I wish I knew why the Police union has not sued to block this so-called "police accountability" board on the ground that it violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution because the board is structurally biased against police and includes members with actual bias against law enforcement.
Be that as it may, here are my takeways from Mr. Steele's astute and encyclopedic account of the latest developments in the left's efforts to perfect a kangaroo court for members of the PPB:
What’s Going On?
Portland City Council is implementing the Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA), a new, voter-mandated oversight board designed in the wake of 2020’s anti-police fervor.
Why It’s a Mess:
1. Politicization and Ideological Capture
The selection process is heavily politicized and skewed toward anti-police activists, many of them connected to the cop-hating Jo Ann Hardesty and the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
Applicants who are openly pro-police reform but not anti-police (e.g., Terrence Hayes) were nearly blocked by progressive councilors for being too friendly to law enforcement.
Councilor Candace Avalos explicitly argued that anyone who has publicly supported police should be disqualified.
2. Ideological Gatekeeping
Dissenting candidates, even with personal experience with police violence, were attacked for being insufficiently anti-police.
Radical activists like Charlie Michelle-Westley—who publicly calls for “uprooting policing as we have experienced it”—were advanced with no objection.
3. Identity Politics and Cronyism
Nominees were scored anonymously, but many committee members appear to have guessed identities based on essays, undermining the claim of neutrality.
Former Hardesty staffers and known DSA activists were ushered through.
The final board is geographically imbalanced and ideologically lopsided, with Districts 2 and 3 (progressive strongholds) overrepresented.
Key Players and Factions:
Team Pushing Ideology Over Balance:
Candace Avalos
Angelita Morillo
Sameer Kanal
Jamie Dunphy
Tiffany Koyama Lane
They seek a board hostile to police, rooted in 2020-era anti-racism ideology.
Adults in the Room (Trying for Balance):
Loretta Smith
Dan Ryan
Eric Zimmerman
Steve Novick (surprisingly)
Olivia Clark
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
They pushed back against blatant bias and tried to ensure diverse perspectives, including pro-accountability-but-not-abolition voices.
The Hardesty Legacy Still Haunts City Hall
Jo Ann Hardesty herself applied to be on the board and was rejected—then claimed discrimination.
Her former staffers (Morillo, Edwards, Miller) now wield power, attempting to install like-minded radicals and discredit mainstream liberals.
Bottom Line for Pro-Police Centrists:
The accountability board is not neutral.
It’s being shaped by activists with abolitionist sympathies, not people who value functional, accountable policing.
Public safety is being undermined by ideological litmus tests that exclude centrists, moderates, and anyone supportive of law enforcement.
Despite some councilors’ efforts, the final product will likely be biased, ineffective, and further alienate police from oversight mechanisms that could have been constructive.
Here is a focused breakdown of Angelita Morillo and Candace Avalos' contributions to the process:
Angelita Morillo
1. Lied About a Candidate’s Character to Tank His Appointment
Target: Deian Salazar, a progressive community advocate.
What she did: Voted no on his PCCEP appointment and publicly stated:
“He perpetuates misinformation for political gain and ignores lived experience.”
Problem: These claims are baseless and defamatory, by Steele’s account. Salazar is known as a mild-mannered progressive with a long record of community involvement.
Implication: She used falsehoods to sabotage a candidate she personally dislikes, abusing her power in a closed-door, low-visibility forum.
2. Discredited Candidates for Being Mainstream Liberals
Targeted People: Terrence Hayes, Bob Weinstein—both moderate, pro-accountability but not anti-police.
Tactic: Pushed to exclude them on grounds of “pro-police bias” due to public statements supporting law enforcement.
Hypocrisy: Did not object to radical anti-police activists like Charlie Michelle-Westley, despite her overt statements calling for "uprooting policing."
Result: Created a one-sided ideological purity test, silencing centrists.
3. Misrepresented the Jo Ann Hardesty Scandal
Claim: Morillo stated that Hardesty was “framed by the police union” for a hit-and-run.
Reality: Hardesty was wrongly named by a 911 caller; union leadership leaked that info—bad behavior, but not a frame job.
Purpose: To cast Hardesty (and her circle, including Morillo herself) as martyrs of police oppression, whitewashing her record to justify stacking the board with her acolytes.
[The police union's leak of the 911 call wrongly naming Jo Ann Hardesty isn't considered a "frame-up" because they didn't fabricate the accusation—a civilian made the 911 call in error. The union president and others leaked that real (but mistaken) call to the media, acting recklessly and with apparent malice, but not creating false evidence. A frame-up involves deliberately inventing or planting false claims, which did not occur here. Investigators deemed the leak unprofessional, not a coordinated attempt to falsely incriminate her.]
