# Portland City Council AM Session 10/28/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-28-1  Duration: 181 min

[00:03:22] Loretta Smith: Hi, Keelan, this is Councilor Smith. I'm online.
[00:03:25] Keelan McClymont: Thank you, Councilor Smith.
[00:07:14] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning. I am calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council. It is 9:32 on Wednesday, October 28th. Keelan, can we please good morning.
[00:07:29] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[00:07:30] Olivia Clark: Here.
[00:07:32] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman. Avalos.
[00:07:36] Candace Avalos: Present. Here.
[00:07:40] Keelan McClymont: Here.
[00:07:42] Unidentified speaker: Here.
[00:07:44] Lauren Johnson: Here.
[00:07:46] Angelita Morillo: Here.
[00:07:51] Keelan McClymont: Morillo. Novick. Dunphy.
[00:07:54] Jamie Dunphy: Here. And could we please have the attorney read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
[00:07:59] Robert Taylor: Good morning. Welcome to the Portland City Council. To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council 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, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
[00:08:59] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:09:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Um, before we begin, I want to make a quick public announcement to anybody in the room. The 2nd floor women's restroom is closed. If, uh, anyone needs it, there is a single unisex bathroom over In this level, but there are also additional bathrooms on the 3rd and 1st floor. Apologies for the inconvenience. There's also bathrooms on the 4th floor, but that's a lot of walking. So, um, and before we dive in, Councilor Ryan.
[00:09:22] Dan Ryan: Thank you so much, Council President. Thank you for that very important announcement you just made. Um, good morning. Thousands of Portlanders are in conflict over the enrollment challenges at PPS, and the superintendent has proposed considering 14 school sites for closure. And yes, we are all hearing from our constituents, which makes sense. On October 9th, I reached out to the mayor, to CA Lee, and at their request, I had more detailed conversations with Public Works DCA Williams about providing an infrastructure index report for PPS. In other words, what is the status of the city's infrastructure surrounding the 14 sites? Thank you. From PBOT, Parks, Water, and Sewer. Providing this objective information can only help the decision makers, the superintendent, and the PPS board, which is comprised of 7 elected officials, to make these very difficult decisions. I was on the school board in 2005, the last time such closure decisions were made. This infrastructure index report is what I would have wanted from the city. Thank you. At that time. As such, I'm taking this life experience and I'm playing it forward. I have a lot of appreciation for you, CA Lee, and for your responsive deputies, if you will, that have responded to this request. And thank you. I'm now getting word that it will be provided on Monday, this coming Monday, November 2nd, and it'll be shared with all of us, and it'll be shared, of course, with the superintendent and the board members. Thank you. And therefore the public. So with deep compassion for the parents and families, the students and teachers, the superintendent, and all 7 members of the PPS board, in my faith that you will do the best for the students of Portland, thank you, colleagues. I just wanted to give you that information. I've been working on this for some time. I wanted to make sure that we could really deliver it and get a clear timeline. So I wanted to give you that update today.
[00:11:28] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[00:11:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
[00:11:30] Olivia Clark: Point of information.
[00:11:31] Candace Avalos: You mentioned a document. Can you just say again what it is that we're receiving?
[00:11:34] Dan Ryan: Yeah, I'll repeat. It's an infrastructure index. So you think of the public works section in general. So the city does investments around these 14 properties, correct? From pedestrian upgrades from PBOT. There's been sometimes water and sewer infrastructure updates around these sites. Parks might be doing some work, like a community center nearby, or what's the status of the parks and the, the infrastructure the parks provides near schools. And we'll also work with the county just specifically on libraries because a lot of the libraries are near our local schools at those 14 sites. So I thought, what could we do in our lane that would be helpful to PPS at this time? And in our lane, It's this. And so I wanted to make sure that we provided that objective information for the decision makers at PPS. And again, I give you my experience where I really wanted something like that back in 2005, and it was hard to get such objective information. So I just hope this will be helpful to them as they make these hard decisions.
[00:12:40] Candace Avalos: And is this something the city administrator comprised, or did you write it?
[00:12:42] Unidentified speaker: Sorry, I'm just—.
[00:12:43] Dan Ryan: I, of course, did not write it. That's not my job. My job as a legislator was to propose. So I proposed it to the mayor and to CA Lee. We had some dialogue. They all thought it was a good idea. And then it moved forward with DCA Williams. Thank you for asking those questions.
[00:13:00] Raymond C. Lee: I would share one component of that too that will also be in there is some demographic information. How do we see future growth from a residential standpoint happening in the city? So that will also be a part of it as well too, because it doesn't make sense if we're evaluating closing a school where we have permitting coming in to add additional housing. In that area. So we just want to make sure they have that full picture that we have, what's happening from a development end as well, and the impacts that could have potentially with potential school closures.
[00:13:31] Dan Ryan: That's right. Thank you for reminding me. And I've also been in conversation with DCA Oliveira on such points, but I stuck at that level and then they've been working with their deputies.
[00:13:41] Olivia Clark: Can I ask a question? Councilor Herbold, thank you so much for doing that. I think that will be very, very helpful for us. I don't suppose this includes the seismic information about the schools, does it?
[00:13:53] Dan Ryan: No, that's PPS's job to deliver the information about their buildings. We have, as you all know, we do the public right-of-way. So we surround all buildings in this city and provide services. And so that's what they needed to have that information.
[00:14:08] Olivia Clark: Thank you so much.
[00:14:09] Dan Ryan: A great question, but that would be internal to PPS.
[00:14:11] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Council President, can I say something quickly? Yeah, please, Councilor Koyama Lane. I didn't know we were going to be talking about school closures. It's obviously something that all of our offices are hearing a lot about and is something that affects all of our constituents and thank you. And the whole city. Things— decisions that happen to our schools directly affect the whole city, and vice versa. Decisions that we make as the city affect our schools. So we need to be making sure that we are having that data and that we have questions answered. And so thank you for bringing these forward, Councilor. I think it's really important that we are seeing what investments have we made as the city and in terms of you know, 2, 3-bedroom multifamily-sized housing in certain areas? Where have we invested in community centers? That data, we need— that needs to be part of the conversation. And we all are continuing to hear from many caregivers who are concerned that they have questions that are not being fully answered, that they're not getting the data. And so it is our job to be uplifting those questions and I know that there are many caregivers that are watching closely and are hoping that we're going to be able to do something. I think the thing is there's no one person that can save or solve all of this, but I think there are ways that we can be using our platform. And so I will say in the, in the coming days, I hope that you'll be able to hear from, from more councilors about ways that we can be engaging. What are things, what are ways where the city and the school district and the county all intersect, and how can we be working together on some of this? Councilor Loretta Smith, These asks are really reasonable from my fellow councilors and from other— from parents who are really desperate and are not getting the answers that they need. So I hope that we can have this conversation. I'm not sure if this is the right place. I'm looking to Council President, but I think we do need to find a way that we are able to have these conversations, maybe directly with school board members, with PPS leaders, and show and find ways that we thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
[00:16:20] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, I'm hoping to not have us completely get derailed. We all have some very strong feelings about PPS closure of schools. I'm going to ask Councilor Smith, then Councilor Kanal, and we're going to move into our actual agenda. Councilor Smith.
[00:16:31] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. I just want to say to Councilor Dan Ryan, that is so smart, totally appropriate. And as a mother of a student that was in Portland Public Schools who experienced the same thing in 2005, my son graduated in 2008, I would have loved to have this conversation with him. Thank you, Councilor Smith.
[00:17:00] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal, last word on this?
[00:17:02] Sameer Kanal: I just had a question, so actually it'll be your last word. There, there was a proposed, uh, piece of legislation on this, and I don't know what happened with it. Um, I just wanted to understand. I think there was a request for 912th Street.
[00:17:15] Jamie Dunphy: Nothing was added to the agenda. Whatever that— either a number of pieces of legislation that were proposed, but nothing received the requisite 9 signatures to move to our agenda today.
[00:17:27] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so nothing for today. There may be stuff in the future if those colleagues are still interested.
[00:17:32] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely.
[00:17:32] Sameer Kanal: Okay, thank you very much.
[00:17:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. Our first item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. May I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Approve today's agenda. Seeing a lot of happy nods, the, the agenda is approved. Keelan, could we please move to public communications?
[00:17:52] Keelan McClymont: First up today, we have Kari Koch.
[00:17:55] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome. Please come on up, introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes. Okay, thank you.
[00:18:06] Kari Koch: My name is Kari Koch. I use she or they pronouns. I'm the president of the City of Portland Professional Workers Union, as you all are probably well aware by now. I'm here today as a representative of 800 members who are at work right now to deliver a message and to ask for your support. On Thursday at contract negotiations, the city's bargaining team told us that they had nothing for us. They had no ideas, no proposals, no creative solutions. No authority to move. That was the last scheduled session and the last one that they intended to hold until something changes. Well, something has changed. Our union, 800 workers in every part of the city, has issued our notice of intent to strike. Our members voted 93% yes to authorize a strike. The city is forcing our hand. They've abandoned the table. They've abandoned the effort to find labor peace. Councilmember Loretta Smith. And they're gambling that a strike won't matter. I'm here not just to tell you that we intend to strike, but to offer a path forward. It does not have to come to the brink every time. We are sympathetic to the hard decisions that you'll have to make over the next year, but this contract is not one of them. Establishing a fair wage system is a part of running a city. Our contract proposal is a reasonable standard wage increase and basic protections, but to our members, it's about more than that. It's about respect. It's about a city that keeps balancing, attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the workers instead of taking a hard look at where the money is really going. Our members know about hard decisions. We do the work of multiple staff as the city shifts the ground beneath us. We get the work done under difficult conditions, and at home we figure out how to care for our families, sometimes multiple families, as prices skyrocket around us. Members come to me and say, I can't afford to strike, but I can't afford not to. You'll hear numbers from the city about what this contract costs. We dispute those numbers. Our figures, which are in our last best final offer and which I will send to each of you after this, is available on the website. Our figures show a $9 million increase over 2 fiscal years, over 2 fiscal years, which is on par with every other union contract at the city once you factor in wage growth. The city's numbers that they might be presenting to you ignore the layoffs that we saw over the summer. They count vacancies despite the hiring freeze, and they inflate— in fact, double the cost in order to muddy the waters. We are looking for creative solutions from the mayor. We want an economic package that truly values the work that we do. We want contract language that stops treating our union differently than other unions. And we are asking you to be the voice of reason. That a strike is a tool of last resort and will have a negative impact on the city, that this contract is reasonable, fair, and affordable, and that we can settle this now. Thank you.
[00:21:06] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:21:10] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Laura Labarre.
[00:21:15] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning. Please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:21:23] Laura Labarre: Thank you. Hi, I'm Laura Labarre, she/her pronouns. Thank you for having me here today. I'm here today to bring it back to school closures. Um, as a constituent and a Portland Public Schools parent of 2, as well as an advocate and a former education policy professional, I'm here with 3 asks. One, pass Councilor Green's Save Public Schools resolution next week and make sure it's on the agenda. 2, issue a joint statement calling on Governor Kotek to declare an education state of emergency by Election Day so we can tap rainy day funds for schools. And 3, starting now, make public schools part of the routine council agenda, starting with working with PPS to find solutions that aren't closures. In PPS right now, our communities are in pain. In the face of these closures, we are being forced to make choices between racial equity, educator jobs, arts programming, safe routes to school, seismic safety, and serving our kids with disabilities and special needs. These are all necessities. When we are forced to treat them like trade-offs, that is an emergency. And it's been an emergency for years. In 2024, my child went from being a preschooler who said they loved school and wanted to be a teacher someday to a totally overwhelmed kindergartner in a classroom with 35-year-olds because we lost a kindergarten teaching position to budget cuts. You could practically hear my ed policy heartbreaking when my kid told me maybe school isn't for me. That year, like so many other years, PPS had to pay a quarter of its budget toward public employment retiree obligations, not toward classrooms. It was also the year Oregon returned a $5 billion kicker, not because we actually had that money to spare, but simply because the state economists couldn't predict COVID in prior biennia. Councilor Mitch Green came to our school last Friday and listened to us describe these stories and how our children are living the harms of these broken systems every single day. His fast and decisive action to introduce the Save Public Schools resolution in direct response to what we shared with him has energized us and given us hope that constituent voice means something, and in fact, that it might mean everything. In 2003 and 2012, speaking of the lanes, I'm glad you mentioned that, Councilor Ryan, the City Council used its power and resources to invest and strengthen Portland Public Schools. Today, as we face closures and cuts, we as constituents are asking you to once again make our city's children not just your business but your priority. Please support Councilor Green's resolution. Call on Governor Kotek for the state of emergency and act on behalf of our kids. Thank you.
[00:24:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:24:35] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have Michael Rosen.
[00:24:40] Mitch Green: Good morning.
[00:24:42] Michael Rosen: Thank you. Morning. I'm Michael Rosen, the former school board director from Zone 7 from 2015 to 2019, a career public servant of 30 years for the state and the city, a father of 3 PPS graduates, and the guardian of my niece, a current PPS student. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Mayor and City Council, I'm here to ask you to adopt a formal resolution calling on PPS to delay its December 15th vote until the district has produced credible financial, educational, transportation, and neighborhood impact assessments. Why this is a City Council issue and why you should care. First, school closures are an urban planning issue, not simply an education issue. PPS is proposing changes that will affect neighborhood stability, housing decisions, transportation infrastructure, traffic, climate commitments, and the viability of walkable communities. These are all areas in which the city has substantial responsibilities and has made significant public investments. Portland cannot spend decades investing in walkable, climate-resilient neighborhoods only to stand by while another public institution dismantles the neighborhood infrastructure that makes those investments work. Second, PPS has not adequately assessed these consequences. Where are the transportation and emissions projections? Where is the analysis of impacts on neighborhood development, neighborhood businesses, housing demand, and families' abilities— families' ability to walk or bike to school? Has the district meaningfully coordinated with PBOT, city planners, or other municipal agencies to assess the consequences of its proposals? Yes. How many teachers will be laid off? What will happen to closed school properties? And what will be the cost to retrofit new school configurations? These are not peripheral questions. They are foreseeable consequences of the restructuring, and the city will be left dealing with them. Third, the underlying justification for the restructuring remains unproven. PPS is treating enrollment and building utilization as proxies for educational resources, assuming that concentrating students in fewer buildings will somehow produce stronger educational programs. But the district has not demonstrated that these changes will improve education, establish credible net savings after implementation costs, or provided school-specific staffing and resource commitments. We are being asked to accept enormous disruption on the basis of an administrative model whose promised benefits have not been demonstrated. So please adopt a formal resolution calling on PPS to delay its December 15th vote until the district has produced credible financial, educational, transportation, and neighborhood impact assessments. PPS is making decisions that will fundamentally reshape Portland without demonstrating that it has adequately considered the consequences or established that the changes will actually benefit students. That should concern every elected official in the city. Finally, I'd like to thank Megan Zirn, who co-authored this thank you all.
