This Year's Police Accountability Attempt
Can you get a good steak at a restaurant run by vegans? Plus Morillo is... herself.
It’s time again to take a swing at “police accountability” — something I champion but maintain realism about. Leftists continue to be the enemy of progress on this front by electing police abolitionists, radical communists/anarchists, and anti-police activists to try and build a better public safety system. It’s theoretically possible that can work, but wouldn’t it be easier to just hire people who actually want what’s on the label: accountability? Why continue to bring in actors who think of this as a layover on the way to “total abolition.”
See local BLM figure (and radical lunatic) Mac Smiff’s For I See No Other Way from the Portland Mercury’s BlackOut issue last month.
This childish view still pervades the halls of power in Portland, long after we began to wake from our very own Muenster Rebellion. It’s championed by half of the City Council, yet they still pretend at reform. I actually want reform, because I’m a dirty “Center-Right” liberal,1 so let’s take a look at this police-board-thing and see if we’re gonna get it.
What is it?
The Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA) is part of the Office of Community-based Police Accountability, which should not be confused with the Police Accountability Commission (PAC), the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP) or the Community Oversight Advisory Board (COAB).
Do you feel like there’s enough community involvement? Does it feel accountable yet? Should I repeat both of those words until you feel better about police existing? Should we create another board or run more studies?
There are two main origin stories to all of these things, as Councilor Sameer Kanal will tell you anytime he opens his mouth. I have to imagine taking his order at a food cart is taxing.
Path A: The Settlement Agreement
From 2012-2014 the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) and the US Attorney's Office, along with the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform (AMA Coalition) and the Portland Police Association (PPA) hashed out a settlement on reform around police interactions with “individuals with actual or perceived mental illness.”2
From that we got COAB and when COAB didn’t work we got PCCEP, which still doesn’t do… anything I can think of. They have Zoom meetings.
PCCEP is a group of 13 community members who are independent from the City and the Portland Police Bureau (PPB). Our work includes independent assessment of the implementation of the DOJ Settlement Agreement and gathering input and exchanging information about PPB policies and practices.
I asked around but I can’t get someone to give me a satisfying answer to the question “does this even work?” Portland Dissent has published a few articles on COAB/PCCEP over the years. Honestly, I’ve tried to watch the PCCEP meetings and I still can’t make heads or tails of it. This group just seems to exist.
None of it really matters because the Trump Administration is likely to cancel the settlement at any time, rendering the whole thing moot. That’s something I’m actually for because of this next bit.
Path B: The Voters and the Charter
In 2020, the year Portlanders lost their collective minds, voters approved the addition of a Community Police Oversight Board to our Charter.3 One should be wary of anything that gets approved by 81.58% of voters, but here we are. We had many ideas in 2020. We’re still separating good from terrible.
The CPBA is a part of our government. That old settlement is likely to die, but an accountability board will live on. PCCEP isn’t really needed any longer, probably adds complexity, and gives Councilors Kanal and Angelita Morillo something else to talk about — which is always bad.
A lot of the CPBA was cooked up by the PAC - which is where Kanal rose to prominence along with several familiar names and faces. Here’s a short list of some important graduates:
Dan Handelman - formerly of Portland Copwatch and recently deceased.
Seemab Hussaini - bigot who founded CAIR Oregon and is one of the more prominent entry points for politically violent, pro-terror, antisemitism into Portland’s lefty orgs.
Charlie Michelle-Westley - Portland Copwatch, Antifa. Charlie is a kooky native activist who has come up twice before.4 She was a close friend of Handelman’s and a finalist applicant to the CBPA.
Angie Tomlinson - ended up on the CBPA nominating committee representing District 3.
Tim Pitts - another finalist applicant to the CBPA.
Over the last few weeks, the Portland City Council has been moving to get CPBA positions filled. They need 21 board appointments with 6 alternates.
The Funnel
Here’s the quick flow of how applicants made it to council for approval.