Candace Avalos
1. Advocated Disqualifying Nominees for Publicly Supporting Police
Quote:
"I will not be voting or moving anyone forward that has that very obvious public record [of supporting police]."
Translation: Support for police = disqualifying bias, but open hostility toward police = acceptable.
Hypocrisy: She made no objection to radical nominees with hostile anti-police rhetoric (e.g., Michelle-Westley, Karly Edwards).
2. Claimed She Was Applying a Neutral Standard—While Clearly Targeting One Side
Avalos insisted she opposed anyone with public views about police, pro or con.
But: She did not object to known radicals, including herself (a former police accountability activist), even admitting she might not meet her own standard:
“If I was looking at my application right here, I would be putting myself in the same category…”
Conclusion: This was a false equivalence used to shield her own side while disqualifying mainstream liberals. A textbook bad-faith move.
3. Played the Victim When Challenged
When Loretta Smith suggested the process was skewed toward anti-police bias, Avalos responded:
“I resent that comment… I never said we’re putting a bunch of anti-police people on the board.”
But: Her own earlier comments clearly stated she opposed appointing anyone with public pro-police views.
Pattern: She uses righteous indignation to shut down criticism, while remaining strategically evasive.
4. Enabled Identity-Based Obstruction
Supported discrediting candidates like Terrence Hayes despite his lived experience (family member killed by police; formerly incarcerated) because he wasn't anti-police enough.
Revealed preference: Political ideology trumps lived experience—contradicting her own professed values around representation.
Shared Anti-Democratic Tendencies
1. Prejudged Candidates Based on Ideological Litmus Tests
Used public speech and affiliations as filters, rather than qualifications or capacity for fairness.
Undermined pluralism and balanced governance in favor of ideological stacking.
2. Weaponized Process Ambiguity
The anonymous nominating process was supposed to ensure neutrality.
But both Avalos and Morillo (and allies like Kanal) tried to reverse-engineer identities from essays and project bias onto vote patterns.
Anti-democratic behavior: Undermining anonymity and objectivity in favor of subjective ideological interpretation.
3. Gaslit Opponents
Cast all resistance to radical nominees as conservative obstruction or racism.
Meanwhile, ignored their own clear favoritism toward activist cronies and ex-Hardesty staffers.
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.
I wish I knew why the Police union has not sued to block this so-called "police accountability" board on the ground that it violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution because the board is structurally biased against police and includes members with actual bias against law enforcement.
Be that as it may, here are my takeways from Mr. Steele's astute and encyclopedic account of the latest developments in the left's efforts to perfect a kangaroo court for members of the PPB:
What’s Going On?
Portland City Council is implementing the Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA), a new, voter-mandated oversight board designed in the wake of 2020’s anti-police fervor.
Why It’s a Mess:
1. Politicization and Ideological Capture
The selection process is heavily politicized and skewed toward anti-police activists, many of them connected to the cop-hating Jo Ann Hardesty and the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
Applicants who are openly pro-police reform but not anti-police (e.g., Terrence Hayes) were nearly blocked by progressive councilors for being too friendly to law enforcement.
Councilor Candace Avalos explicitly argued that anyone who has publicly supported police should be disqualified.
2. Ideological Gatekeeping
Dissenting candidates, even with personal experience with police violence, were attacked for being insufficiently anti-police.
Radical activists like Charlie Michelle-Westley—who publicly calls for “uprooting policing as we have experienced it”—were advanced with no objection.
3. Identity Politics and Cronyism
Nominees were scored anonymously, but many committee members appear to have guessed identities based on essays, undermining the claim of neutrality.
Former Hardesty staffers and known DSA activists were ushered through.
The final board is geographically imbalanced and ideologically lopsided, with Districts 2 and 3 (progressive strongholds) overrepresented.
Key Players and Factions:
Team Pushing Ideology Over Balance:
Candace Avalos
Angelita Morillo
Sameer Kanal
Jamie Dunphy
Tiffany Koyama Lane
They seek a board hostile to police, rooted in 2020-era anti-racism ideology.
Adults in the Room (Trying for Balance):
Loretta Smith
Dan Ryan
Eric Zimmerman
Steve Novick (surprisingly)
Olivia Clark
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
They pushed back against blatant bias and tried to ensure diverse perspectives, including pro-accountability-but-not-abolition voices.
The Hardesty Legacy Still Haunts City Hall
Jo Ann Hardesty herself applied to be on the board and was rejected—then claimed discrimination.
Her former staffers (Morillo, Edwards, Miller) now wield power, attempting to install like-minded radicals and discredit mainstream liberals.