[00:27:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:27:49] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Anita Davidson joining us online.
[00:27:59] Anita Davidson: Thank you. My name is Anita Davidson. I'm a condominium owner downtown in District 4. Yesterday I testified before City Life on how little has changed with Clean and Safe despite the city's spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2020 to improve the enhanced service districts. Today I have a different focus, to ask City Council to propose different oversight of Clean and Safe Services because they exist beyond the ESD contract. The oversight currently provided by the city's ESD coordinator is inadequate. Today I want to discuss the millions of additional public dollars that are provided to Clean and Safe annually through multiple city departments and other governments. Clean& Safe itself reported $1.2 million in revenue beyond the ESD revenue in each of the past 2 years. Further, the public dollars Clean& Safe receives are used to procure the same types of services within the same downtown boundaries that Clean& Safe operates for ESD ratepayers. A higher level of oversight is needed to confirm for each contracting party that they are receiving all the contracted services. The consultant hired following the ESD audit in 2020 made clear in their 2024 report services of the ESD nonprofit should be clearly separate from ESD— from the ESD services from the other services. This brings to light 2 matters. First, that due to the city's economic downturn, unfortunately, and the need for revival, Every allegedly enhanced service has rightfully become a basic service. That any ESD can justify providing these services as enhanced is severely waning. This is because the city sees the need for, rightfully, and is already paying for sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, hotel security, power washing, increased mental and behavioral support, trash pickups, and programs for downtown activities. Thank you. These are done through contracts the city has directly with vendors and through additional non-ESD contracts between the city and Clean& Safe. Second, that due to overlap of downtown territory and overlap in types of service provided, the current assignment for oversight of Clean& Safe to the ESD coordinator is unreasonable. Right now, the ESD coordinator is an ESD advocate. It is unreasonable for one line staff member to oversee services provided paid for at higher levels in multiple other city departments. Let me give you 3 examples. Look closely at the cleaning and security services PBOT pays for through TriMet to Portland Mall Management Inc. for security and cleaning along the Transit Mall, which lies entirely within the ESD expanded boundaries. The ESD coordinator has so far been unable to clarify for me and other ratepayers what services the ESD ratepayers receive beyond what PMMI is paying for. Also look at the wholesale security special project held in 2025, that including funding by the city, county, and state. It appears possible that Clean and Safe was reimbursed with public funds for some of the ESD security shifts. As a final example today, and there are more, look at the lighting services the city contracts for with Clean and Safe. Each year the ESD pays for holiday lighting, but through an additional project illumination, the city also pays for potentially the same lighting, maybe more, all the other months of the year. How can downtown lighting not then become a basic service instead of an enhanced one? My testimony today is that the lack of transparency and accountability where Clean and Safe is involved is now potentially worse than before the auditor and consultant made recommendations for improvement. Money is being sent from multiple departments, and nobody knows what services belong to the ESD or belong to the contracts and grants that are funding Clean and Safe in other ways. I will email these comments to your offices, and thank you for this opportunity to provide my perspective.
[00:32:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:32:16] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have Juliana James.
[00:32:22] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning, welcome.
[00:32:27] Juliana James: Good morning, Mayor Wilson and councilors. My name is Juliana James and I'm a retired public school teacher who taught in Minneapolis for 30 years and moved here to be a grandparent. The education resolution proposed by Councilor Green must be enacted and voted for to pause the school closures of Portland Public Schools. The mayor and city council have the power to influence the decision to pause public school closures. Stable community infrastructure relies on stable neighborhood schools. Families move into neighborhoods considering the impact of their children's education in kindergarten through 12th grade. That is 13 years of a child's life. We cannot sit by idly and do nothing when students' and families' lives are ripped apart by sudden, rapid school closures without real adequate data. These closures force families to flee to the suburbs while our precious city loses our tax base. Thank you. My husband and I proudly pay $2,680 a year for PPS funding and are proud to have voted yes for 2 more needs of our schools, only to have these funds turned into empty buildings that feel like a death in the family, a death in the neighborhood. We live directly across from Sellwood Middle School, a successful, strong community of teachers, parents, families who have invested their lives and funds to support the excellent education in our neighborhood. And we're not alone. All neighborhoods are fighting to retain the integrity of their child's stable, excellent public education. Our family, children, and teachers deserve the support and influence of our mayor and city councilors to stop this nonsense and seek the state and county funding for rent control, affordable housing, and public safety that every Portland, Oregon family deserves. If the Minneapolis Public Schools can vote to stop school closures, we can too. We're counting on you in this time of desperation, despair, and the possible destabilizing effect of our real estate values and our city prize— city pride. Please vote for this emergency resolution by Councilor Green. Thank you. And make the city of Portland the city we can be truly proud of. We can create a bold initiative to fund educational stability, community stability, neighborhood stability for every child in our great city. We are a city of roses, possibility, a city of creativity, a city of love and dedication. We can compromise, collaborate, cooperate to succeed in a superior education for all the great City of Portland children that we all deserve, the City of Portland that works. Thank you.
[00:35:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:35:30] Keelan McClymont: That completes communications.
[00:35:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Colleagues, next item on our agenda is our— my regular presidential update. I just have a very quick announcement regarding next week for both the public and for my— a reminder for my fellow colleagues. Next week's council meeting will be virtual only because there will be building maintenance happening here on the HVAC system. So committee meetings on Tuesday are canceled due to the election, and our Wednesday and Thursday meetings will be only happening on virtual format. So on Tuesday, please, please everybody go vote. I'm now going to look over to our city administrator for any update regarding our federal response or response to the federal interventions in our city. Thank you, Mayor.
[00:36:19] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, Council President. As it relates to our federal immigration enforcement updates, we have heard reports about increased ICE activity around Delta Park. We confirmed that with 2 detentions occurred by nearby businesses this past week, not at the park itself. Uh, PERC has received no reports of additional detentions in the Delta Park area since then, and we'll continue to monitor, uh, this situation. Tomorrow, the Immigrant Affairs Lead will present to the Committee of the Whole on the city's work to implement its sanctuary protections. This will be the first presentation to the committee on this work. And keep in mind, with this presentation, we'll be seeking council's input of how we can better inform council as it relates to the data associated with this report and ensuring that it is meeting the intent of the requirements that council is looking for from staff to present out. We know this is going to be a work in progress as we continue to work through these things, but we want to make sure we're meeting everyone's intent and the information that we're sharing and answer questions. At this point in time, I'll pass it on to our City Attorney Robert Taylor, who will give an update on our legal affairs related to this topic.
[00:37:45] Robert Taylor: Hi, uh, thank you. Robert Taylor, City Attorney, for the record. Um, I'm here to give an update on the litigation related to the ICE facility. Um, for the, the benefit of the public who's been following this, the, the big event is November 20th. That's when we will be in circuit court. Working on the appeal that has been filed by the building owner. I do not have any other material updates beyond what I gave last week. For the benefit of the public who may be watching, I'd like to just update folks in case new people are watching this today. So as a reminder, the city issued a notice of violation to the building owner in September of 2025. Thank you. That notice of violation found the building owner in violation of the conditional use approval. That notice of violation was appealed to the hearings officer, who held a hearing in May of 2026. The hearings officer found in favor of the city and upheld the notice of violation. That decision was issued in July of 2026. That hearings officer decision has been appealed to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court issued a stay pending that appeal. Because of that stay, the city cannot enforce or take any other action until that appeal is resolved. You will recall that at one point that stay was so broad that the hearings officer was even prohibited from issuing its decision, but we successfully fought that and was able to get the hearings officer's decision issued. And we're very proud of that effort and proud that the hearings officer issued its decision in favor of the city. Again, the circuit court hearing is scheduled for November 20th, and we will keep the, the council and the public updated once that hearing has concluded.
[00:39:57] Kari Koch: Thank you.
[00:39:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. I see 2 colleagues in the queue to ask— I assume ask questions for the city administrator. Councilor Koyama Lane? Nope. Okay. Councilor Kanal?
[00:40:13] Candace Avalos: Sorry.
[00:40:13] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Yeah, I guess the question I had was about the— what should we— we got an email about— you mentioned the Delta Park. Example, obviously it's in District 2. Um, we got an email about it this time. I'm just trying to understand what the sort of default mechanism for, for notification for councilors if the administration comes across information about a particular immigration-related, um, event is or, or pattern.
[00:40:41] Raymond C. Lee: Yeah, if we have something like that, you should see an email from my office as it relates to what that is and the information related to it. We're still working out the mechanisms from the standpoint of Is raising to the level to make sure council is involved. I think for this subject matter, we want to make sure all council members are engaged in what's happening as it relates to the detentions across the city. So as we get this information, please expect an email from my office or someone in my office, either our Immigrant Affairs lead or myself, informing council, giving updates on that matter.
[00:41:16] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Yeah, I think what happened this past week was, was good, and that I was— I'm, I'm glad if that's what we're trying to replicate, then that's great.
[00:41:25] Raymond C. Lee: Exactly.
[00:41:25] Sameer Kanal: Okay, excellent. Uh, and, um, just for the record, the, um, the conversation at the Committee of the Whole tomorrow, um, it's the first thing on the agenda after the chair's update, so we should be getting to it pretty soon after we convene. The report from the Immigrant Affairs lead. Thanks.
[00:41:41] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Thank you, City Administrator. Thank you, City Attorney. Keelan, can we please call the consent agenda?
[00:41:49] Keelan McClymont: Uh, no items have been pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the roll to approve. Clark?
[00:41:56] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:41:57] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:41:58] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:41:59] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[00:42:01] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:42:02] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[00:42:03] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:42:04] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[00:42:05] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:42:07] Keelan McClymont: Knoll?
[00:42:07] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:42:08] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[00:42:12] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Absent.
[00:42:13] Keelan McClymont: Ryan?
[00:42:13] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:42:14] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[00:42:15] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:42:16] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[00:42:18] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:42:19] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[00:42:20] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:42:21] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[00:42:21] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:42:22] Keelan McClymont: The consent agenda is approved with 11 aye votes and 1 absent.
[00:42:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please move to item number 10, document 2026-123?
[00:42:33] Keelan McClymont: Amend code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain city buildings. To disallow affirmative defense for persons with concealed handgun licenses, amend code sections 3.18.020, 14A.60.010, and 20.12.050.
[00:42:54] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. We heard the main discussion of this ordinance, so I will be brief. Uh, this ordinance makes it illegal to carry a handgun into City Hall, the Portland Building, or the 1900 Building, even if you have a concealed handgun license, or CHL. I feel that it's unconscionable, given the daily news of new acts of gun violence, to not enact SB 243 to protect the public spaces where our community partners— our communities gather. And so I'm asking for your support in this. If passed, this ordinance will make it so that the only folks allowed to bring a gun into the buildings where we hold public meetings will be police, security, and other public safety officers. To recap, State Senate Bill 243 gives local governments a way to prohibit concealed handguns in buildings where we hold official meetings. It is the only tool that we have to align Portland with the county and our school district partners that have already adopted similar prohibitions. And I also want to restate that this ordinance was drafted by our Public Safety Service Area staff as a priority, and I'm glad to have carried it through the 6 months of discussion in the CAPS committee. I thank my staff who labored over each amendment to make sure concerns were addressed in the version before you. And finally, I want to remind us how it felt to sit here in contentious meetings and watch tensions rise. Adding guns to a tense situation is a terrifying one— turns it into a terrifying one. Heated debate is part of defending democracy, but gun violence is not. No one should fear for their safety or their families for participating in local government. And that's why the right number of guns in this room outside of the hands of trained security is with that, the floor is open for final discussion and remarks before we move to vote. Colleagues, any— feel free to jump into the queue if there's any further comments. Councilor Knoll.
[00:44:38] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Just wanted to ask a quick question. Last week there was a question raised and we were told we'd get more information on it, so I just wanted to follow up. It was about when there's a meeting of a governing body at another building and how that decision would get made, and I just wanted to know if anybody had any more information on that. Just for the public record here.
[00:44:58] Raymond C. Lee: That'll be a conversation I'll sit down with the council president to see how we work out the logistics of that. It's something we would still want to make sure that we could set up because we would have a full body of the council in that setting, and we want to make sure we're still following that same protocols. But we'll work through, uh, council leadership to assure we can establish that.
[00:45:17] Sameer Kanal: Uh, thanks for that. That's helpful. I apologize if I was unclear. I, I wasn't only referring to council meetings. We have other governing bodies at the city that may meet in other parts of the, uh, city, including, uh, the 1900 Building, Portland Building. Those are all the, uh, all the time we'll be, uh, having this, these, uh, rules in place, um, or part of them. Council President explained that last week. But if there's another meeting of a governing body in another building, um, you know, we, we talked about advisory bodies, we talked about the CBPA, which is governing body, those types of yeah, I don't know if we quite have an answer to that yet, Councilor.
[00:45:54] Raymond C. Lee: I think that's something that we continue to have to take a look at and see what the resources are available to expand, uh, to that level. But I think it's something that we, uh, most definitely take under consideration. And if we do have any questions as it relates to monetary expansions to accommodate that, we can bring that back to the council for consideration. But I can most definitely— we can continue to have that conversation.
[00:46:17] Anita Davidson: Thank you.
[00:46:18] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, my interest is in understanding when does that apply or not apply in those sort of possible cases.
[00:46:25] Jamie Dunphy: I see Robert Taylor coming up as well.
[00:46:30] Robert Taylor: Hi, Robert Taylor, City Attorney, for the record. Those are all good questions and fair questions. And under the ordinance in the directives, It, it notes that the city administrator will adopt by administrative rule a policy identifying definition of governing body, official meetings, the buildings owned and controlled. So I think to your specific question about what about other governing bodies other than council and they meet elsewhere, when will these prohibitions apply and how will they apply, I think those details will get worked out by the city administrator in administrative rule. Okay. And I'm confident the administrator would welcome feedback and thoughts from councilors or from those other governing bodies as they work through that rulemaking process.
[00:47:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Great.
[00:47:24] Sameer Kanal: Then I will change this from hoping to have feedback before the vote to I will follow up with you afterwards. Thank you, City Attorney Lee. Thank you, Robert.
[00:47:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Vice President Clark.
[00:47:35] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Council President. I think I might have been absent for some of the discussion, the background discussion on this, unfortunately. And I really appreciate your very compelling arguments, um, in support of this, um, ordinance. Um, but I have to tell you, I'm having a little bit of mixed feelings, especially after what happened in Bend, uh, with the, uh, parent who, uh, did have a concealed weapon and was able to, uh, intervene in that horrible situations. So, um, I'm kind of wrestling with that to some degree. Um, I personally, I don't want people to have weapons in this building. It's, uh, frightening to me given the level, as you mentioned, the level of heated debate that we sometimes find ourselves in. But, um, I'm also curious, and I don't want to reopen this whole discussion, but I am curious to know why the caps CABS committee, I think it was in CABS committee, did not support this. Is there—. Can I ask that somebody just—.
[00:48:43] Dan Ryan: Sure.