From the website:
The nominating committee will consist of:
Two Community representatives from the Citizen Review Council CRC - Yume Delegato and Nate Holton
One community member from District 1 - Timur Ender
One community member from District 2 - Former Senator Margaret Carter
One community member from District 3 - Angie Tomlinson
One community member from District 4 - Kari Chisholm
One representative from the City’s Office of Equity and Human Rights Bureau - Judith Mowry
One representative designated by the Chief of Police - Capt. Derrick Foxworth
One representative from Portland Police Association (PPA) - Lt. Aaron Schmautz
One representative from Portland Police Commanding Officers Association (PPCOA) - Lt. Casey Hettman
The nominating committee will score all applications on criteria decided before they have access to applications. Applications will have personally identifiable information redacted whenever possible before being distributed to the nominating committee.
The nominating committee will meet to discuss the applicants after they’ve completed their individual scores and will recommend high scoring applicants to Portland City Council. City Council will make the final determination on 21 members and 6 alternates for the CBPA.
121 applications were submitted → 118 met eligibility requirements → 77 received a passing score during the “scoring phase” → 43 received a majority vote from the committee but 1 dropped out → 40 passed the conflict of interest check → City Council needed to choose 27 finalists (21 members/6 alternates) from the remaining candidates.
The nominating committee did not have the list of names, only the applications and essay answers. Worth noting that in the yes/no portion of the nominating process, some committee members abstained because they believed they had identified the applicant from their answers.
Day One - Discussion
Portland City Council needed to look at the remaining 40 candidates and winnow them down to 27.
Councilor Dan Ryan opened up with a question about the limitations of this system: candidates answered only 4 essay questions. The nominating committee didn’t have their names and could really only go off the 4 questions. City Council had the names and Googled them, plus they knew a lot of these candidates already.
That’s the trick to all of this equity business. These 40 people are known individuals. I know several of them personally. I’ve written about some of the others. Lofty ideals of representation aside, this was always going to be political.
The City Council had already picked their top choices, resulting in a list of the 15 highest ranked candidates. Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney asked council to operate under the assumption that those 15 would move forward, absent any strong individual objections. Essentially EPG was asking Council to pick 6 more candidates, and 6 alternates.
With that framework in place, the politicking began.
Councilor Steve Novick moved for a quick and crude solution of simply combining the committee and council rankings and taking the top 27. Others didn’t like it. So much for speed and simplicity. Councilor Eric Zimmerman did like it, cameras didn’t capture who opposed this plan but I think we can guess…
Councilor Jamie Dunphy raised a stink about allowing candidates for this board who were also previous City Council candidates.
Looking at the top eight next candidates in there, I just wanna voice that I have some concerns about this body becoming politicized, and I note that two of the folks in the top eight were past city council candidates and may very well be them again.
So I have some concern about advancing anybody who was also already a candidate just for, especially in this inaugural body, because I think that we really need to make sure that this is not a politicized body.
Kudos to Councilors Loretta Smith and Eric Zimmerman for repeatedly pointed out how ridiculous this was. Councilor Candace Avalos (the wind beneath Dunphy’s wings) was involved in the charter reform. Dunphy had no issue. This Council previously voted to give money to a group Dunphy’s wife works for. Dunphy had no issue. One of the candidates in this nomination process was the former chief of staff for the infamous Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, the architect of this mousetrap. Dunphy had no issue. Timur Ender — who Avalos, Dunphy, and Smith picked for the nominated board was also a previous council candidate. Dunphy had no issue.
Dunphy was trying to take the quickest road to blocking candidate Terrence Hayes, without naming him, likely because he didn’t enjoy being shown up in council during the previous week. Dunphy has a fragile ego, but that’s nothing compared to his boss Candace Avalos, as we shall see.
