March 31, 2005
Decision On JTTF Oversight Postponed Three Weeks
Mayor Requests, And Gets, Time To Negotiate
After last evening's four-hour marathon City Council hearing on the JTTF oversight resolution introduced by Mayor Tom Potter and Commissioner Randy Leonard, we ran around complaining to Council members and observers alike that we had thought we were going to be able to stop writing about this subject for awhile.
For better or for worse, Potter and Commissioners Dan Saltzman and Erik Sten voted to delay action for three weeks, outnumbering Leonard and Commissioner Sam Adams who were ready to approve the resolution. All of which means we're not quite done with this sucker just yet.
However, it's been an agonizingly long day, and today begins extraordinarily early for us, so we ourselves are voting to postpone any in-depth coverage of last night's hearing until sometime later.
In the meantime, there's some early AP coverage of the non-decision decision, a wrap-up from KGW as well, and Indymedia coverage here, here, and here.
But, of course, we do want to make a couple of early remarks before putting this one (and ourselves) to bed for the night.
Our feelings are mixed about the end result of the hearing, although on the meta level there's something at least vaguely refreshing about seeing a process unfold in Council Chambers during a public hearing rather than the matter being a done-deal from the moment the Mayor gavels a session to order.
In general, we side with Leonard and Adams, who seemed to agree that the bargaining position of the City would be enhanced with the resolution in place. Part of the proposed resolution inclides a 90-day window before current task forces in which the City participates would have to come into compliance with the resolution's criteria.
That would have provided ample time for conversations to continue with Federal authorities on potential alternative approaches which would yield the same oversight intent, but would also have made it starkly clear that the City was serious about proper oversight. If a new and better agreement was reached within that 90 day period, the Council could have simply repealed the original resolution and instituted that new policy in its place.
In the past, the FBI has budged on oversight issues only when forced to do so by a clear and concerted push by the City and the community. Movement towards proper oversight and access has only ever come grugdingly, and we agree that the best course of action would have been for the Council to have adopted the resolution and started the 90-day clock.
That said, a new and entirely unexpected wrinkle was added to the prospect of the negotiations intended to take place over the next three weeks. At the conclusion of the hearing, Potter announced that the ACLU of Oregon would be invited to participate in those negotiations.
It is that revelation that creates our mixed feelings about last night's outcome. While we do believe the City's position would have been enhanced with the resolution in place, and its 90-day clock underway, the presence of an independent monitor and defender of civil liberties being in the room and at the table is not to be underestimated.
At the very least, we can't see the ACLU of Oregon remaining silent on the matter if they come to believe that the negotiations are heading seriously off-track.
Of the Council members we spoke to after the hearing, Leonard and Sten said they had not been told of the plan to include the ACLU prior to Potter's announcement, and Saltzman said it had been mentioned to him ahead of time.
But the kicker is Potter's other revelation, which came during conversations with the media after the hearing: The notion of including the ACLU of Oregon in the negotiations came not from Potter, but from U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut, who (recent press reports have indicated) has recently been working furiously to broker some kind of progress on the JTTF issue.
One last point to underscore the fact that we should not underestimate the potential effects of having the ACLU involved in the negotiations. Also revealed at the hearing by Andrea Meyer of the ACLU of Oregon (and currently also posted to the organization's website) was that they have received a preliminary response to the FOIA request they filed with the FBI on behalf of a number of local organizations.
"We have just been informed that while there are no records on a few of our clients, the FBI does have documents responsive to our request on at least 8 but possibly as many 10 of our clients," Meyer testified.
While she said it was premature to speculate about the contents of these files until they are received, Meyer did add this: "For a number of reasons, we believe it is highly likely that the contents would violate Oregon law if they had been collected or were being maintained by an Oregon police agency."
Given the timing of this preliminary response, we gather it might be safe to predict that having the ACLU of Oregon at the negotiating table with the City of Portland and the Federal government likely will be a rather interesting experience for those involved.
Comments (15)
The One True b!X on 31 Mar 2005
On final note. KPAM managed to get the quote of the night out of Commissioner Leonard after the hearing. Asked about Robert Jordan, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI here in Portland, Leonard said simply: "He needs to just shut up."
Jack Peek on 31 Mar 2005
Guess there will be a bit more "talk", but if I had to bet...I'D bet on the FBI over the ACLU to stop the next terror attack.
And the "qoute" of the night...Wow, Randy, why don't you take off your council hat, invite him to three one minute rounds ..all the money going to charity, the whole town would turn out to see you getting your A-- kicked.. a PDX fireman told me you could cook......that was about all you could do.
Dave J. on 31 Mar 2005
Guess there will be a bit more "talk", but if I had to bet...I'D bet on the FBI over the ACLU to stop the next terror attack.
Right. Just like they stopped Brandon Mayfield. Remind me how that one turned out, again?
CW on 31 Mar 2005
Always nice to know that people believe in negotiation only after the fuse has been lit. Seeing as how USA Immergut seems to be the only person capable of picking up the phone and actully trying to get people to communicate, will she be included in the discussions between City Hall, the FBI and the ACLU during the next three weeks? This kind of closed-door showdown would be greatly improved by the presence of a mutually respected mediator (sorry, the ACLU doesn't fill that role).
The One True b!X on 31 Mar 2005
I would assume that since Immergut is the one who has been running around trying to make something happen that she will continue to play a rather central role.