[00:48:44] Olivia Clark: Share that with me, as I'm a non-member of that committee, and I'm just curious. But also, if anybody wants to address the bend situation, and then what if people do have concealed permits and they do want to come in here, where are they going to— they're going to leave their gun in their car? Yeah. What, what's going to happen? So I know that's a lot, but I appreciate your attention.
[00:49:06] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, I'm happy to, uh, let folks in the queue, and I'll also probably look to Councilor Zimmerman, who had introduced the motion to table at CAPS committee. I also look to Councilor Novick. But I'll say that specific to the situation that happened in Bend, we have security in this building. Uh, elementary schools don't. They didn't have an armed officer. That was a scenario in which We have good guys with guns in this building, and they are paid well. They are contracted with us. They are trained, and they're held to certain professional standards. And you're absolutely right, this is ultimately a judgment call. I think this— that is a key difference for me, though. Councilor Zimmerman, are you— to respond to Councilor Clark?
[00:49:47] Eric Zimmerman: So the committee postponed it, I think generally from a feeling of— and the reason I put the motion forward was to continue to work on it. Right. The fact that Councilor Kanal just had to ask, when does this apply? There's a significant amount of holes in this ordinance. So passing ordinances that when a person walks into or doesn't walk into a building that makes somebody now a criminal should be very clear when it applies. And I appreciated Councilor Kanal's question. That was part of why we wanted to work on it. For whatever reason, the council president has continued to bring this forward without actually working on any amendments, without working on any of the concerns. Council President, I asked for public records for the work that had occurred on this. Those public records never got to me before the committee, and that also was part of the reason why we wanted— excuse me— why we wanted to work on this. To clarify, there were questions about, yes, certainly security, and I think Council President makes very valid points about the differences between those 2 situations. But many of us, all of us, I've seen you here after 5 PM. And on a day that council doesn't meet, security is gone. So those types of things do matter. And in these kind of conversations where we have, have this, this type of debate and we have these types of, of things, and you're talking about a group of people who have gone to go get fingerprinted, been certified by their sheriff, have followed the law, we're making them now a criminal class. I think that's important to get right. This was never about killing this. This was about getting it right. Thank you. But we're going to hear a little bit later about why we should amend our council codes and our procedures and yada yada. But what we saw was a committee took an action to table something so we could work on it, and instead the sponsor went ahead and got 4 of you guys to send it straight to council without going back through it. I don't think that was exactly the intent of tabling it. So my encouragement would be, this has a lot of holes in it. Those of you that have reservations should probably pass it because the other side here will make it a big talking point and make it a big thing if you don't, and yada, yada, yada. And this is a pet project of our council president and of the PSA here. But there was real reason to work on something. And it's—. This is an example of where I think the committee system has not lived up to its spirit because to question something because you want to work on it is in the spirit of committee. That didn't happen here. That was invited multiple times by the chair of the committee to do, and I appreciated that very much, Councilor Novick. But time and time again, that spirit didn't live up to it. So I still think we should pass it today. We should do that. We should lean heavily on the city administrator who now has to go fill in all the holes. Thank you. For an ordinance, but I think we should be cautious about passing a law that applies to different geographic locations at different times based on the thing that's happening there and whether or not that's known to the general public when they walk into that building. I think that can be a little confusing, and we're talking about laws and how they're applied. Just frankly, I know that I'll get the benefit of the doubt more than other people will get the benefit of the doubt when I mistakenly break a law, and I think that we have to think about that and how those are applied more generally. Councilor So those are my thoughts. I'm going to vote for this. I think that there are deep political risks and safety risks and other things like that that outweigh it. And this was always just a game for some folks, I think, and a special project that I don't think will actually make much of a situation here different until we have a deep fixing of it by the city administrator.
[00:53:27] Jamie Dunphy: Hey, just to direct my colleagues to the actual exhibit. This has been amended twice. On June 16th, the committee adopted an amendment to this, and again on August 3rd. And a motion to table is not a motion to continue working. It is a motion to stop work on an item. So that is factually different.
[00:53:46] Eric Zimmerman: We had commented—.
[00:53:47] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Morillo.
[00:53:50] Angelita Morillo: Thank you, Council President. I guess I'll just start by saying that I don't appreciate the impugning of motives that happened here, and just because someone speaks with a calmer tone as they do it doesn't mean that that's not happening. That's right. Council President, I appreciate you being responsive to the community's needs when that came up. I had some questions during committee as well, but I think that this meets the moment for a few different reasons. And it's so funny whenever we try to bring policies forward because we are faced with one of two critiques. Either it is so specific that it's too difficult for the executive to implement, or it's too vague so it's too difficult for the executive to implement. But what the executive sometimes tells us is that they want it to be a bit more open-ended so that they have the wiggle room to implement it in a way that is actually feasible. And I think that that's that's what this policy is trying to do. It was purposefully open-ended so that, you know, the administrator could work with our security teams and everybody else to figure out the logistics. And—.
[00:54:58] Loretta Smith: Point of order. Mr. President, Councilor Morillo is impugning the executive while also impugning the person who had talked before her. So if you want others to stop, don't impugn the executive.
[00:55:13] Angelita Morillo: I'm not impugning anyone.
[00:55:17] Loretta Smith: I'm talking to Mr. President.
[00:55:18] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, I disagree with your interpretation. So thank you. Councilor Maria, the floor is yours.
[00:55:24] Angelita Morillo: Thank you, Council President. Yeah, I was not impugning the executive. I was saying that sometimes there are just different ideas around what would be helpful as we're trying to work with the executive on how to implement a policy. So I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Smith. This policy also, I think, you know, I thought about it a lot within the context of the work that we do in this building, and it is really difficult and it is really different. We are at a heightened political time. You know, everyone feels like they live through unprecedented times, but it sure does feel this way right now, and we have very difficult discussions in this building. And I would say that most of us up here, with the exception of a few of us, frankly, do not have the training required to be responsible with a gun. And so, uh, and, and I doubt that many of the people who bring weapons into the building because they have a piece of paper that allows you to do it have that type of training. That's the reality of it. Um, it's also frankly not very hard to get your concealed license. It's not. It's a pretty simple process. So the idea of being in chambers with, or, you know, a public meeting like this with more guns accessible to people, I think puts us at increased risk, just the amount of guns. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think that it meets the moment. I think that it gives the executive the room to actually implement this well and I also want to say, you know, in committee, yes, we have time to workshop things. We also have seen other policies move through without any workshopping at all whenever it's politically convenient. I would say surveillance pricing, I had some big amendments to be— to close some loopholes on that policy, and that was moved through committee because of the makeup of the committee, right? So we can't ignore that there are political dynamics also with the number of people on committees, how many votes someone has, that have nothing to do with the merit of a policy and sometimes have to do with the political motivation of perhaps not wanting to vote on a difficult gun policy, uh, when it— when, when you don't agree with it. But this is what our constituents have asked us for. Um, so again, thank you for bringing this forward. I will be supportive of it, and, uh, Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
[00:57:56] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Vice President Clark.
[00:57:58] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. I almost regret asking the question, but I think it's been a helpful conversation, and I find some relief in knowing that CA Lee will work on this and that we'll all have input into it. So I'll be voting for it. Thank you.
[00:58:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Knoll.
[00:58:18] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Just to answer Vice President Clark's question a little, a little more just to add color to that, there was a motion to table it at the Community and Public Safety Committee. It passed 3-2. I think that there may be differences of opinion on why, what the purpose of that was, but I can tell you for me specifically, I voted to table it. And the reason was because we were waiting on briefings and we were told that we were— we just hadn't had briefings. I think Councilor Novick and I specifically had not yet received the sort of PSSA side of what was going on. Um, that is not their fault. I want to be clear, it was a scheduling issue, uh, not PSSA's fault and not any of my colleagues' fault. It just hadn't happened. And so, um, as soon as that tabling happened, um, I did get the briefing eventually, got my questions answered on the policy. And then in parallel to that, I guess it was being, um, discharged to the full council. So that's how we're here.
[00:59:14] Steve Novick: Thanks.
[00:59:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Murillo.
[00:59:17] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank you. I, I appreciate you bringing that up too. I just wanted to add that there are always weird quorum issues that we have to deal with, but Councilors Zimmerman and I were able to talk with the city attorneys and with the safety team to get a more in-depth briefing on this as well. So during that briefing, I felt like I had more of my questions answered and I felt comfortable moving forward. So I just wanted to thank you, Councilor Murillo.
[00:59:45] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Novick.
[00:59:46] Steve Novick: This is kind of an aside, but I want to say, having lived through lots of different times, I have to agree with Councilor Murillo that this time feels more unprecedented than most.
[00:59:56] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Smith.
[01:00:00] Loretta Smith: Um, I'd just like to say ditto, ditto, ditto on that. Um, I saw something in one of the committees yesterday, and I think, uh, Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney was, um, chairing a committee and watching it on, um, on Instagram. I was afraid. I mean, I was literally afraid. And I don't know who got up. Was that you, Councilor Zimmerman?
[01:00:27] Eric Zimmerman: Yes.
[01:00:27] Loretta Smith: Thank you for having presence of mind because I wasn't sure what he was actually going to do yesterday. Um, Councilor Council President, there was something that happened. Were you in, in the—.
[01:00:38] Jamie Dunphy: I watched.
[01:00:39] Loretta Smith: And this guy just kind of went off, and he had a very beautifully produced, uh, Instagram post, and he was doing all kind of crazy stuff, and, uh, security escorted him out of here. It was— I, I, it was unconscionable what he was saying, and I had no idea what he was going to do next. And I was afraid for the people in this council. I didn't know if he was going to bring out a gun or something. I didn't know what the guy was going to do. And then he didn't want to leave and he was doing all kinds of crazy things. Y'all got to watch this Instagram. And so for me, I'm really tired of this council being used as a prop. Because we're videotaping. And they brought their own kind of camera crew. And if you all look at this, this is like something— it was produced like a movie and talked over. I don't know. It's crazy. So for me, we have to take people seriously when they do stuff. We are at a time that it is— I mean, it is unprecedented times. And you don't know what folks are going to do. I had no idea. Dia, on February 18th, when that lady came up here and crossed around, she didn't stop anywhere else. She went around and came to me and attempted to cross the, the dais. And had the security not pushed her back, she was leaping towards me. Now that's scary. And what I saw yesterday was equally scary. So we need to put some policies in place to make sure that we're safe in here. And we need to make sure that counselors know that they cannot be letting folks in that back door because we have no security. We can't control who they let in. And we got to be very careful. And folks were let in by counselors. And I was not happy about that. But we need to really understand that just because we have some decorum about how we're going to do. We cannot dictate what our friends are going to do when they come through. And if we give them a leg up, it's going to be on that councilor who brings those folks in here.
[01:03:02] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:03:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Avalos.
[01:03:08] Candace Avalos: Processing that last bit because I'm like, what is— I don't understand what the conclusion of that comment is. But I think ultimately My view is that this ordinance, you know, hearing the discussion and how it moved through the tabling, the workshopping committee, clearly issues that we need to continue to work through. And I agree with Councilor Murillo that those standards are not applied evenly, and the people who often complain the most are the ones who don't apply them evenly. Let's call it out. So I think that this is important. I think any kind of fear that we might feel by people exercising their First Amendment rights is only going to feel more scary if we don't know if people are allowed to bring in concealed weapons. So this is obvious to me that we should remove this. I'm glad that the service area proposed it, that the council president led on it. I don't know all the intricacies of the back and forth with the tabling and all that, but the legislation seems pretty straightforward and I plan on supporting it.
[01:04:06] Anita Davidson: Thanks.
[01:04:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on this item?
[01:04:16] Keelan McClymont: This is for document 2026-123. Clerk?
[01:04:24] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:04:24] Keelan McClymont: Sorry, thank you. Green?
[01:04:27] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:04:28] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:04:29] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:04:29] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:04:30] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:04:31] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:04:33] Loretta Smith: Thank you, CA Lee, for trying to protect us. Aye.
[01:04:38] Raymond C. Lee: Aye.
[01:04:39] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:04:42] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:04:43] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:04:44] Laura Labarre: Aye.
[01:04:45] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:04:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues.
[01:04:47] Raymond C. Lee: Aye.
[01:04:48] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
[01:04:51] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please call our next item, item 11, document 2026-286?
[01:04:58] Keelan McClymont: Protect Portland firefighters from job-related risks.
[01:05:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. This is the first reading of a resolution. We have, uh, Kevin Alvarez from Council Operations here with a committee staff summary report. Good morning, Kevin.
[01:05:13] Kevin Alvarez: Good morning, Council President and councilors. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kevin Alvarez and I serve as a council policy analyst for the City Life Committee. The resolution before you, document number 2026, Thank you. Resolution 2026-286 was heard in the City Life Committee on September 22nd, 2026, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation it be adopted. The resolution declares that city council support for Portland Fire and Rescue firefighters and its commitment to their health and safety. It supports continued research into the effects of PFAS— sorry, I could not pronounce that, what the acronym stands for— and stresses the urgency of identifying industry solutions thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
[01:05:53] Kari Koch: Councilmember Herbold.
[01:05:53] Lauren Johnson: Thank you, Mayor.
[01:05:53] Kevin Alvarez: I'd like to move that the City of Portland adopt a resolution to adopt a new fire department policy to encourage the use of PFS-free firefighting personnel protective equipment. The resolution requests that the city administrator, as soon as suitable PFS-free firefighting personnel protective equipment is available, stop further purchases of equipment containing PFS and replace it with PFS-free equipment. It also requests that the city administrator provide an annual update to council on the progress of the transition, including its timing. Any challenges encountered and projected costs. Lastly, the resolution establishes the, the PFAS replacement subfund within the Portland Fire and Rescue Fire Capital Fund and states that council will consider appropriating general fund underspending to the subfund to save for the transition to PFAS-free firefighting personal protective equipment. The full impact statement on this item includes financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. Thank you, Mayor. No verbal or written testimony was provided prior to committee action. That concludes the committee staff summary.
[01:06:55] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, this came out of your committee. Any opening remarks?
[01:07:02] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: This did come out of my committee, and I really appreciate the fact that Councilor Zimmerman worked closely with the Bureau to bring this item forward. It was brought forward, we were told, in a way that essentially sets up the Bureau to be able to make these necessary changes when the time comes. We had a, a pretty quick hearing on it only because there was, I think, across-the-board agreement that this was a direction we need to move in. And I am happy to turn it over to Councilor Zimmerman to share more about the specifics since it was his ordinance.
[01:07:35] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman, please take it away.
