away for the past couple of weeks.
I don't know that that's happened.
So my first question is, do we think that it makes sense to have a discussion about this today, or are we better off waiting until there's been further discussion between councilors on it.
And I invite both the council president's and Councilor Zimmerman's thoughts on that.
Jamie Dunphy
For the record, my name is Jamie Dunphy.
I'm Portland City Council president.
Councilor, you're correct.
Councilor Zimmerman and I have not had a chance to discuss this.
Additionally, at the last presentation, there was a little bit of confusion, and that was partially due to a change in the attorney who was the lead on this in the City Attorney's Office.
Mike Porter is now the lead on this.
He's coming down now if you choose to have this conversation, but I am more than happy to delay because I do think that there are some ways to improve this that we can do through amendment that we have not drafted at this point.
And I do look forward to those further conversations.
Steve Novick
Councilor Zimmerman, as an interested party, would you appreciate putting this over for further discussions in between?
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, largely I would agree.
The Senate action that allows this to even come forward also noted policy, right?
And we have policies where we can tell a person they cannot be in these chambers based on their behavior or based on the standards that we set for it.
I think there's some room in there to have a discussion.
When Council President mentioned that, you know, he was bringing this on behalf of the administration, I think that was helpful in understanding kind of where this came from.
So I remain concerned about the path it was on.
I am definitely open to an administrative policy more so that removes the threat of felony against people who are otherwise following the law.
And I think that the outcome that is desired is actually achieved, is just as achieved with a a, you know, a lower criminal threat.
So, um, I certainly think so, but we can take 2 hours if you want.
But like, I'm going to the Columbia game at 1 o'clock.
I don't know about you, but, um, uh, we can take 2 hours, but I don't know that we're going to get anywhere if we, if we dog it out here today.
Steve Novick
Well, I suspect that a lot of people would appreciate having an hour and 22 minutes of their day back.
So I think we will postpone this discussion until a later time.
Eric Zimmerman
What would be great on that is if the administration does have a policy that they want to have come forward, I think that they should do that and draft it as such.
I don't know that I want to be in the position, and Council President, I don't want to speak for you, but of writing a policy that's coming from the administration.
I think we can be sponsors of it, but I would expect to see that from you and your team, Mr.
Administrator, if there's something along those lines.
That would be more favorable to me.
I'll speak for myself there.
But yeah, thanks, Council President.
Steve Novick
Evan, did you have something you wanted to share?
Nate Howard
Just making myself available.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Josh Silverman
All right.
Steve Novick
I think that we'll postpone further discussion of this issue.
On the 21st, the one item I know we'll have before us is what I think of as Councilor Smith's police staffing study, which the PSSA has said they're going to be prepared to discuss.
And with that, this meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee is adjourned.