Loretta Smith pointed out the overwhelming majority of the top 15 candidates came from Districts 2 and 3, with less than a handful coming out of Districts 1 and 4 combined. The Central East Side dominance of Portland politics rears its ugly head again. Things balanced out a bit more in the end, but the largest group of the proposed members was still from D2 (9/21) against D1 (3/21), D3 (3/21), D4 (5/21) and Vancouver (1/21)
Dan Ryan suggested eliminating candidates who got 4 “no” votes from the nominating committee — essentially the most controversial of those who made it through the process. Ryan asked about the process of those no votes and was told by Timur Ender that it was a totally confidential process and:
Each person voted with their heart around who they wanted to move forward or not. And so I think it's most appropriate for me to say that those votes that you see on your paper stand for themselves.
Pay attention to that. Confidential process. No justification necessary.
Avalos came back in to the fray after considering her words carefully.
Picking up a little bit on Counselor Dunphy's note, the biggest problem that I have with the folks who were former candidates is less about them being a former candidate and more that their, uh…
They have a more public record of their opinions about police, and in particular, those two candidates5 are over and over on the public record, not just as candidates before the election, but up till now have a very obvious bias in favor of the police. One of those candidates literally put together a whole press conference in support of police.
And to me that would be, that's a disqualifier if you are very vocally for or against that. That just seems that's the way I'm judging that decision. I will not be voting or moving anyone forward that has that very obvious public record that seems to me like that would really jeopardize how others would view the people that we selected.
If we place people on the committee who, you know, as candidates were endorsed by the police. This is a police accountability board. And I mean, I'm sorry, I'm, as somebody who has worked in police accountability work, I'd have a really hard time moving someone forward on a board that is supposed to hold the police accountable if they are very favorable to the police union.
That to me seems like a very obvious bias that is part of this process that we're trying to avoid. So, I just wanted to state my feelings about the candidate and the bias and, and that's kind of how I'm landing on that and I'll leave it at that for now.
First off, the “whole press conference in support of police” was, again, a press conference against the false and divisive narratives pitting Parks against Police and Portlanders against each other. Terrence’s statements from last week calling her and Dunphy out were also centered on the false narratives being promoted by those two councilors, along with Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, and Green — aka the “Progressive Caucus.”
Councilor Loretta Smith chimed in:
Madam President. I do disagree with my colleague Counselor Avalos because we're not supposed to get an entire board that's anti-police. We're supposed to get a board that can look at both sides and try to come up with an even solution. If that was the case, then we should have just…
[long pause]
I won't say that. But anyway I disagree and I think it's wrong.
And there are some clear divisions on this council on who they support and who they don't support. So I don't think that our biases should be showing through on how we perceive the police or perceive the police in the community.
Loretta, I wish you had said it. We all need to say true things, as often as possible. “Abolish the Police” is what these kids are building to, inch by inch. The adults in the room know that you cannot get police accountability while also trying to abolish them.
Kanal surprised me by putting Corinne Frechette on his list. I like Corinne and think she’d do a great job. I wouldn’t guess she agrees with Kanal on much.
Morillo continued to be a petty divisive little goblin. All the typical 2020 era nonsense about “the status quo” and painting anyone who disagrees with her as conservative and obstructing the progress “the voters” are clamoring for. She tried to join Dunphy’s team-no-candidates while defending her choice to promote fellow Jo Ann Hardesty acolyte Karly Edwards6. Smith and Zimmerman blasted her for that because it didn’t make sense. Ender and Edwards are fine because they are friendly with the DSA but Hayes and Weinstein are problematic because they’re mainstream liberals? (aka center-right to Morillo).
Morillo saved face by advocating for two immigrants of color who received decent scores but were outside the top 15.
Candace Avalos couldn’t sit by and allow Loretta Smith to cast aspersions, fair or not.
I want to state, for the record, I never said that it would be, we're gonna be putting a bunch of anti-police people on the board, so I really resent that comment and don't appreciate my character being put into question.
So I wanna make that very clear. I also wanna say that I think, you know, as somebody who was on the Citizen Review committee and then became a candidate, I put myself in that same category. If I was looking at my application right here, I would be putting myself in the same category of probably not the best person. She just ran for office.