[01:07:36] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you, Chair and Council President. So I recognize that it can be a little bit of like, what exactly is this doing? So I'll just kind of normal guy it for a few minutes here. So, uh, you are probably aware that firefighters and the industry of firefighters have higher likelihoods of cancer than many of us. A lot of that, and in places where we can mitigate that, we, we look at. One of those reasons is that PFAS, which is a way of saying the permanent kind of chemicals that never leave, are part of our protective suits that our employees wear. Okay. And that's part of how they can walk into a hot environment and be safe. But things degrade over time. These suits have these PFAS present. There is technology on the horizon, and there are departments across the country who are getting ready to invest in the suits that don't have PFAS. And I think that that's a good thing. We're not quite to that point of being able to do that. Okay. And the cost to do that investment is significant. So what this is establishing and asking you all to consider is that on the years when Portland Fire Bureau has underspend, that a portion of that underspend go to— we would be creating in this resolution a subfund and basically a savings account for the day when the chief believes that that tech, that new suit technology does exist so that she can make a broad purchase to make sure that every firefighter gets one in the same year whenever we're ready to make that jump as an agency. I think that's a good thing, and I, and I think that's a good thing for a couple of reasons. If I have my facts right, I think each firefighter has a couple of suits and they rotate them and they clean them, and it's basically like a 5-year rotational suit type of service. And so if, let's say, in the year 2028, fire suits are— now it's time, the chief wants to make that purchase— only a few firefighters in every one year are going to get them because the regular capital maintenance budget for firefighter replacement suits only takes care of a few. But we're saying is, as soon as we have a safer alternative for PFAS chemicals, we'd like to make A one-fell swoop, at least to get everybody one. That's going to take a bit of a bank account. And so without directing the amount and allowing it to occur then in the budget process, which is the right place for it to go, this signals 2 things: creation of a subfund so we can get ahead of that, which is what we do with a lot of apparatus purchases and larger capital purchases, and in some ways it kind of incentivizes that end-of-year spend that we all know is present in bureaus, that there's also an aspect where it stays within that bureau, at least a portion of it, as determined by the council and the city administrator, that I think would be a helpful move in that direction. Our—. So the International Association of Firefighters is calling for work in this area. Our own union is calling for work in this area. And this was a mechanism that I thought was—. Thank you. In response to those calls. And I really appreciated the chief and the professional staff in the bureau helping us come up with a way that wasn't just funding something upright upfront that is not ready to be purchased today, but let's do smaller dollars over the next couple of years so that we can lessen the deep cut whenever it's time to go. I will note that both our union president and the fire chief are in the room if you have specific questions, and I'm sure that on the rotation of suits and all that, she's much better to answer than I. But that was the gist of what today is, and I hope I gave it the normal guy answer versus the very analytical answer. Thanks.
[01:11:21] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor. Uh, Keelan, has anyone signed up for testimony on this item?
[01:11:26] Keelan McClymont: We have 2 people signed up.
[01:11:27] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, I'm going to ask— we, uh, we have technical or clarifying questions for anyone in the queue so we can ask, uh, Chief or, uh, our friends from the union. Um, So is everybody in the queue for technical clarifying questions? Councilor Novick? No. Okay. Councilor Avalos? Okay. Councilor Green?
[01:11:49] Mitch Green: I think so. I'll ask the question and you can tell me if it's something we should wait for. My question is just on the last, be it further resolved. We're establishing a subfund in a resolution. Typically we do that in an ordinance. And so I just wanted to know if there was any conversation around that. I support this resolution, but I'm curious about that technical aspect.
[01:12:15] Eric Zimmerman: I think with that, I might have to call a friend in our CFO to understand best mechanisms here, but I think it's signaling intent might be the best. But okay, Mr. Biery.
[01:12:26] Jonas Biery: Yeah, thank you, Councilor. For the record, Jonas Biery, City Chief Financial Officer. Yeah, that's correct. So technically, Council appropriates creation of capital F funds, and then we often have subfunds underneath that. And so this is just a clear directive for us to create that specific subfund for the specific purpose.
[01:12:44] Mitch Green: Okay, thank you. So if we adopt this resolution, we're saying it is okay by resolution for City Council to establish a subfund and then signal intent to fund that later down the road?
[01:12:54] Jonas Biery: That's correct. So effectively what would happen is, I think Councilor Zimmerman described, in a circumstance where that underspending develops, that this is sort of the first checkpoint to say we now know there's a directive from council to treat that underspending in this specific way. Ultimately, that would come forward as a proposal in the budget that's subject to council's adoption of that appropriation.
[01:13:16] Mitch Green: Okay, that clarifies. Thanks.
[01:13:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Smith.
[01:13:20] Loretta Smith: Yes, Council President. How many firefighters would we have to outfit and what is the cost?
[01:13:25] Jamie Dunphy: I'm going to ask our chief to come on up.
[01:13:33] Lauren Johnson: Hey, good morning. Lauren Johnson, fire chief, for the record. Thanks for that question, Councilor. Um, if we only bought one set for everybody, currently we spend $4,500 per person, and so in today's dollars, that's $3.15 million that we would need to spend if we found suitable replacements and needed to do an entire replacement for all of our firefighters.
[01:14:00] Loretta Smith: How many firefighters do we have?
[01:14:02] Lauren Johnson: About 700, authorized strength.
[01:14:06] Loretta Smith: And I like this idea. I think it's great. Um, but I'm, I'm thinking you all have mandatory overtime every year. I don't know where you would get the money to ever fund this. I think this is so important that this is an ask that you need to ask the mayor and the city administrator for, uh, so that when we have undersavings in other parts of our budget, that we can take from those undersavings, because you all never have any undersavings. So this is kind of, for me, um, we, we'll be waiting a long time before we get this technology. I think it's, it's critical and it's crucial and it's it's crucial enough for us to get it right now? If, if we had the $3.1 million today, could we go out and purchase it?
[01:14:50] Lauren Johnson: So I want to be clear right now, the technology that is talked about in this resolution doesn't meet standards that would protect Portland firefighters today. So we're not there yet. We currently spend about— we, we buy about 100 replacement sets per year at that $4,500 cost. And, and that's because we know that the gear that we're in now is supposed to last us about 7 to 8 years total. It's got a maximum of 10 that we have to retirement at, retire it at. And so we kind of work through this capital replacement plan, even though often you're 100% correct, we don't have any cushion there so that if we did need to make a change immediately that would impact our entire workforce, we wouldn't be able to do that with our current budget.
[01:15:36] Candace Avalos: Okay.
[01:15:37] Loretta Smith: I, I think this is worth an ask.
[01:15:39] Lauren Johnson: I appreciate that.
[01:15:40] Loretta Smith: In, uh, C for 8 years, this is an important ask.
[01:15:44] Olivia Clark: Yes, ma'am.
[01:15:45] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[01:15:46] Eric Zimmerman: Council President, can I clarify something? To, to that point, I think that that is the crux of— at some point, I think the chief is going to come to the mayor and to this council and say, I need $3.1 million in 2026 dollars, and that's going to be a hard lift. This signals intent that we start the piggy bank now with whatever pennies we can find so that the ask is less than $3.1 million whenever she's ready to make that transition because of any little savings on top. So if that ask is $2 million in a few years when the technology is ready, I think that that's what I'm hoping that I'm conveying to you all because we had a great discussion. And Chief, I really appreciate it. There are some departments who've maybe made the jump and they might be regretting that today. They're not ready. And I think having faith in the chief's decision for when it's time, because there are different companies out there trying different stuff and it's not holding up. And so I don't want to rush it. You know, a year ago our, our thought was it was ready, and we've learned it is not ready. So that's when we transition to establishing a subfund so that we don't get a $3.1 million ask. We get a little bit less because she says, I have a subfund with you know, 30% of what I'd need. I hope that helps because you, Councilor Smith, you hit on the head kind of the crux of what this was about.
[01:17:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilors. Councilor Kanal.
[01:17:09] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Uh, thanks for bringing this forward. Um, I guess the— I had 2 questions, the first of which was asked by Councilor Green already, so I appreciate that. Um, the second one was effectively this does not— this is designed to be an additional process to the roughly 1/7 or 1/8 of turnouts being replaced every year, right? This is not in any way superseding that. Correct.
[01:17:32] Lauren Johnson: Right. I don't want to speak for Councilor Zimmerman, but that's correct. The thought behind this is when the technology comes out and we do identify a suitable replacement that really reduces the PFAS exposure for our firefighters, that it's best for our members, it's best for the city to say we're going to make a wholesale change for all of our employees and provide this protective equipment at a higher standard to all of you rather than just 1/7 gets it this year, 1/7 gets the next year. So it really enables an entire workforce change into better protective gear when that's available.
[01:18:08] Steve Novick: Thanks.
[01:18:08] Sameer Kanal: And then relatedly, is the intent then that once that first purchase is made of, let's say it's 30%, as you said, Councilor Zimmerman, and then we're maybe Making up the other 70% with one-time dollars, that that replacement process would continue to get the second set of turnouts?
[01:18:27] Lauren Johnson: That's right, that's right.
[01:18:29] Sameer Kanal: Thanks for clarifying.
[01:18:30] Lauren Johnson: Appreciate that.
[01:18:31] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor, uh, Councilor Green.
[01:18:33] Mitch Green: It's for later.
[01:18:35] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, well, I put myself in the queue then because I have a technical question. Um, we've had a lot of conversations on this dais about underspend. Does this you know, effort towards moving to capture underspend in this very specific way, does that affect any other portions of either the Fire Bureau's future planning or of the broader public safety service area?
[01:18:58] Lauren Johnson: So I would say just from my standpoint, and Jonas can come up and speak for the broader end, what it does, and I think I mentioned this to committee, if we know that that technology is close and we're 2 to 3 years out, When we're thinking about, do we go ahead and continue to buy 100 sets per year for the next 3 years, or can we really limp along and put some of that into savings and be ready in 3 years to buy this new technology for all of our members? That's the only time that I can see it really impacting our spending and planning for that capital replacement. But certainly we're not in a position right now where we are identifying any underspend. It's really for a more optimistic time that we're all working for. Thank you. Yeah, thanks.
[01:19:43] Jonas Biery: And yeah, I would just add, regarding kind of the broader underspending, this sort of puts it a little bit in kind of first chair when that underspending develops. It's, uh, my read of the resolution is it says we'll consider, right? So when that underspending does develop, this is sort of the first consideration of should we put those funds aside into this subfund. And then again, just reiterating, ultimately, It's up to this council to decide where those— where that appropriation ultimately lands.
[01:20:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Keelan, can we please call our public testifiers?
[01:20:22] Keelan McClymont: First up, we have Isaac McLennan.
[01:20:28] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns. You got 3 minutes.
[01:20:37] Isaac McLennan: All right. Good morning, Council President Dunphy, members of council. My name is Isaac McLennan. I'm the president of the Portland Firefighters Association representing firefighters, EMTs, paramedics of Portland Fire and Rescue, CHAT, and PSR. I'm here today to speak in support of Resolution 2026-286 and the importance of protecting our firefighters from occupational cancer. First, I want to thank Councilor Zimmerman for bringing this resolution forward. Thank you. And for working collaboratively with Portland Firefighters Association and Portland Fire and Rescue on an issue that's incredibly important to our members and their families. I also want to recognize Fire Chief Lauren Johnson and Portland Fire and Rescue for their continued dedication in reducing occupational cancer risks. The work being done within our fire department to improve firefighter health and safety is important, and we appreciate that commitment. When someone becomes a firefighter. They understand they're entering a dangerous profession. They accept the risks that are coming when running into burning buildings, rescuing people, or responding to emergencies. But there's another danger that isn't always visible. It's the cumulative exposure of carcinogens and toxic chemicals throughout a firefighter's career. For years, firefighters have worn protective equipment designed to keep us safe from heat and flames. Yet we've learned that some of these, some of that same equipment contains PFAS, commonly known as forever chemicals. Think about that for a moment. The equipment that we depend on to protect our lives may also contribute to long-term health risks. And those risks don't end when our shift is over. They follow firefighters home to our families, And sometimes they don't reveal themselves for years or even decades later. We've made significant progress in the fire service when it comes to reducing occupational exposures, but there's still more work to do. What I appreciate about this resolution is that it recognizes that we need to prepare for the future. Transitioning an entire fire department to new protective equipment will require planning, resources, and financial commitment. Establishing a dedicated fund and requiring annual updates creates a framework that will work. It's also important that we— it's also important that any replacement equipment meets the safety and performance standards firefighters depend on. We cannot trade one occupational hazard for another. As the president of Portland Firefighters Association, one of my responsibilities is to advocate not only for the firefighters serving our community today, but also for the health and well-being of those who will serve in the decades ahead. Our firefighters dedicate their careers to protecting the people of Portland. Their health and safety deserve that same commitment. So thank you, Councilor Zimmerman, Chief Johnson, and the members of council here today for your commitment on this important work.
[01:23:41] Candace Avalos: Right on time.
[01:23:42] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[01:23:46] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have Alex Stein. Uh, next up we have Jared Essig.
[01:24:01] Jamie Dunphy: Morning.
[01:24:02] Jared Essig: Good morning, uh, President Dunphy, Council of the City of Portland, and citizens thereof. My name is Jared Essig. I'm representing the Rose City Iron Front, and I'd like to speak to you about the larger issue of reducing, um, political violence in Portland and around the country, which was addressed by the previous agenda item. This is also important for firefighter safety since they're sometimes called to put out fires like the one around the Thompson Elk statue back in 2020. I noticed that you put the statue back up. That was a big political kind of focus. Now, I think it was a mistake to put it back up before first taking down the Spanish-American War soldier with the brandished gun. If you care about reducing gun violence and you care about having safe public spaces, then maybe you shouldn't have a soldier in the middle of your plaza with a brandished gun. I mean, this seems pretty obvious to me. You know, if you want to reduce gun violence, stop valorizing brandished weapons.
[01:25:14] Jamie Dunphy: I'm sorry, the testimony needs to be like germane to the topic we're talking about, and this is with regard to—.
[01:25:20] Jared Essig: This is, um, the larger issue of firefighter safety and the safety of police in Portland and public servants in general is related to the issue of what we choose to give civic honor. Now, um, the Rose City Iron Front has also I'm putting on a new website called portlandmonuments.org, and I've spoken— Councilor Ryan is certain—.
[01:25:43] Jamie Dunphy: The testimony is out of order. I apologize.
[01:25:45] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, though.
[01:25:46] Anita Davidson: Okay.
[01:25:46] Kevin Alvarez: Well, thank you for listening anyway.
[01:25:47] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[01:25:47] Eric Zimmerman: For the short amount of time to speak.
[01:25:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[01:25:57] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[01:25:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. We are now into council discussion. Thank you, Council President.
[01:26:06] Mitch Green: Uh, thank you for bringing this forward, Councilor Zimmerman. I support the resolution. Uh, I just— before we take it to a vote, um, there was some kind of conversation earlier about whether— why don't we just ask the mayor to do this? And I think it's really— it's appropriate to remember that, um, that city councilors, our job is to bring forward resolutions that we want to say this is what we think is important. Thank the you. Direction we want the city to go in. You want to be responsive to the people that you're championing. So you were being responsive to the firefighters and saying, I want to signal this behavior in the future that will then provide upstream guidance to the city administrator to say, I think we should start to invest in this area. So I just wanted to affirm that that is our job and that is appropriate, and it doesn't, it doesn't run into conflict with the fire chief asking for resources independently of that. So I look forward to taking a yes vote.