Bottom Line for Pro-Police Centrists:
The accountability board is not neutral.
It’s being shaped by activists with abolitionist sympathies, not people who value functional, accountable policing.
Public safety is being undermined by ideological litmus tests that exclude centrists, moderates, and anyone supportive of law enforcement.
Despite some councilors’ efforts, the final product will likely be biased, ineffective, and further alienate police from oversight mechanisms that could have been constructive.
Here is a focused breakdown of Angelita Morillo and Candace Avalos' contributions to the process:
Angelita Morillo
1. Lied About a Candidate’s Character to Tank His Appointment
Target: Deian Salazar, a progressive community advocate.
What she did: Voted no on his PCCEP appointment and publicly stated:
“He perpetuates misinformation for political gain and ignores lived experience.”
Problem: These claims are baseless and defamatory, by Steele’s account. Salazar is known as a mild-mannered progressive with a long record of community involvement.
Implication: She used falsehoods to sabotage a candidate she personally dislikes, abusing her power in a closed-door, low-visibility forum.
2. Discredited Candidates for Being Mainstream Liberals
Targeted People: Terrence Hayes, Bob Weinstein—both moderate, pro-accountability but not anti-police.
Tactic: Pushed to exclude them on grounds of “pro-police bias” due to public statements supporting law enforcement.
Hypocrisy: Did not object to radical anti-police activists like Charlie Michelle-Westley, despite her overt statements calling for "uprooting policing."
Result: Created a one-sided ideological purity test, silencing centrists.
3. Misrepresented the Jo Ann Hardesty Scandal
Claim: Morillo stated that Hardesty was “framed by the police union” for a hit-and-run.
Reality: Hardesty was wrongly named by a 911 caller; union leadership leaked that info—bad behavior, but not a frame job.
Purpose: To cast Hardesty (and her circle, including Morillo herself) as martyrs of police oppression, whitewashing her record to justify stacking the board with her acolytes.
[The police union's leak of the 911 call wrongly naming Jo Ann Hardesty isn't considered a "frame-up" because they didn't fabricate the accusation—a civilian made the 911 call in error. The union president and others leaked that real (but mistaken) call to the media, acting recklessly and with apparent malice, but not creating false evidence. A frame-up involves deliberately inventing or planting false claims, which did not occur here. Investigators deemed the leak unprofessional, not a coordinated attempt to falsely incriminate her.]
Candace Avalos
1. Advocated Disqualifying Nominees for Publicly Supporting Police
Quote:
"I will not be voting or moving anyone forward that has that very obvious public record [of supporting police]."
Translation: Support for police = disqualifying bias, but open hostility toward police = acceptable.
Hypocrisy: She made no objection to radical nominees with hostile anti-police rhetoric (e.g., Michelle-Westley, Karly Edwards).
2. Claimed She Was Applying a Neutral Standard—While Clearly Targeting One Side
Avalos insisted she opposed anyone with public views about police, pro or con.
But: She did not object to known radicals, including herself (a former police accountability activist), even admitting she might not meet her own standard:
“If I was looking at my application right here, I would be putting myself in the same category…”
Conclusion: This was a false equivalence used to shield her own side while disqualifying mainstream liberals. A textbook bad-faith move.
3. Played the Victim When Challenged
When Loretta Smith suggested the process was skewed toward anti-police bias, Avalos responded:
“I resent that comment… I never said we’re putting a bunch of anti-police people on the board.”
But: Her own earlier comments clearly stated she opposed appointing anyone with public pro-police views.
Pattern: She uses righteous indignation to shut down criticism, while remaining strategically evasive.
4. Enabled Identity-Based Obstruction
Supported discrediting candidates like Terrence Hayes despite his lived experience (family member killed by police; formerly incarcerated) because he wasn't anti-police enough.
Revealed preference: Political ideology trumps lived experience—contradicting her own professed values around representation.
Shared Anti-Democratic Tendencies
1. Prejudged Candidates Based on Ideological Litmus Tests
Used public speech and affiliations as filters, rather than qualifications or capacity for fairness.
Undermined pluralism and balanced governance in favor of ideological stacking.
2. Weaponized Process Ambiguity
The anonymous nominating process was supposed to ensure neutrality.
But both Avalos and Morillo (and allies like Kanal) tried to reverse-engineer identities from essays and project bias onto vote patterns.
Anti-democratic behavior: Undermining anonymity and objectivity in favor of subjective ideological interpretation.
3. Gaslit Opponents
Cast all resistance to radical nominees as conservative obstruction or racism.
Meanwhile, ignored their own clear favoritism toward activist cronies and ex-Hardesty staffers.
Did I get anything wrong?