She has publicly stated opinions about police that are one way or the other. And that would be a bias that I would be holding myself to that same standard. So I don't agree with the assertion that I am trying to put people on this board that are for one side over the other. I am trying to remove people from this board who are very actively vocal in the community about one particular side because then that, to me, feels like it will de-legitimize the perceived neutrality of this board if we put a bunch of people on it who have been very vocal for a particular side. So I just wanted to clarify that.
Candace, I call bullshit. You didn’t speak up about Charlie Michelle-Westley because you like her, but she’s as anti-cop as you’re likely to find. You also didn’t speak out against Karly Edwards and you wouldn’t have spoken up about Jo Ann Hardesty… but I’m getting ahead of myself. Patience.
Enter Dan Fucking Ryan:
You know, we've been in some heated conversations lately about funding 'cause it's budget season. And in my opinion, we had a false narrative put in front of us between parks and police. And because someone has spoken to favor police funding during this budget cycle does not mean that they are pro-police all the time.
It doesn't mean that they don't believe in accountability. It doesn't mean that, like me, they probably are noticing that the current chief is really leading a culture towards a community policing that we haven't seen before. So I think we have to be careful not to take the heat of the current dialogue we're having about that and impose it on this...
Since we're talking about a certain person in particular and his name has been brought up, I'll just say that, you know, Terrence Hayes has lost a family member in a police involved use of force. He was incarcerated. He chose to take those incidents and learn to build a better community.
He has never said he doesn't want police to be accountable. He just said he wants police to be part of the solution to make his community safer. So I just hope that we stop politicizing this so much that we can't look at the individual character and what they bring to the table to bring that elegant balance that's needed in this body.
Just wanted to make those points and I'm still crystal clear that if someone got a no vote, four of them and [the committee] didn't even know their names, that says something. And so I think I am still clear that they should be removed from this body.
Zimmerman:
I think the irony or the hypocrisy is a little thick right now in terms of sitting or not sitting on a board and whether or not a person runs or doesn't. Right? There were people on this body who came up with a charter review to then become candidates. There are people in this body who've sat on different committees and assignments over the years.
I've sat on one of the many police boards at a time or another, so I just think that while this is a political decision it would be great that their decision making not be political. I do think that sometimes their selection is political and they've got a duty and I don't know that they'll take an oath, but I think they'll take a commitment to fair application of the law.
I definitely am not going to support any people on this list who received four no votes from the nominating committee. There are two that are in that top 15. And in the world of bias or not-bias, I think one of them is a former chief of staff to the sponsor of this. And reading that Commissioner Hardesty proposed measure, I think it's 26 2 17, which is what established this… her chief of staff received no four no votes.
And in the materials, that person is also, I mean, I only know there were chief of staff because of the materials but we're not raising a concern there. And I feel like if we're gonna raise concerns, let's actually do it. But let's not just raise concerns that you have to be, you can't have ever said that you're pro-police or you can't have ever said that something good about the police.
I don't know that that's the world we live in. I think it's okay to say it, but if we're gonna go down that path, we've got some folks on both sides and let's be honest about it. But that actually is not the reason that I am not gonna be supporting that person. It's because four members of a body, without knowing even their name, said this is not the person.
So those, those two that are in the list with four no votes from the nominating committee are my concern.
Smith:
And I can tell you there were very few people on that charter review committee that were older with experience like Bob Weinstein.
And I think his voice is important, and those voices are important because they didn't have… we had a bunch of young folks who just wanted to throw away all the older people. That's just my opinion. That's the way it looked and that's the way it turned out.
Olivia Clark also tried to push things in the direction of eliminating the “four no vote” candidates. It was a total of 3 candidates, all apparently supported by the DSA crowd: Karly Edwards, Tim Pitts, and Erica Sommerfield. Pitts was an old buddy of Kanal’s from the PAC.