[01:26:55] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:26:56] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Colleagues, I put myself in the queue next. Um, I have never run into a fire, a burning building. Um, I have incredible admiration for the people who do. Um, prior to my time working for the City Council, however, I was working for the American Cancer Society, um, trying to work side by side with the firefighters, and in fact, at moments, uh, opposing my own leadership within the American Cancer Society on a bill that would have given presumptive coverage under, uh, for firefighters with certain types of cancers. I've never— I've met an incredible number of firefighters who were diagnosed with cancer as a result of their job, and I've never met a single one who regretted running into burning buildings wearing gear that they ultimately caused their disease. They want to be taken care of and they don't want it to happen to their next one, but not a single firefighter I've ever met regretted the act of jumping into a fire because knowing that they were wearing equipment that may cause a disease later in their lives. This is absolutely something that we should be prioritizing. Thank you. These folks are truly heroes in our community, and we should not be letting them slowly poison themselves with their own equipment. So I look forward to supporting this.
[01:28:04] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. I also will be supporting this, and I appreciate not only yourself for bringing it forward, Councilor Zimmerman, but I know multiple members of your staff have worked a lot on this particular item and appreciate them as well. Um, I think this is a good way of trying to get out ahead of a problem So much of what we spend our time doing is digging out of problems that nobody addressed before we got here. And so I think it's responsible to try and dig out of it before it's a hole to dig out of, but actually preventing a problem and starting to put a little bit of money towards something that we know we're going to have a cost related to. I also think in terms of creating fairness in terms of who happens to be up that year when it's their turn otherwise, where only a 7th would have the protections that new turnouts would give and making 6/7 of the force basically wait until their turn comes up. That's not equitable between the members of the fire service. So trying to do that is really important as well. I did want to ask that, you know, it's been brought up that we might otherwise, and even still with this, have a portion of our of this ask still be unmet at that time. And part of the reason for this, and part of the reason why we have these funds, but that they're not always enough, is that we've crucially and repeatedly underfunded the Fire Bureau. I brought this up over and over and over again. It's been a process both of political priorities— that's part of it— but also the calculations in terms of how we determine what is the need that is being met or unmet. Thank you. Even that number's off. And so I think it's— this is an important place to continue an ongoing conversation in addition to having a very specific conversation about this subfund and building up the funds available to meet that future cost. To also say we should be trying to avoid building up unmet need at the Fire Bureau in general. Last—. May or June, Councilor Ryan and I had to transfer some money in to address a boat that had been unmaintained for so long that it was operating at, I think, something like 30% of its top speed. And these are, these are things that are happening across the bureau that we should be ensuring are not unmet needs in the future. This resolution does not address all of those, but it addresses one of them that's really important. Thank you. And I'm grateful to Councilor Zimmerman for bringing it forward, and I will be happy to vote yes on it.
[01:30:42] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Smith.
[01:30:45] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. I will be supporting this, Councilor Zimmerman, and I would also like to see if we can bring this issue up in the Community and Public Safety Committee, because if people are dying, why are we waiting 7 or 8 years to fund this and then to fund it in a haphazard way? I think that we need to make sure that our firefighters and folks who are on the front lines, that we give them the proper equipment and everybody gets an issue at the same time. And this is something that we probably should talk about for the next fiscal year, that I— that it's that critical. I don't think we can just sit back and say it's enough just to, oh, whenever you have a savings, we'll put it to the side. That doesn't give it any that doesn't give it any priority or let folks know that we think their health is critical. So if you wouldn't mind, not to keep it— I'm going to support it, but I think we need to have deeper conversations in the Community and Public Safety Committee just to talk about the health concerns, because I totally agree with what the council president was talking about. That is just inhumane, in my opinion.
[01:31:57] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:31:57] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith, Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Murillo.
[01:32:02] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank you for bringing this forward. I will be supportive of it. And part of the reason, to my understanding, that it asks for us to look for this in the future is because the technology doesn't exist yet. So this is basically saying that when the technology exists for uniforms that are PFAS-free, then we will invest in it. But as of right— as of today, the technology doesn't exist. Thank you, Councilor Moriah.
[01:32:33] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll on this resolution?
[01:32:38] Keelan McClymont: Uh, document 2026-286. Clark?
[01:32:43] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:32:44] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:32:45] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:32:45] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:32:46] Eric Zimmerman: I thank Trevor Adams on my staff, who we stole from Metro a year ago, who immediately started working on this. Aye.
[01:32:53] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:32:54] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:32:56] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:32:57] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:33:00] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:33:01] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:33:03] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:33:03] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:33:04] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:33:05] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[01:33:05] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:33:06] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[01:33:07] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:33:07] Keelan McClymont: Resolution is adopted with 12 aye votes.
[01:33:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you much, colleagues. The time is 10:58. I'm going to give us a quick break. If everyone could please be back at 11:10.
[01:46:28] Lauren Johnson: You're good.
[01:46:30] Jamie Dunphy: I'm calling this back to order. Thank you all so much for your patience while we had a quick human break. Keelan, could we please call item 12?
[01:46:38] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-372, amend Council Organization and Procedure Code, amend Code Chapter 3.02.
[01:46:47] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. I'm proud to be bringing forward this update to Section 3.02, our own little section of code that governs how we as City Council do our business. You might remember a version of this legislation coming forward at the beginning of 2026. The updates to 3.02 were the last item that the old governance committee worked on under the leadership of Councilor Koyama Lane. These updates were never made it to a full count— to a full vote at the full council until now. An incredible amount of work has gone into this proposal since that time, working to preserve the intended outcomes but tightening language, adjusting based on how this body has evolved in that time, and honing in on where there may be areas of broad consensus and where we as a council need to actively debate and vote on the best path forward. I'm honored to have worked on this draft with Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Kanal over the last few months. We worked together really collaboratively on that refining process. We agreed more than we disagreed, and we simply did not agree on everything. There were very strong opinions that did not have consensus, and the draft before you as filed is my best attempt at finding a middle ground compromise. And from this draft, we will debate and amend. I'm happy to have Councilor Pirtle-Guiney as a co-sponsor on the draft that you see before you. Thank you. I'll let her provide remarks in a moment. And but considering the basis of this draft was her work as council president with the Governance Committee in 2025, we're happy to be sharing this collaboration in the underlying, even where our preferred outcomes may diverge. Thank you to everyone who has submitted amendments to this legislation. There are over 25 separate amendments that have been submitted by different councilors, some attempting to achieve the same ends, some clearly pointing in different directions. Colleagues, there is an enormous amount of work in this document that simply must pass for the next council president to do their job effectively. I wish that most of these changes had been in place while I was president, but there is one area where there is no consensus among the 3 folks who worked the most on this draft, and that's regarding the 4-signature discharge. There are different schools of thought on when this 4-signature discharge is best used, and we should debate that. But if there's no consensus and this issue proves to be a sticking point, I have drafted an amendment that simply kicks the can down the road on this issue. It removes all language as proposed and reverts us to the status quo. I'm ready for a robust debate, but I'm asking now to please not let us get hung up on that one particular issue. If we cannot move forward, I'm asking for your support of my amendment to revert to the status quo, and we will continue this conversation. My chief of staff, Madeline West, is going to is here to give us a quick presentation walking through the underlying proposal and afterwards the 25 amendments that have been filed. We'll approach these amendments similar— similarly to how we approached amendments through the budget process, and I hope we can have a civil and productive debate about the best ways for our city council to move forward. With that, I'll turn it over to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for some remarks and then turn it to Madeline for a brief presentation.
[01:49:35] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President, and thank you so much to your staff who have been putting a lot of work into the coordination of this over the last couple of months. We have now, colleagues, spent 2 years learning what the rules we were given allowed and what we actually need to operate our new form of government. We've learned a lot in the process about what works well and where we need to make some changes. The ordinance before you, as you heard from the council president, grew out of the ordinance that the last thank you. This is an important document that the current Governance Committee worked on and that I brought forward as one of the last items that I filed as our former council president. It was born out of countless conversations with colleagues, legislative staff, our council support staff, and the extensive work of the previous Governance Committee, and many conversations that we have had at this dais and in our committees since then. In the previous governance committee, we worked through numerous amendments. We had substantive discussions about what our rules should look like, how our rules could set us up to do our jobs better. The item that went to full council was then debated substantially, and many amendments were considered there as well. And though the specifics have evolved over time, I do believe that the goals behind that initial ordinance are broadly the same as the goals in the ordinance before us today? How do we ensure that our committees allow us to do meaningful policy work before items reach full council? How do we set clear timelines and deadlines throughout our legislative life cycle and clear endpoints so that legislative items continue to move forward and don't languish in our system indefinitely? How do we secure adequate time to review amendments and ensure that we're producing sound policy that has been reviewed by professionals? Thank you. Staff so that we avoid technical errors? How do we create a formal system for adopting rules as we move forward, building on the important work done by Councilor Koyama Lane on our governance handbook, ensuring that we have a set of rules outside of the code that we can adapt, uh, more easily and that are more responsive to different configurations of councilors as our body develops over time? And I think most importantly, How do we ensure that we are operating under rules that provide clear transparency and an understandable system for members of the public who are trying to follow along with our work? The package before us has evolved considerably, and I, as I said at the start, appreciate the work that Council President, you and your team have put into it. And I appreciate your partnership in refining the proposal. Thank you. Adopting new rules can be hard. There are real advantages to having maximum flexibility and discretion in how we conduct our business, but we also have to ask ourselves whether our current practices are helping us legislate effectively, whether they're helping us hold one another accountable, and whether they are helping us give the public a transparent view of the work that we do. Thank you. And I think those are broad goals that everybody has expressed support for. I think we need a little bit more structure to do those things. And I want to remind everybody that what we adopt today isn't permanent. Just as today we will adopt, or we will work toward adopting by majority, an ordinance to change our rules, we need to make progress. But if we don't get every detail right, if we don't address every issue today, We can continue this work into the future. The underlying package as it is brought forward is something I can support even without amendment, even without my own amendments that I've brought forward. And after we adopt amendments, I intend to support whatever that final package looks like. I hope we can all look at the package before us and find a reason to support it. And after we debate amendments robustly, I hope this lands in a place where we can all commit To supporting it, even if it doesn't look exactly like we each wanted it to. We have to find the package that the majority can agree on amendments for and move it forward to make progress. I ask that we trust each other's intentions, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and approach this discussion in the spirit of building an institution that, yes, serves all of us, but most importantly serves Portlanders. Councilmember As we attempt to do transparent, clear, consistent work to make this city better for all of them. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Council President. I'm looking forward to the overview and the debate.
[01:54:21] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. With that, I'm going to welcome my Chief of Staff, Madeline West, to come up and walk us through a brief presentation on the underlying— oh, no, we're doing that before.
[01:54:32] Keelan McClymont: Yep.
[01:54:41] Unidentified speaker: Thank you all.
[01:54:42] Madeline West: Madeline West, for the record. I will just get up my presentation for you all. All right, so I'm going to do my best to quickly walk through a quite complicated underlying proposal before you. Hopefully you've all had a chance to review the red lines. The presentation has been attached in prior communications to you all, but I'll do my best today, and then there'll be an opportunity for technical questions. So the intent of this update is to codify lessons learned about the legislative process in 2025 and 2026 into a clear and solid foundation for the next Council to stand on. These updates have been made in consultation with the clerk, council operations, and legal counsel. These next couple of slides really are designed to package our changes around topic area. So I'll briefly go through those major topics and we'll get into more detail later in the presentation. We have our item submission reorganization, time limits, amendments, council rules, committee rules, discharge from committee as its own topic, clarifications, simple language questions, and code cleanup. In our item submission section, we are simplifying the referral subsections. This is really a cleanup to change with broader code in, in the rest of the code, numbers instead of letters in the subsections. We are changing the active language for councilor committee choice. Uh, the current is on the left, the proposed is on the right. Uh, it essentially says the elected official may propose the item be heard first in a committee in full council or no preference. And if an item is submitted by a councilor and proposed to be heard in a particular committee, it would— the president will refer the next update is our committee and presidential powers deduplicated. It's just a little confusing across different sections of code. It simplifies the current rules of the presiding officer to— down to promote efficient council operations. I'm sure we can go into the details more in the future, but it just felt like the right place for this moment. Thank you. They also prepare the agenda, and the auditor produces the agenda for all formal meetings of council. This is an important distinction that we discussed at length with the clerk. Council committees. Committee may refer an item to council with the following recommendations: do pass or adopt, or do pass as amended by the committee. And a committee may refer an item to another committee for additional consideration. Thank you. Update Section 2, the presidential referral time limit, adding a 90-day clock to both sections of referrals, auditor enforcement, and 180-day expiration. We—. Yes, I'll just go through these one by one. The president will refer an item to committee or the full council no matter— no more than 7 business days. This is currently open. The president can wait to refer to a committee or full council As long as they choose at this moment. The 90-day clock placed on committee. This is making the language just a little bit more clear that the president will place on an agenda in a timely manner not to exceed 90 days. And this also makes the same rule for committee chairs. This update clarifies that the auditor is the enforcer of the 90-day clock. I won't read it all for you, but that is this section for both the full council and for the committee. Time limits, 180-day expiration at committee or council. We just did a resolution cleanup earlier this year. This would be codifying that process. So rather than having to bring in our own legislation before you to clear the queue, so to speak, items would expire on their own after 180 days. Thank you. Amendment rules. Update 3A and 3B. Requirement to reduce amendments to writing and gather attorney and budgetary approval of items and amendments. Amendments proposed to consideration by the council must be reduced to writing and submitted to the council clerk before they may be moved. Amendments proposed for consideration by a committee must be reduced to writing and submitted to the clerk before they may be moved and are subject to all of the amendment requirements. Subsection B, or 020B, the city attorney must approve for legal sufficiency. This is an important addition because it, it really puts parameters. It's not just asking the attorney to give their legal opinion, but to provide a check of simply legal sufficiency contracts and amendment to contracts. And it asks that the city budget officer also must approve for accuracy appropriation ordinances before those items are placed on the agenda. Update on 3C. This is one that we will discuss in amendments as well. This changes our code meaningfully but still gives wiggle room to councilors, moving us from a No guidance on when amendments should be filed to a should, but not a must. So amendments proposed for consideration by the council should be filed in writing with the clerk at least 24 hours before the posted start time of the council meeting. This is really to better inform the public of our intended actions and allow our council to have more time to develop our processes internally. Yes. Amendments, publications of after agenda amendments. This basically allows the clerk or codifies that the clerk will provide electronic copies of our amendments to the bodies of our city for their review. Update Section 4, Council Rules. This is a meaningful change to the governance handbook. Rather than having the Governance Handbook come before Council as a resolution and debating the contents, this would allow the President to place on file a report of the City Governance Handbook that summarizes current laws, policies, procedures, and practices related to legislative powers, actions, communications, and operations. The handbook will be written to support incoming staff and Councilors, provide guidance to any new Council leadership, and inform Council's adoption or readoption of legislative rules. Second. This also indicates that within 30 days of a general municipal election where we have new councilors potentially taking office, council will adopt or readopt by resolution such legislative rules and procedures that council deems necessary in addition to those laid out in charter and code. Section 5, committee rules. This refers to our committee meeting times. This simply says regular committee meeting times and locations will be set by resolution. No committee will meet at a time or location not provided by such without approval of the president. This codifies the referrals. The committee may refer an item to council with do pass or do adopt, do pass as amended, or they may refer to another committee for additional consideration. And this talks about additional committee rules by resolution rather than having to put every committee rule in code. Finally, update number 6. This one I'm going to dive a little more closely into. Essentially, this contemplates our discharge from committee process. Yes. And it moves from our current practice, which only has a closed position after Item C, after a committee no vote. It changes the front end, which allows anyone to refer an item before they are heard in committee straight by council discharge to the full body. This does retain a 4-item discharge between the first hearing at a committee and a committee vote. This is the language to that effect. I'm not going to read it all because we have visual aids. Today, the discharge applies to this whole section of time in the red band, any time from referral To, uh, up until a committee vote. That's the status quo today. If we get a no, it is deemed inactive, and folks have been in the situations where it has come up, have refiled and then referred immediately by 4-council discharge. So even though it may have appeared that the 3rd box was open under today's status quo, it was in fact that the 3rd box Committee no vote was a stop sign, but folks were refiling and immediately walking through the front door to full council. This is— sorry, this is the discharge under the underlying. This basically applies to from the first committee hearing, someone can discharge, 4 councilors can discharge between no hearing after it's been heard at the first. So if something is stagnating in committee, people can discharge it. There is an inactive phase if there's inaction for 100 days, and there's inactive after a committee no vote. Okay. The 10 days is an item for— to contemplate in the amendment, Dunphy 1. So sorry. This is the underlying committee no moves to inactive and 180 days moves to inactive. In the amendment Dunphy 1, this contemplates a 10-day window after a committee no vote within which to discharge. Okay. We can come back to this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. So inactive after 180 days, 10-day window to revive something after a committee no vote in Dunphy 1. Updates, Section 7. This is pretty simple, just some clarification language. Since we do most things virtually, we're putting virtually in front of telephone, and this talks about folks being able to share with the clerk that they are in fact at the meeting. So they must be continuously visible or immediately verbally responsive to be considered present. And this is most especially important at our council votes. Agenda placement of items pulled from consent. This is a common practice. It's not in code. This says that a removed item from consent will be considered at the same meeting at the end of the agenda. So we don't have that discussion every time. This changes our filing deadline from noon to 1:00 to recognize, uh, sometimes we have committee meetings that go until 12:30, so we want to give folks a little buffer there, uh, to move our deadline to submit to 1:00 PM. Committee memberships. This just clarifies that outside of the Committee of the Whole, uh, committees must be composed of less than a quorum and must have at least 4 members. Finally, these are the simple technicals: capitalization of committee, adoption of resolutions as standard across the item virtually by telephone, and finally code cleanup, which removes that little bit of text about the first meeting of 2025. With that, I will turn it back over to you.