It's not clear to me, FYI, whether your opening ("Always nice to know that people believe in negotiation only after the fuse has been lit.") is aimed at the City or the Feds. After all, the Feds have not exactly been in the dark about the City's intention to push for proper oversight, and never offered anything but scare tactics and absolute refusals... until the City threatened its resolution.
CW on 31 Mar 2005
Almost forgot . . . perfect choice of headware last night, b!X. Did it come with the authentic adjustable, 7-post plastic snap strap in the back?
The One True b!X on 31 Mar 2005
Regarding the hat, I am not at liberty to say.
CW on 31 Mar 2005
It's not clear to me, FYI, whether your opening ("Always nice to know that people believe in negotiation only after the fuse has been lit.") is aimed at the City or the Feds.
Actually it's aimed at both. Good oversight starts with good communication. Granted, sometimes it also involves the pulling of teeth (not literally . . . I hope). There just seems to have been a lot of unqualified assumptions made by all sides of this debate as to who knows what, who has or doesn't already have access to certain info and whether or not that is pertinent to crafting appropriate oversight policy. It strikes me that better coordination and communication from the outset would have answered most of those things and have been to everyone's advantage. It troubles me that such rudamentary steps were not taken before last night's circus. In any event, what's done is done and I hope that our troupe of city electeds and local Federal officials will be the wiser the next time around.
wg on 31 Mar 2005
that's rudimentary not rudamentary above. Also I wouldn't call it "last night's circus" the exercise was quite democratic in a dignified kind of way, you could feel in the room, especially at the final cliff hanger, can't recall anything similar. Read the AP coverage (link above). Surprisingly decent.
CW on 31 Mar 2005
Thanks for the correction on my spelling WG. I guess the old saying "a, e, o, u, un burro sabe mas que tu (or yo in this case)," holds true. As for the circus comment, it was meant more as an indicator of the entertainment value of last night's hearings. I like circuses. Really.
Also, I'm curious to know, WG, do you think that the communication between city officials and the FBI prior to last night was sufficient, or is there room for future improvement?
The One True b!X on 31 Mar 2005
I'm not WG, but I'm going to answer CW's question anyway, heh.
Here's the problem I have with arguing too heavily that there's some sort of equivalency between the City and the FBI when it comes to communications problems on this issue.
It's been known in a general sense since the December postponement of reauthorizing the JTTF MoU that oversight questions were going to be discussed again, and known in more specific regards not that long after that.
In response, the FBI didn't begin engaging in a conversation with the City as mutually-respected parties, but sent Robert Jodan out into the press to make melodramatic statements clearly intended to shut down any real conversation.
Specifically, the important cases in point are two. First, his "hypothetical" given to the Tribune in which he described a situation in which they'd need the Portland officers, but which anyone familiar with ORS 181.850 knows those officers would have been barred from participating in. And second, his remark about "jihadists" which demonstrated that he is either a liar or rather dumb -- since if there are jihadists, he inherently alerted them to the FBI's awareness of them, thereby giving them the opportunity to hide better (in which case he's dumb), or if there aren't jihadists, he was simply trying to scam everyone in order to shut down the discussion (in which case he's a liar).
Were I the City of Portland, I would not have viewed any of that as an invitation to a serious and legitimate discussion amongst equally-respected partners.
wg on 31 Mar 2005
more or less that's how I feel about it too.
----
Re: local ACLU tangent, I've seem them a few times, they are nice, real nice people, too nice I think for this job. I hope they can get a much tougher negotiator from their national headquarters to assist them here. Please Mr. Fidanque. This is what this job will take. Stakes are high, this could be national first, like Death with Dignity. Just imagine.
The One True b!X on 31 Mar 2005
My only real experience interacting with the ACLU of Oregon folks is Andrea Meyer -- mainly her looking at me like I just shat on her dog when I go up to ask her a question about something.
Jack Peek on 31 Mar 2005
Asked about Robert Jordan, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI here in Portland, Leonard said simply: "He needs to just shut up."
And I'm rude??? This "dude" must have done a lot of time in detention in the 5th grade!
wg on 01 Apr 2005
so, you shat on her dog or not?
---
another possibility - you look like a undercover type which would get you in trouble with them - they are kind of sensitive there.
---
try Fidanque next time.
---
real harsh piece in the Oregonian today, don't know how they expect to cool things down with that obnoxious tone of theirs. They just ratcheted this thing up quite a bit. Hall people will not take it easy. More fireworks sure to come. Sad.
---
their characterization of the public at that hearing is particularly unacceptable for a civic institution of their position in the city.
---
they assigned some poor Brit to cover it for OPB, too hot for natives to handle it I quess. Kind of prudent if Sen. Grassley's characterization of Jordan as having mean retaliatory and vindicative streaks is to be trusted, see http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/gr022403.html. He says of him: ... Jordan has shown he is arrogant, a characteristic that is unacceptable for a person in his position. Given his powers (FBI) I would be scared too. Grassley also claims Jordan never learned anything from past abuses and thinks he's bound to repeat them. That's scary too if true.
---
On the other hand Tribune article is uncharacteristically thoughtful, they appears quietly supportive of Mayor now. Same with AP. I think they considered it originally hopeless, and only now see some little chance. Chickens little.
---