Half-time Check-in
Avalos and Dunphy want to remove Terrence Hayes. DSA seems questionably supportive. Ryan, Clark, and Zimmerman want to remove the 3 candidates with four “no” votes. DSA is resistant. EPG is neutral. Novick wants to stop yapping so much. Smith wants to keep Terrence and get more D1 voices.
Kanal brings up representation and ethnicity. Here’s the problem: we don’t know the ethnicity of all the applicants — for legal reasons.
A reminder of what Timur Ender said earlier about the voting being anonymous. Here’s Kanal, again speaking about the four “no” vote candidates:
I wanna note that there are three members, and if you look at the actual graph, not just that line on the right, and you see the grouping of votes that collectively... the pattern that emerges in the people who had four no votes.
I will note that there were three people who were representatives of the Police Bureau. The Police Rank and File Union and the Police Lieutenants Union on there. So to see that two of the people on here — one is someone who's associated with a former commissioner that's tied to this work. The other is a member of the police accountability commission...
...I think it's fairly clear here that some of the folks who had particular backgrounds in working in this space had a block of no votes. I don't know who they are, but that happened, and you can look at the columns of red and green on the folks that had four.
The idea that if one has stood in favor of police accountability one needs six out of seven votes, whereas if one has not, one needs six out of 10 votes is a problematic statement, but that's how it has gone.
Kanal is making the argument that the police bloc’ed up and voted no on Hardesty’s old chief of staff and another former accountability advocate. He asserts this because the same 3 people voted no on each of the 3 candidates, whose names they did not know. The applicants were anonymous, and the voting was anonymous, but Kanal asserted that he can identify at least three of the anonymous committee members by their voting pattern.
Kanal then claims that Zimmerman has changed positions since February 25th. That’s when Kanal tried to propose changes to the bias language in the police agreement. He did this to try and open up a road for people like Charlie Michelle-Westley to make it on to this board, but I covered all of this back then. You should go read it. I really am astoundingly observant. You are welcome.
Zimmerman’s claim at the time was that the bias definition was good as-is and that allowing for an even greater amount of bias would be... less good.
Here’s Kanal:
And I want to commend you because in February when I raised this issue at the Community and Public Safety Committee, you didn't have that view. And I commend you for listening on it because this is the exact point I was raising in the resolution…
…that we need people that are not evaluated based off of whatever they may have said about the police but we need them to be evaluated on: can they look at the facts of a case and make a decision based on it. And I agree with Councillor Zimmerman that I think people we appoint to this will honor their duty if we are able to evaluate people that are able and have shown through the limited information we have that they're able to be fair and just, and that's the criteria I'm applying to.
So Kanal lost his fight in February. Zimmerman won. Now, suddenly, Kanal was right the whole time and Zimmerman has come around to the light? Come on.
Morillo and The Little Lie
I worked with Karly Edwards, she was the chief of staff when I worked in Commissioner Hardy's office.
I'm sure that everyone remembers what happened to Commissioner Hardesty when she was in office — the fact that she got, you know, framed by the Portland Police Union for a hit-and-run that never happened; a story that went national that had broad impacts. So this idea that there are, we don't know who the no votes were or what happened, but I think that she's perfectly capable of holding that nuance, given a lot of the difficult things that our boss and our staff experienced at that time.
This is the version of events that Morillo tells, every time she has the opportunity. The problem is it’s not exactly true. Jo Ann Hardesty was wrongly identified (in a 9-1-1 call) as the perpetrator of a hit-and-run that did happen. The Police Union President at the time apparently leaked that info to the press. I assume there was a reckless giddiness to get one over on Jo Ann Hardesty, outspoken enemy of the police. It was reckless, unprofessional, and he lost his position for it. The city and union settled with Hardesty for $680,000. These details matter. There were consequence for these actions. Hardesty profited greatly from her time with the NAACP, Portland City Council, and through this lawsuit. Portlanders paid dearly for the Hardesty era. We’re still paying for it. Two of her former staffers prowl City Hall as its most prolific bullies, and now a third is jockeying for a spot on the police accountability board.