[02:07:40] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Madeline.
[02:07:41] Jamie Dunphy: So colleagues, before we dive into our amendment process, Are there any technical or clarifying questions about the underlying? Councilor Kanal.
[02:07:51] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[02:07:51] Sameer Kanal: I have a clarifying comment as someone who wrote one piece of this in the first ordinance of the year. The piece about— last year, the piece about when a— the stop sign in the bottom right corner, it's— there's been a— in both of those charts, it implies that, and it was stated that when a committee fails to pass, takes a vote on whether to refer it or not, and that vote fails, that that means it's dead, and that's, that's currently what's in there. That is not accurate, uh, and I wanted to, um, I wanted to note that. Um, I'm going to pull up the, um, the document here. If not referred by a committee to the full council is the, is the time at which the discharge applies. And then it continues, any 4 councilors may require in writing that the item be considered by the full council, which has the same effect. As a referral to the full council. We may have differences of opinion on where this should go, but that is what the words actually say. And what that means is that under the current rules, any time where the vote— any time where the committee has not chosen to refer it on, including a no vote, this is eligible. That may not be how it's been used so far, and it may not have been how it's been interpreted, but some of us were in the room where we walked through and made those agreements together. Thank you. Before that, uh, ordinance that was, uh, filed in January 2025. And I just wanted to clarify what the current system actually is.
[02:09:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:09:21] Dan Ryan: Thanks.
[02:09:22] Eric Zimmerman: I'm trying to understand how this fits with the conversation— I swear we're having déjà vu— we just had in CAW, Committee of the Whole. So is this complementary to it? Is this in in opposition to what the conversation was in the other— why is this here versus in a work session or the Committee of the Whole where I thought this conversation was already kind of starting? Um, it sounds like many of you worked on it. None of you— I'm— I've not been in any of those rooms, so I'm just trying to understand some bearings here first.
[02:09:54] Jamie Dunphy: Um, yeah, I, I'm happy to answer that. Um, this is, uh, deeply related to but a separate item from what was referred back to the Committee of the Whole. This is a new filed item that, uh, we worked on, that Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and, uh, Kanal and I worked on using the original document as a base, but recognizing that the draft as written that was submitted back to Committee of the Whole, um, in my opinion, it read like a camel, which is a horse built by committee. It was a lot of amendments that had sort of led to direct conflicts and some, uh, cul-de-sacs in my— how I interpreted it. So working with, uh, Councilors Kanal and Pirtle-Guiney, I— we redrafted this as a new amendment with cleanup and thought to bring it directly to council.
[02:10:44] Eric Zimmerman: So are we— so I guess over— are we still on this item in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Chair of Committee of the Whole?
[02:10:53] Sameer Kanal: Thanks for the question.
[02:10:54] Mitch Green: May I respond?
[02:10:55] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I've been advised that this would supersede not only that item, but related items that the content of which overlaps with this by Council President's office.
[02:11:05] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[02:11:05] Eric Zimmerman: And then Council President, just to clarify, so we're doing some technical questions now, and then what does the rest of this item look like in terms of deliberation?
[02:11:13] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, we will have public testimony. We will then move into amendments, which we've sent out a run of show earlier. The order which will go through them and debate, have time for debate of the— as part of the amendment process, I'm also open to colleagues having debate of the underlying as well. And then this is a non-emergency ordinance. And so our hope is to get it to second reading by the end of today.
[02:11:39] Robert Taylor: Okay.
[02:11:41] Eric Zimmerman: So I think this is an inappropriate place for this. Not—. And I don't mean that like you've done something wrong. I just think that this conversation will be stunted, if not in a work session. And I don't plan to support anything passing today because I don't think that this is going to get its correct amount of oomph here. I really valued the conversations that Councilor Avalos and, uh, Koyama Lane and Kanal and I were having back in Pearl Guinea back in December of '24. And there's a robustness to those conversations. I think Mitch, you might have been in there too, that, that in those rooms that I think is where this probably belongs, Council President. So if there's appetite for that, I certainly would be one, but I want to respect your process here. You want to do some public testimony first, but this is going to be a rough sell for me in terms of— this is a lot of amendments to try and do at a council instead of working through some of this in work session, because I would like to know the nuance and the meaning, and I say that genuinely. Thank you. And to me, this kind of feels like a, here's what I wrote as council president in the last 2 months I'm going to be here, and here's what I want you to do. And I don't know how to respond to that, so I'll stop.
[02:12:54] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Smith.
[02:12:58] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. I, um, have a couple of technical questions of Madeline. You talked about the 7 business days. Me and my staff, we looked at this last week, and we were confused by the 7 days and then the 90 days. And so how can both of those be true, that we have to get on the schedule? Because it seems either it's 7 or it's 90.
[02:13:23] Madeline West: So, um, in eCouncil, the, uh, once you file an item and it's approved by the clerk, it goes to a council president referral queue, right? Currently there is no place in code that requires the council president to move it from the queue to committee or full council, that's unlimited. So this would clarify that once an item is referred to the president for approval, AKA putting it in the queue in the first place, the president only has 7 days to do that.
[02:13:56] Loretta Smith: So he asked it— so what is the 90 days then?
[02:13:59] Madeline West: The 90 days is once it's been referred to full council.
[02:14:02] Loretta Smith: Is that made clear in the language?
[02:14:04] Madeline West: Yes.
[02:14:05] Loretta Smith: Made once within the 7 days, that they have 90 days to actually put it on the agenda.
[02:14:11] Madeline West: Yes, that's after the referral.
[02:14:12] Loretta Smith: After the referral.
[02:14:13] Madeline West: Yes, so 7 days plus 90. It also makes a similar requirement for committee chairs, which doesn't exist currently.
[02:14:22] Loretta Smith: Okay, so thank you for clarifying that, because we were trying to figure this out.
[02:14:26] Madeline West: Yeah, it's, it's a lot.
[02:14:27] Anita Davidson: Yeah.
[02:14:27] Loretta Smith: Um, I agree with, um, Councilor Zimmerman. I think we need a different format to, to do this because we did this in work sessions and in sessions before we actually, uh, came here on January 1st. Um, the other question is, um, I have an amendment that I want to add from a technical standpoint. I want to add that we direct the city attorney to seek judicial determination of the mayor's tie-breaking authority under the city charter as a part of this. Yes. Because I think until we get this straight about the charter and get a determination on this— and I also do have that resolution in as well— but I think this has to happen in order for us to do anything else. Because for me, I can't believe in anything that we put forward until we settle our charter issue about the mayor breaking ties, because we've had 19 ties that we've had to schedule. That means that there were 19 policy issues that we were not able to appropriately proceed on. And we can't continue like this. It's bigger than the presidency because everybody wants to make it trivial. Okay, we're gonna, you know, flip a coin, somebody doesn't vote. That's just being very immature. We have a charter that tells us what to do, and we need to direct our city attorney because I don't really want to sue the city. I agree. But if we don't give a referral to our city attorney to go settle this, nothing that we put forward I don't even believe in. Because that is, that is where it starts and it begins, in my opinion. So I want to put this as an amendment to direct the city attorney to seek judicial determination of the mayor's tie-breaking authority under the city charter.
[02:16:19] Olivia Clark: Second.
[02:16:21] Loretta Smith: And I think we have to do that.
[02:16:23] Jamie Dunphy: We're in technical and clarifying. And Councilor, are you able to share that?
[02:16:28] Loretta Smith: I will share it and I'll send it out to everyone.
[02:16:30] Jamie Dunphy: We'll get to that part when we are able to get to amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Novick.
[02:16:37] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. I have to say I'm confused about the discharge petition aspect of this. My understanding is that now pretty much any 4 councilors can discharge something at any time. Is the underlying here, or Dunphy 1, does it— am I wrong about that? Does the underlying or Dunphy 1 restrict that? Um, if it— does it expand it in ways that I was previously unaware needed to be expanded?
[02:17:02] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, I, I will say that my interpretation of this is that functionally there are 4 points or 3 points in which the discharge can apply. The second item exists yes. So the 3 categories are after a motion exists but before it even gets into the hands of a committee chairperson, after it's in the hands of a committee chairperson and it's on their agenda but hasn't actually been heard, it could be yanked off of that agenda, after council has had— or a committee has had a first hearing but no other further action has happened, or after a committee has taken action and voted no. The underlying currently only focuses on the third category. Which is if the committee chair has a first hearing and then no further action, then that is the discharge petition point. That at that point, after a committee has heard it, 4 councilors can move to remove it from the committee. Additionally, Dunphy 1 adds back the 4th category, which is giving a time window for after a committee has voted something down, That there is an op— a limited, a time-limited venue for re-bringing it back.
[02:18:11] Steve Novick: What happens if it's been referred to committee but it hasn't been put on a committee agenda?
[02:18:16] Jamie Dunphy: We are obligated committee chairs at this point to put it on an agenda within 90 days, and the enforcement of that is through the ultimate agenda publisher, through the Auditor's Office. So if a committee, as we were saying, if the council president gets a new Ordinance that is filed, it lands on our desk. The council president has 7 days to get it into the hands of the committee chair. Committee chair then has 90 days to get it onto an agenda. And the committee, if that does not happen, the author has the authority to go, or would have the authority to go to the auditor and say, it has been 90 days, please publish it at least.
[02:18:46] Steve Novick: Okay, so that is the one restriction that we have now, that you can't do a discharge petition after referral to committee.
[02:18:54] Jamie Dunphy: No, right now you absolutely can do it at any of those times, but this would restrict that we would— this would— my intention is that if we're going to have committees, they should be in the, the chain of sequence that has to happen.
[02:19:04] Steve Novick: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
[02:19:08] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal.
[02:19:14] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, sorry, scrolling through my notes here. I think, um, the question that I had, um, with relation to you know, this is, is something that I think is better served for after. Okay. Um, I do want to just note that, um, I filed a, a bunch of amendments to this, and I'll, I'll walk through each of them later, um, as they come up. But that because of the fact that, um, there were discussions that were being had in the Committee of the Whole in which ideas were being floated, and then that all kind of is getting superseded by this process, it's important to at a minimum get those things on the record, that they were things that were proposed in a conversation that is not currently happening. I'll be talking about each one as we get into it. I'm not moving necessarily all of them or anything like that, but I think it's important that we have them on file. We might be able to get through many of them, possibly all of them, depending on how the rest of the conversation goes. But I did want to just kind of give that out there. They're all Uh, shown on— they're all, uh, you know, pre-filed. And, um, for one of them, there's an extra file sort of showing what it would look like if implemented. Um, that's the 13 one. Um, but I think it's, it's really important to, to kind of note that, um, there were conversations that are being sort of— that are not currently happening through this ordinance that were active at the Committee of the Whole. And so that was the purpose of trying to get all of those into the conversation and filed so that they would live with this document. One of the things we're going to talk about here is when something is refiled, it's actually not refiled. The original document dies. Then there's a new document where the text is identical, but it doesn't have the same legislative history. It's got a new number, and all the testimony that was previously taken on it no longer exists. So that's a reason for putting all these amendments into the record, and it's also something that, that relates to the content of some of the things we'll be discussing.
[02:21:09] Jonas Biery: Thanks.
[02:21:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Avalos.
[02:21:13] Candace Avalos: Um, just to follow up on the question that Councilor Zimmerman's asking as far as like why we're doing it here and not at Committee of the Whole, I mean, is there some time constraint I'm unaware about? I mean, I, I know that there is a, um, perceived time constraint, but is there an actual time constraint on having to get this done? Because I, I am also I think my concern is feeling like the whole point of Committee of the Whole was so that because those governance questions were happening in a 5-person committee and I wasn't on it and I had lots of opinions about it and I was straining to make sure that I could go to the committee and weigh in. And the whole point of Committee of the Whole was so that I wouldn't have to do that. And I guess I'm feeling like I'm in that position again because I understand and respect that current former council president, committee chair, whole, um, was taking leadership on this, but by bypassing the infrastructure we designed specifically so that we wouldn't have to feel like I'm feeling, which is that I'm out of the loop. I'm getting rushed into this. There's a lot of things to consider. I've got this 35-page document that I was up until midnight creating, and I'm just like, I just, again, am in a position where I don't think that I can be an equal participant in the discussion about governance because I'm being force-fed something and told to react to a bunch of amendments, which, by the way, contradict each other. I don't know how we're supposed to navigate all of that on the dais at a council meeting. So what is the reasoning for doing it this way right now?
[02:22:42] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, a couple of things. One, as I said earlier in my thing, there is a lot— there's more consensus, I believe, in this document than not. And the areas where we disagree, absolutely, deserve public debate. We're able to take testimony at the full council. We referred— we re-referred the document from the council back to Committee of the Whole about 9 months ago. We have had a very full Committee of the Whole agendas but have not had a chance to bring that back at that point. And there are serious updates that exist in this that make it very difficult for the folks who work with us to be able to consistently provide the services that they need to do. There's a lot of things that have updated in the last 2 years about our processes that we thought were one way and have proven to be something else. And there is not a statutory deadline to update this, but I really want to make sure that the areas where we have broad consensus and are able to set the next council president up for success, I really want to do that because I am personally tired of the narrative that this is a dysfunctional council body, that we're unable to meet the needs of the charter change, and that some of these basic things will provide the clarity that can counter some of that false narrative. So that, that, that is my urgency. Additionally, it is the very end of October, October 28th. Um, we do not have, uh, well, all of our work sessions for the rest of the year have been scheduled. We do not have any more time on our calendar. Sorry, it is ultimately, and that is why I made this call, and that is why this is here.
[02:24:18] Candace Avalos: Um, okay. Uh, I think though what I also remember when we were talking about this months ago was that there were a set of things that we had consensus on. I don't know what that list is, but what I'm seeing in front of me doesn't look like a list of only consensus items. And so I think that's why I'm confused. Like, I was very much in support of us putting forward, yeah, the things that are procedural that we're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, we just need to fix it so that, you know, council ops and whoever else can do the job. But there is clearly a lot of not consensus things in here. Councilor Loretta Smith, And so I guess I'm not understanding the intent. If the intent was to move along something that we can get through quickly, I don't know how we could accomplish that with a bunch of non-consensus items now.
[02:25:01] Jamie Dunphy: Well, as I said, the, the document as filed was my best attempt at finding consensus and noting that there was one area where there was clearly no consensus among the 3 councilors that worked the most on it. Um, so that, that was my intention, is to try and bring forward the an underlying document that is the least, uh, controversial, uh, or could find the path forward on the most consensus.
[02:25:24] Candace Avalos: Right, but I guess if there's no consensus on something like the discharge, why would the option not be status quo, leave that conversation for a fuller discussion, get through the consensus items? But instead you chose to make a decision about how to address the 4-councilor discharge. This is not status quo. And so I don't— that there— I'm having a disconnect between that reasoning. Can you explain further?
[02:25:48] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, yeah, it was, it was based off of the months of conversation with both all of our council, all our colleagues, uh, that I've had individually, but also the, the direct debate between Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Kanal and I.
[02:26:00] Candace Avalos: Right. I guess the issue is I was— I'm not a part of that debate. And so again, I'm feeling outside of, uh, a process that you all had. That's great, but you're not a committee. And the committee to do it includes all of us for a reason. And so, yeah, I came into this, you know, I've got my prepared notes, but I am feeling increasingly concerned. And as I'm speaking, I'm hearing a bunch— I'm seeing a bunch of people nodding along, which concerns me too, because y'all don't usually nod along with me. Right. And so there clearly must be some kind— like, I'm clearly raising something that others are feeling. So if we're not at consensus, if this is going to be contentious, I guess my question to you and to my colleagues is, is this the right time? I'd argue it's not. I'll leave it at that.
[02:26:44] Jamie Dunphy: And I would just like to— I don't— without disparaging any of my colleagues, one of the key components of this is that there is a 90-day obligation for an item that is referred to a committee to be heard in that committee. And it has been 9 months since this item was referred to the Committee of the Whole. It has been brought up a number of times, and I found that this was the best path forward to actually get something done in 2024. So I'm— you're right, I made ultimately a decision, um, and my colleagues are welcome to take action as they see fit based off of that.
[02:27:16] Candace Avalos: Thank you. Yeah, I, I would like us to take action. So once we're finished with this queue, I'm prepared to make a motion to take that kind of action. But I'd love to hear, based on all the nods that I'm seeing along, what are people thinking, because I, I'm concerned.
[02:27:29] Raymond C. Lee: Okay.
[02:27:30] Jamie Dunphy: And colleagues, we have got 6 more folks in the queue under technical and clarifying questions, and I think I think that that's going to directly lead into our conversation for the underlying debate. So I'm going to look to Keelan real quick. Do we still have just one person signed up to testify? All right, I'm going to go ahead and pause our council deliberations and invite our public testimony.
[02:27:48] Keelan McClymont: Terry Harris.
[02:27:51] Dan Ryan: Oh, good.
[02:27:51] Sameer Kanal: Can I rise under a request for information?
[02:27:55] Jamie Dunphy: Yes.
[02:27:55] Sameer Kanal: What was the date that you're saying was 9 months before today that we referred it back?
[02:27:59] Jamie Dunphy: I don't recall.
[02:28:00] Sameer Kanal: I see April 28th— uh, sorry, April 23rd on the, on the document. So I'm curious what, as a request for information, where the 9 months is coming from.
[02:28:09] Jamie Dunphy: You're right, it was 7 months.
[02:28:10] Sameer Kanal: That's 6.
[02:28:12] Jamie Dunphy: April, May, May, June, July, August, September, October. Okay, 6 months. You're right. I apologize formally. I withdraw my previous statement and note that it was correctly referred almost exactly 6 months to the day. Terry, welcome.
[02:28:28] Terry Harris: Well, thanks. Um, I have, uh, prepared comments with about 1 minute for each of the amendments proposed. I hope that's okay. Um, anyway, I'm Terry Harris from Hillsdale. Um, I've been following this for a long time, as you know. Um, but let me just say I'm really happy to see this. Um, I think it's a great compilation of sort of where things were and where things needed to go. And, um, I am in general support of the whole thing, all of it, all the amendments, everything, um, and basically getting on with it. Um, and, and I'm here mostly because somebody needs to be here from the public to say thank you for doing this, because it's just such an otherwise thankless task, especially when half of you have other things that you'd probably rather be doing. Um, but to center on some particular approval items here, um, I'm really happy to clean up the item submission and referral to committees. I think that's overdue and important. I support the Pirtle-Guiney Amendment Number 3 to require proper subject matter referral. Second. I think that's important. I also prefer that the president do these referrals because that decision can be subject to overrule or appeal by the rest of the body. I think that's just sort of a normal thing to do. Um, I am in support of the amendments being filed in advance in writing, strongly support that. If that hadn't happened, I would not be here and able to comment on them. Um, and I think the 24-hour deadline should be mandatory. So I support the Pirtle-Guiney Amendment Number 1. If not 24 hours, it should be before the meeting. And if it's not before the meeting, it should be before the thing is called, before the item is called. Some, some thing before Um, would be helpful. I appreciate the discharge discussion. I know that's difficult. I support Dunphy Amendment Number 1. I think it's cleaner. I think it's limited, and it's a nod to finality, which I think is a healthy thing in a committee system. I think it should be a majority that gets a discharge, not 4 members, because that's the common procedural thing. Yes. And there are reasons for that. I support Kanal Amendments 7 through 9, 12, and 16. I oppose Kanal Amendments 1 through 6, 10, 11, 13, and 15, for those of you keeping track. Um, I support Novick 1 through 3 and oppose Novick 4. Finally, just some ideas in the 5 seconds left.
[02:31:34] Jamie Dunphy: I'll just thank you very much, Terry.
[02:31:42] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[02:31:44] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, we are in the queue for both technical clarifying and debate, uh, and then also amendments. So we'll start with Councilor Ryan and then Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:31:52] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. Um, I'm going to build upon the dialogue that we were having before the excellent testimony we just heard, and I want to start by thanking my thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you to my fellow D2 councilors for your many hours that you put into this. Both Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Kanal have been working hard to represent, I think, all of us the best that they could to get to the details. And also to you, Council President, for trying to shepherd this along, steward this along. It's hard. I do think that we're at a point today where it, it, it— we need to be in a work session environment where we can have more dialogue about where this landed. I think trying to rush through these amendments today— I too looked at this after the Blazer game, which ended after 11, so, um, big win on the road. Um, then I looked at this and went, are you kidding me? Like, we're gonna go through all of this tomorrow? And then more was added this morning. I think we're going to have to do that. Because we don't have the 24-hour rule. I think this is so important, and I think that I probably will come close to supporting much of it, but I just need some time with all of you in a work session environment to go through this. And I think we could make it even tighter as we get closer to bringing it back to actually move the legislation. So I would agree with Councilor Zimmerman, Councilor Avalos, on the tone that I was hearing from both of them. And when it's the appropriate time, if we have to vote to move this to a work session, then I would move such a motion.
[02:33:27] Isaac McLennan: Second.
[02:33:29] Dan Ryan: I guess I just moved a motion, um, this into work session. Thank you for the second.
[02:33:34] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'm looking to our city attorney. Is that a— how does that work? How is that as a motion?
[02:33:40] Dan Ryan: That clearly wasn't, um, formally, but no, I'll take it.
[02:33:44] Jamie Dunphy: But I'm interested to know, like, What procedurally— is there a procedure, or is it just a scheduling decision by the president?
[02:33:50] Robert Taylor: Yeah, thank you, uh, Robert Taylor, City Attorney. Great question. You, you, under your rules, you can refer it to a committee. Okay, so that's a possibility, but we've never, um, I don't know that we've ever referred an item from council to a work session before. You could add that to your rules as part of this, obviously. And I'm being serious because this is the opportunity for the council to make some of these decisions about how you want to operate. So, but a referral to a committee would be in order. A motion to table would be in order if the council didn't want to hear this today.
[02:34:31] Dan Ryan: I understand. I appreciate that. I do still think it would have been better to have it in what I still love about work sessions, I miss the days of having us be around a table. But I think it— the last time we really did that was before we were all formally sworn in, and it was our last time to really have what I thought was more authentic dialogue on this. I will play the game that we're currently in and look across the way to see if you think this could come back to committee as a whole.
[02:35:02] Lauren Johnson: I think it should.
[02:35:02] Dan Ryan: But I'd prefer— okay, can I yield my time to Councilor Kanal? Because I can't really understand the nonverbal from here.
[02:35:09] Terry Harris: May I respond, Councilor?
[02:35:10] Anita Davidson: Please.
[02:35:11] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Yeah, so just to be clear, we had a couple things penciled in on November 5th that are not actually able to happen. We have one thing that is going to happen, which is guaranteed, and it's a resolution with the city investment policy. But other than that, that meeting has a lot of space. I can't speak off the top of my head and looking at everything, but I know we've also got space on December 10th that I might be able to move other things down to, to create space earlier. But certainly most of the meeting on November 5th may end up being open. We were likely to end that meeting early otherwise. I just— full disclosure, that is a virtual meeting because of the HVAC work, and that may affect people's thoughts, but it doesn't matter to me, but it might have mattered to you, so I want to make sure you knew.
[02:35:54] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:35:56] Dan Ryan: Okay, so do we need to do a motion to move this back to the committee?
[02:36:03] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely an option.
[02:36:05] Robert Taylor: Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, I think if, if, if the council's desire is to put it in the Committee of the Whole, then I think the appropriate motion is a motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole. If the council's desire is to instead hear this in a work session rather than the Committee of the Whole. I think the council could adopt a motion to table, put this item on the table at full council, request the president to schedule a work session, have it in the work session. Once it's worked out at the work session, then at council you can make a motion to take it from the table to hear it in front of the full council. So those are your, your choices.
[02:36:45] Dan Ryan: You can accomplish I liked the latter better. I'm pausing to check out nonverbal. There's a lot of not clear nonverbal on this one.
[02:37:03] Jamie Dunphy: A motion to table or motion to postpone?
[02:37:06] Dan Ryan: Table. Well, we have to table in order to go to work session.
[02:37:09] Robert Taylor: If you, if you table— yeah, the goal is to go to work session. Great question. So if you table it, uh, then it's, it's, it's just sitting before the body. The body can take it off the table at any time later. Okay, if you postpone it, you have— you can postpone it to a date certain, at which point you— council has to deal with it on the date certain. You can always postpone it again. Okay. Uh, the, the other motion that is a most motion to postpone indefinitely, that is a motion to effectively kill an item. So I just, I want to say that it's come up before. Just, just know postponing indefinitely is a, is a fatal, uh, motion if you pass it. So it sounds to me from—.
[02:38:07] Dan Ryan: That makes sense. So I, I, what I would like is what, um, is actually a little bit of a break right now. And if the 3 of you would talk amongst yourselves and see what you're comfortable with, because you did the most work on this. I think you're seeing from all the colleagues that we're not ready to move this today in this council meeting. Yeah, the 3 of you that have been working on this. Yes, that would be Councilor Kanal, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, and President Dunphy. I want to respect the fact that you've been putting in most of the hours on this and you got it to this point, but you're hearing from, uh, the majority that we're not ready to take action on this today. Maybe a couple people are, but, um, the majority based on the nonverbal are not. So—.
[02:38:52] Jamie Dunphy: I mean, uh, Councilor, I would certainly entertain them. Well, I want to before— but if I must put out a motion, I am certain at this point it is clear to me that there is more work that needs to be done in a work session. I would entertain a motion to table, and I will schedule a work session. But before you do that, I'd like to give Councilor Pirtle-Guiney a chance to jump in.
[02:39:14] Dan Ryan: That's fair.