Morillo likes to cast Hardesty as a martyred saint — Portland’s Great Hope struck down in her prime. In reality she is a very flawed woman who was bad at her job, so she lost it. Someday we will visit Hardesty with the full weight that she deserves. The adults in the room know this city is well rid of her, but it is impolitic to say out loud.
Allow me to say it. Portland before Jo Ann Hardesty was a better Portland. The further we get from her, the better off we will be. Keeping her cronies around City Hall is a terrible idea.
Day One Winners and Losers
Team Rational Adult:
Loretta Smith, Elana Pirtle-Guiney, Dan Ryan, Steve Novick, Olivia Clark, Mitch Green, Eric Zimmerman
Team Childish Axe-to-Grind:
Sameer Kanal, Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo
This was one of those times when Green proved he can be an adult and get things done. I don’t trust or like him, but he wasn’t nakedly politicking and trying to sabotage people for personal vendettas. Avalos and Morillo were, once again, showing off as the mean girls in the room. Petty, narcissistic, and immature.
Day Two - List & Vote
Several of the applicants showed up to make their case in person. Terrence Hayes and Kyle Ashby stood out as particularly strong candidates. Charlie Michelle-Westley stood out as someone who really should not be on this board. Charlie is the legacy of Portland Copwatch. The DSA and Avalos respect her, for some reason. She is garden-variety radical just trying to free us from colonialism:
I have committed myself to uprooting policing as we have experienced it. No longer allow justification for no accountability as police act as judge, jury, and executioner and in its stead provide anti-racism, bring a healing solution in all its forms of policing to truly serve and protect the people not the Blue Line and hold any public servant accountable and address the racial construct that was invented to oppress with violence and control with unjust policies…
How did no one flag this? She’s been doing this song and dance for years. If Terrence and Bob Weinstein are compromised by their belief that police should exist, how is Charlie on this board?
A Saint Descends
Blessed Mother Jo Ann Hardesty graced the council, via Zoom, with her camera turned off. Now that she resides in the heavens it is possible that the human eye could no longer endure her angelic light. Perhaps she was taking pity on us mere mortals. What words of wisdom did she impart?
She complained about not being chosen for the board! That’s right. She applied and didn’t make it out of the first round.
I was given two reasons why I was not selected. One was because I had sued the City of Portland, which in fact the application said would not be a factor. The second reason was because I didn’t answer a particular question appropriately.
Remember that claim for later. She was wronged by Portland again!
She asked for the final 30 seconds of her time be given as a moment of silence for Dan Handelman.
Portland Copwatch showed up to bitch about Terrence. The DSA showed up to ask council to delay the process for even more public comment. Then Portland Copwatch showed up again in the form of our friend Matt LeVine.
He was just tickled that the Council chose Charlie Michelle Westley but crushed that Saint Jo Ann was blocked from this process by racist, settler-colonialist forces.
The List
EPG presented her list to the council, based on the previous day’s discussion. Zimmerman discussed bias with city employees and then Loretta Smith landed an Insane Elbow off the top rope onto Jo Ann Hardesty’s reputation.
Here she goes. Following up on Hardesty’s claim of being disqualified over the lawsuit… was false. I have been pissed off at Smith lately but I’m very glad she did this. Get it on the record!
Then the council voted.
Kanal delivered an enormous speech... and Smith hit him with a fucking suplex.
Here she goes again. Absolute monster. 🤣 I don’t know what was in Loretta Smith’s coffee but it was fantastic television.
Dan Ryan followed that up with a solid dissent. Morillo praised St. Jo Ann again and heaped credit onto her. This is Hardesty’s legacy. So is PSR. So is the air you breathe. Be grateful.
Avalos said she’s getting sick of Kanal getting chastised for taking up too much space.7 Such a tiresome child.
Votes: ✅ Passed 11/1 → Aye: Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Pirtle-Guiney → Nay: Ryan
The final list can be found here. Now the candidates are off to background and bias checks and then training. If someone is flagged in the process it will come back to the council.