[02:39:15] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Um, I happen to be next in the queue, I think, so timing is great here. Um, Councilor Smith. Colleagues, about a year ago I came to all of you and said we've got something in the works, we will have it before the end of the year. For a variety of reasons, that didn't get taken up until the next year by this body, but there was extensive work done a year ago in committee the chair of that committee, then-Vice President Koyama Lane, did a significant amount of work to make sure that everybody knew the timing and the scheduling so that anybody who wanted to could come and testify. And multiple councilors who did not sit on that committee did come and testify. In fact, we had to consult with our attorneys to make sure we did not break quorum because we had more than 6 people in the room for that committee meeting, some of them were there as testifiers, so we were okay. The council president has been very transparent about trying to bring in amendments, and as I understand it, this has been briefed in chiefs multiple times to make sure that all of our staff knew this was coming and could then let us know that this was coming. So while we may need more time to debate everything, and I, I'm, um, Council President, I think your goal of getting this out today was an ambitious one. Yeah. I suspected that we would need 2 or 3 meetings with some time with this on the agenda to get through everything. Um, we have a choice because it's the end of October. We've got a month and a half left before recess, and then A new year of council work. Um, if we want our next council president to be able to come into some clearly established rules that we've all agreed to, not just past practice that the current council president has done and that I did before that, we need to actually act, not move this to another committee, not wait. If we want to—. Councilor Smith. Provide more clarity for our staff who support us. We need to do this. So I hear that there are folks who need some more time with this, and there are a lot of amendments that have been filed. I was shocked as well by the number of amendments that were filed. I expected we would all have 2 or 3 or 4 little things we put in. Thank you. To see more than that from folks was surprising. But we've now spent an hour talking about talking about this when we could have been actually debating these amendments. So whether we do it in work session or whether we do it in council, I would like us to get to the substance. Work session makes me nervous because we cannot actually take votes, and I think we're at the point where we need to actually know where the majority of our body is on some things. So to your question, Councilor Ryan, what do the 3 of us think? If we need a work session to discuss concepts, let's do it. But we need to get to the point where we are establishing where the majority is, because I think on some of these things, we know that there is disagreement and we don't actually know what the majority feels. And the only way to do that is to vote on some of these amendments, which I hope we do in this body. Thank you. There was a significant delay in Committee of the Whole. I would like to keep this within the council space. Um, happy to respect that folks may need time to discuss the concepts first in a work session. I think that having that space is sometimes a best practice, but let's keep this in a space where we can move it forward quickly and get to the point of actually figuring out where the majority of our body is. Councilor Smith, on some of these amendments. Thank you.
[02:43:20] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:43:22] Dan Ryan: I trust the council president to move this along. I do think the 30 amendments probably weren't discussed in chief, so I do think it's alarming today. Um, and so I'm hoping that I will put on motion to table this and trust that you, council president, will move this forward so that we land this plane before the end of the year.
[02:43:40] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Ryan has moved to table this item. Councilor Zimmerman has seconded. Colleagues, we are now in discussion of the, uh, motion.
[02:43:52] Eric Zimmerman: It's non-debatable.
[02:43:53] Jamie Dunphy: It's a non-debatable motion. Cool, we're not in debate of that motion. Oh good. Uh, can we please go ahead and call the roll?
[02:44:01] Keelan McClymont: This is the roll on the motion to table item 2026-372. Clark?
[02:44:08] Olivia Clark: Absent.
[02:44:09] Keelan McClymont: Absent. Sorry. Green?
[02:44:13] Mitch Green: No.
[02:44:15] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:44:15] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:44:16] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:44:18] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:44:18] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:44:19] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:44:20] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[02:44:21] Angelita Morillo: No.
[02:44:23] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:44:31] Steve Novick: Uh, I had hoped that what we could do today is have the 2— Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and the president go through the things they think there really are consensus, see if they really are consensus, and then pass those. Um, I thought that would have been a simple way to address it. Um, so that's why I'm voting no. No.
[02:44:52] Keelan McClymont: Was that a— was that no?
[02:44:53] Steve Novick: No.
[02:44:54] Keelan McClymont: Thank you. Sorry. Dunphy?
[02:44:56] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[02:44:57] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the motion to table the item fails with a vote of 5 ayes I didn't hear you. Oh, it fails. Sorry.
[02:45:06] Loretta Smith: What was the number?
[02:45:07] Keelan McClymont: Uh, 5 ayes, 6 nays, 1 absent.
[02:45:11] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you, Councilor Ryan. Uh, Councilor Smith.
[02:45:15] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Um, a big issue that I have is with giving the auditor the power of the presiding officer by putting things on our agenda for 90 days. That is a conversation that we need to talk about. And since when are we willing to give up our presiding officer power to the auditor? I'm not willing to do that. If we're not willing to give the mayor any power, why are we willing to give another elected official a power that the presiding officer for the past 2 years have had? That's ridiculous. Thank you. The other piece is I totally agree with, uh, Councilor Ryan. These 30 amendments, they were not talked about to my chief of staff in the chief of staff's meeting. And I don't know how you expect us to process all of these concepts and, and get to this, because I hear what you're saying and I I, I really truly respect the work that you've done, uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and, uh, Council President. I, I respect what you're trying to do, um, in trying to set up the next president, but I don't feel that this is setting up the next president. I think this is basically tying the hands of the next president, and it's not right in my opinion. This is just me. Thank you. Thank you. Both of you all had the opportunity to do the things that you needed to do based on how you wanted to run as the presiding officer. This document ties the hands of the next president in a way that is egregious. And I am not in support of this. I think we need to have a work session. I think actually, City Attorney, uh, Robert Taylor, some of this needs to be in an executive session, this conversation. And I don't know how we can do some of that, but some of these ideals should be talked about in the executive session. So thank you for hearing me out, Council President.
[02:47:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Uh, colleagues, I just want to note that it is 12:15. There are 7 councilors in the 7 councilors in the queue, 6 councilors in the queue. And obviously we will not get to the meat of this issue today. I'm hoping to get everyone to get on the record as much as possible, and I intend to schedule a work session regardless after this. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[02:47:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, colleagues.
[02:47:55] Tiffany Koyama Lane: As the former chair of the previous governance committee, I know how complex I also can attest to there's been a lot of waiting for this, and there's been a lot of work that's gone into this. I have been asking every time this has been brought forward that we do exactly what Councilor Novick has said. Let's break this into manageable pieces and let's pass what the majority of us can agree on. Let's pass those fixes that The people, many of our staff who support this body need fixed. My suggestion is that we pass Dunphy 2, that amendment, which pulls out and reverts back to the status quo, the discharge piece. Because I, from what I can see, that is the, what is controversial and was, is what's holding us back from passing today. The rest of it, all of those other amendments, that can come out of— at a work session down the road. That can come at Committee of the Whole next week. Sounds like we have a commitment for that. Um, but I would love for us to not keep kicking this can down the road, mostly for our staff that need— that need this— need these changes in code.
[02:49:16] Candace Avalos: So—.
[02:49:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[02:49:20] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I would like to move Dunphy 2.
[02:49:24] Steve Novick: Second.
[02:49:26] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Koyama Lane has moved Dunphy 2 and Councilor Novick has seconded. Uh, colleagues in the queue, I have got you in the order, uh, for call— for the general discussion. So we are now into a, uh, debate of—.
[02:49:41] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I can get a second though.
[02:49:43] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, Novick seconded. Okay, so We are now in debate of Dunphy 2. I'm going to check folks in the queue if they have any, uh, conversation about that. Councilor Green?
[02:49:55] Mitch Green: Uh, you know, I wasn't in the queue for this, but I support— I would vote for Dunphy 2. Thanks.
[02:50:00] Jamie Dunphy: And feel free to stay in the queue because I'm going to call you all later. Councilor Avalos?
[02:50:07] Candace Avalos: Yeah, I, I obviously support Dunphy 2, but I think my issue here is that what I keep hearing is that this is— we have to do this so that we can function as a body. What are the things that are— I don't see delineated here what the things are that like staff need in order to do their jobs. What are those things? It's not 100% of this. I know that for a fact because you put things in here that are controversial and have known to be controversial. So I am a little frustrated to hear that. I know that you are a little frustrated. You put a lot of work into it. I get that. I'm also frustrated that we haven't gotten to it until now. And also, there were lots of leadership choices that could have been made to bring this a long time ago. And we're not gonna, you know, this committee of the whole and the whatever. At the end of the day, the president has the choice to add this as a priority and make that a priority by putting it in work sessions a long time ago. And so now we're at the 11th hour. I'm being told that if we don't do this, then the council staff can't do their job. Well, I don't—. I want to know specifically what things they can't do if we don't make these changes. Councilor Loretta Smith. Changes, because I know it's not 100% of this document. So without that delineation and with the choices that were made to make— you made decisions in this document, you made decisions, which is you're allowed to, but you're also going to feel the weight of making decisions without the people that need to vote on those, and us feeling frustrated like we don't have enough visibility, we're being told at the last minute to do this, and there's this clock that we're running against. I understand that people feel that we want to get something done ahead of the next, you know, council president election. That I agree. But this wasn't the way to do it because what you've proposed is something that makes a lot of assumptions that I have not seen your reasoning for why you believe these things are consensus or your reasoning for what things need to happen because logistics. I don't know that. And so I, you know, I— of course I want to support Dunphy 2. Of course I want to put that back because ultimately, I was hoping that what we were going to receive was status quo on things we don't agree on and make time for that. And we need to make time for this. This is really frustrating. Like, I, I have been— I wasn't on the Governance Committee, and I had to go out of my way to try to make time to weigh in on that. I've spent this whole year in Committee of the Whole hoping that that's what we were going to be doing, and that hasn't happened. And regardless, I don't— it's not about pointing fingers about what I'm reflecting, I'm reacting to what's happening right now and my discomfort with moving something forward that has a lot of assumptions about positions that I don't see documentation for. And I feel that we need to put— and also this like, oh, the only thing that's controversial is the 4-person discharge. Disagree. I think there's a lot of other things in here that are controversial that need to be discussed. So again, what do you mean there everything else has consensus? Councilor Loretta Smith, So I'm frustrated too. Like, I don't— I guess I don't understand. If we pass Dunphy 2, then what, right? Because then that, to me, that's just going to muddy it up more because now we've put one arbitrary thing and then are we going to be asked to approve the rest of it when again it has controversial things? So I'm feeling stuck in process right now. I wish that we would have tabled it. I know that that wasn't ideal. I know that there's uncertainty in tabling it and having to again lean on our leaders to make the decisions to prioritize this in our agenda, but it's October 28th. So I would love to have gotten this done before January, but also we just need to get it done right. I don't care about the time. And so I— this is not the time. I don't support this. I'm going to vote for this amendment if I have to, because apparently I have to. But after that, somebody needs to move immediately to move this to another day. Thank you. Uh, this is unconscionable to me.
[02:53:51] Michael Rosen: Thanks.
[02:53:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Uh, Councilor Kanal.
[02:53:57] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. I, like Councilor Green, I was not originally in the queue on this. I do have thoughts on it. I am very supportive of one— any of the 5 amendments that change the discharge. I think 4 of them are designed to try to restore it to the primary initial use, which is to, to be a balance to the makeup of committees. So that if a committee is stacked, I'm thinking, for example, Councilor Smith put up a resolution earlier this year to try and have a study done on 400, the cost of 400 new police officers. Imagine a council president some years in the future who puts 5 people on the Public Safety Committee that don't want that. Shouldn't she have a right to have her thing be heard and ultimately voted on in the full council? That was the original purpose of it. That's why I was It was important to me to clarify earlier, this reverts to the status quo, which allows for that. I don't think it's the best possible outcome, but I think it's a dramatic improvement on what's in the current underlying. And I'm really grateful to Council President Dunphy for putting it forward and intend to support it. Because I may not have the chance to speak before the next motion after this about what to do with this document, I will state definitively that it will be the second if it were to be referred to Committee of the Whole, which I'm not advocating for because my agenda is is packed, but I would commit to putting it as a second item on the November 5th agenda if that were to happen. I don't know that I'd vote for that motion, but if that's what happens, I would— that's where I would put it.
[02:55:19] Unidentified speaker: Say it again.
[02:55:20] Sameer Kanal: Say that one more time. If hypothetically this ordinance was referred to the Committee of the Whole, it would be the second item on the agenda on November 5th. I'm not committing to voting for the motion to refer it to the Committee of the Whole, because our agenda in general for the year is kind of tight. But I can commit to that, and I wanted to be on the record for it because I may not have a chance to speak on it before— after this vote, but before that motion.
[02:55:49] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:55:52] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. I share a lot of the concern about the constructed timeline squeeze that Councilor Avalos is sharing. So I, I, I feel no sense of timeline or sense of pressure for a timeline. Um, so that's not going to be a motivator for me to pass anything. I would encourage all of you who voted to table this item to continue to vote against all amendments today, because the winnowing away of things just to make the underlying somewhat better is, is not going to be effective. And I think actually at this point, the councilors who put this forward. I think that you brought it forward with a great sense of that there was consensus, and I think it's been squandered at this point. So I think there is a role for the Committee of the Whole here after a very deep work session. And I say that because of, of 2 reasons. I care a lot about the philosophy of governing that comes behind each of these measures, right? The role of council, the role of president, the role of a committee chair, The role of the fact that the clerk works for a different branch of government, those are types of things that I think are— I want to hear people's thoughts on that. And to Councilor Kanal, I think that the CAW is a little difficult for that, which is why I say work session first. But what would be great, I think, is once a work session has really heartily happened and folks know where some things are at, I think you take 30 amendments probably down to 3 or 4. And then, then the cow— let's have a spirited debate about amendments so that when it comes to council— and I know it's a matter of changing the lights and the hats and whatever, we're all sitting around the same damn table, I get it— but there's a spirit to it that I want to hear from people. That's why I still value so much those conversations we were having across the street in December of '24. Because we were talking about the roles, because we were quite literally going from a blank document, and we didn't agree, but it, it, it mattered in terms of what does this look like, and that gave us a framework. So if there's consensus today, I don't see it. I'm not going to vote for anything, even the things I agree with today, because I have no interest in passing little bits to make the underlying a little bit more palatable, because I don't see this, and I'm not getting the spirit of, the philosophy for, and how it all fits together. So you can count me as a no on anything that comes forward today because I've laid out the process I would like to see, and that's what I'll be supportive of.
[02:58:24] Isaac McLennan: Thank you.
[02:58:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Murillo will be the last on the debate of Dunphy 2. We'll move to a vote. Uh, colleagues, I'll preview that I'm going to continue this item to a future council meeting, and I will be scheduling a work session immediately after this We'll get it on the calendar as quickly as possible. Councilor Morillo.
[02:58:41] Angelita Morillo: I'm going to be honest, I don't understand what the difference is between sending it to a committee or going to a work session or just having the debate here and then voting on things. It seems like we're doing the same thing, uh, except that you don't want the pressure of having to make a decision, and we're just going to keep kicking the can down the road eternally. Um, so I, I'm supportive of Dunphy too. I hope my colleagues will be, and I'm supportive of us voting. So thank you.
[02:59:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Mariah. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Dunphy 2?
[02:59:11] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Ryan—.
[02:59:12] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, sorry, moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Novick.
[02:59:17] Keelan McClymont: Oh yeah, okay, thank you. Um, Clark is absent. Green?
[02:59:24] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:59:25] Keelan McClymont: Um, Zimmerman? No.
[02:59:36] Isaac McLennan: Aye.
[02:59:39] Loretta Smith: No.
[02:59:43] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:59:47] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No.
[02:59:51] Keelan McClymont: Uh, absent. Aye.
[03:00:01] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[03:00:04] Raymond C. Lee: Aye.
[03:00:05] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[03:00:06] Keelan McClymont: The, uh, amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes.
[03:00:16] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, I'm going to continue this item to a future council agenda. As I promised, we will be scheduling a work session on this. This concludes our agenda for this afternoon. This meeting is— are we recessed or adjourned?
[03:00:31] Keelan McClymont: Recessed.
[03:00:31] Jamie Dunphy: This meeting is recessed until tomorrow, Thursday, October 29th, at 2 o'clock. Thank you very much.