One last little bit of ugliness:
Smith and Zimmerman Drop the Ball
At the Community and Public Safety Committee this week, Angelita Morillo was an unusually large pile of shit.
Public Safety Committee is my least favorite part of this job. It’s where dreams, hope, and beauty go to die. Co-chaired by Kanal and Novick, who are entirely incapable of reigning Morillo in, the meeting is usually a march of DSA losers yelling about police, PSR, and NIMBYs.
This whole meeting was a disaster with Morillo bullying Novick for 2 hours, but there was a small piece of business to attend to: PCCEP appointments. You remember PCCEP from the beginning of this piece? Mayor Keith Wilson put forward appointments for Gabrielle Poccia and Deian Salazar. I’ve mentioned Deian a few times. He ran for City Council (I didn’t endorse him) and David Douglas School Board (I did). I know him, like him, and this is exactly the sort of thing he’d be great on. The guy shows up and if he wants to spend his precious life on nightmare Zoom calls I say let him!
The agenda item starts here (9min 46sec). The process is explained, candidates give their speeches. They both seem great. This is routine… blah blah blah. But hold on, I forgot something.
Loretta Smith and Eric Zimmerman were absent. The committee was only Kanal, Novick, and Morillo. That means the only way an appointment can move forward is with a unanimous vote. (3 votes would equal a majority). These are fluffy little mayoral appointments that have no weight. Surely Angelita wouldn’t throw a fit, smear someone’s name, and insult them in a public hearing for no reason...
Reader, you know where this is going. Both appointees were going to be but forward together, but Morillo asked to split the vote. Then, at 24 min on the dot, Morillo votes no on Deian Salazar.
I appreciate all the work people have put into getting this committee together…
Unfortunately I have met Deian outside of these spaces and I have known and seen him to perpetuate misinformation for political gain, ignore the voices of people with lived experience, and given that pattern I don’t think that he would be a good person to have on this committee, given the delicate nature of the work that is ahead. So I vote no.
None of the things she said are true. This is not a matter of opinion. That was defamation of character, now part of the public record. She is lying.
Deian is to the left of me, politically. He’s a squishy progressive with stars in his eyes. I really like the dude but he is another one of the orphaned Portland Progressives. You could sit him on a tragic parade float next to EPG and Dan Ryan. The guy is an advocate for the foster system, autism, public schools, gun violence prevention, anti-racism, nonprofits. I could go on. He is the “Portlander” conservatives mock online. When you insult Deian Salazar, to me, you are mocking an avatar of this silly little city.
The guy never shuts up. He’s socially awkward and sometimes a bit annoying. (this coming from the absolute pot toward a kettle).
He also has ten times the heart that a weak, hateful little shit like Angelita Morillo could ever hope to pretend at. Fuck her for this. It was embarrassing.
Deian didn’t get on to the PCCEP because Smith and Zimmerman weren’t there to vote. It was 2-1, which isn’t a majority. Morillo was allowed to carry out exactly what she accused Deian of: “perpetuating misinformation for political gain, ignoring the voices of people with lived experience.”
She probably rode the bus for 8 minutes to get home, cuddled her Zohran Mamdani “hug” pillow, lit her Luigi Mangione prayer candle, and thought about what a good ally she is.
2026 is coming Angelita. Are you ready?
Fuck you Angelita.
Terrence Hayes and Bob Weinstein
Hardesty’s former Chief of Staff. Morillo and her current Chief of Staff Andre Miller both worked for Hardesty as well.
Sometimes I really love life: Portland councilors are complaining about their long-winded colleagues. Here’s who talks the most (and least) - Oregonian
That last paragraph about Angelita was hilarious, lol. Why doesn't Jo Ann Hardesty have the good sense to go away?
You are a treasure. Thank you for keeping it real. Your detailed reporting combined with your stinging observations are hilarious-- and terrifying.