01/10/2021 - Minutes Public Safety Advisory Board Meeting #25 Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022 — 5:00 pm-7:00 pm
Minutes
5:00-5:05 Welcome, Centering Exercise, Roll Call
– Facilitator Kim Marshall informed the group that the meeting is being recorded and live-streamed to
YouTube. And requested that Board members use Zoom's raise hand function.
– Call to Order 5 p.m.
– Chair Stuhldryer led the Centering and Breathing exercise.
– Facilitator Marshall conducted roll call.
Absent: Elise Butera, Liz Newton
5:05-5:20 Public Comment —No comments or requests to speak were submitted. Community
members were invited to submit public comment at https://www.tigard-
or.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/432/407
5:20-5:40 Chief's Update with Chief McAlpine
Chief McAlpine wished the group a Happy New Year and asked that the PSAB endorse the establishment
of a Professional Standards Sergeant position.
5:40-6:10 Proposal: Endorsement of Professional Standards Sergeant Position
Facilitator Marshall asked for questions about the Professional Standards Sergeant position.
Board Member Valerie Sasaki asked if there would be a future need for a Transit Sergeant position.
Funds from that position would be reallocated to the new Professional Standards Sergeant position.
Chief McAlpine explained that the City would not need to fund a Transit Sergeant position in the
foreseeable future due to a restructuring of the Transit police and Tigard's subsequent withdrawal from
the program.
Board Member Jeff Mott asked about what happens currently when there is a complaint, as the
Professional Standards Sergeant position will respond to those in the future. Chief McAlpine suggested
that Commander Rogers' presentation would clarify the Department's procedures. Board Member
Sasaki suggested that the Board move directly into the Commander's presentation and return to the
proposal following the presentation.
6:10-6:45 Complaints and Discipline with Commander Rogers
Commander Rogers gave his presentation on Tigard Police Department's discipline process.
Board Member Sasaki asked about where the discipline process interfaces with the community and
when the community is informed of any discipline issues. Commander Rogers responded that right at
the beginning when a community member makes a complaint, their complaint is clarified with the
community member and then the officer who has had the complaint filed against them is entitled to due
process. The goal is to resolve an investigation in 30-90 days and the community member is updated at
specific gates in the process.The finding is then shared with the community member who filed the
complaint.
Board Member Sasaki followed up and asked if community members can find the results of complaints.
Commander Rogers said they can, and that they are publicly available on the Tigard PD website.
Board Member Jimmy Brown discussed that he does not see a community engagement element in the
charge of the Professional Standards Sergeant position and is concerned about an information black
hole where internal affairs matters are only handled internally, and the public doesn't see the results.
He suggested a two-prong approach where the position is established as written, and also establishing a
way for the community to act in partnership with the Department through an Ombudsmen or
Community Review Board approach. Chief McAlpine responded that there are several models of similar
concepts that are used in other Departments. She had something similar in Tacoma that reviewed
redacted complaints. She also clarified that the new position differs from an Internal Affairs position
that a larger Department may have by–the new position encompasses other functions beyond just
evaluating complaints and discipline. Board Member Brown clarified that he isn't asking for a similar
model to Portland or a larger city, but that he would like to see a community centered companion piece
to the Professional Standards Sergeant.
Board Member Michael O'Brien asked about when do constitutional protections become an issue in
cases of discipline. Commander Rogers responded that constitutional protections usually come up
around search and seizure and excessive use of force.
Board Member Justin Low asked about the location of complaint resolutions. He was unable to find
them on the Department's website. Commander Rogers clarified that there is aggregated information
located in the Annual Report. Board Member Low followed up and asked if there were reports of
individual incidents.The Commander confirmed that no reports of individual complaints are released.
Board Member Low confirmed that there is no public record of multiple complaints against any
individual officer. He asked if that was an employment issue or a City policy issue. Board Member and
City Attorney Shelby Rihala confirmed that this matter is governed by both state statute and Oregon
employment law. She went on to describe the presumption of the law is that employee discipline
information is not made public, unless it is demonstrated to be in the public's interest to be released.
There are cases–especially with police officers—where employee discipline is made public because
there is public interest that officers are held accountable, but it is not the default under the law.
Board Member Mott discussed the laws in California that provide for transparency and release of
information to the public. He asked if the Department would support laws in Oregon changing to require
more public release of information. Chief McAlpine discussed how she sees both sides–the public's
desire for full transparency and the employee's desire to keep discipline actions private–and
appreciates the current standard of public interest. She also spoke highly of redacted complaints being
made public.
Board Member Mott asked about what types of misconduct lead to counseling versus formal discipline.
Commander Rogers explained that matters of the 'hands', like poorly written reports and other simple
mistakes, lead to counseling. Matters of the 'head', poor judgement where the officer should have
known better and matters of the 'heart',where the officer acted out of malicious intent, usually lead to
formal discipline.
B:\Office Data\Tigard Public Safety Advisory Board (38)\Materials\PSAB Meeting#25\PSAB Meeting#25 Meeting
Minutes.docx
Board Member Mott asked if one of the goals of the new position is to reduce the timeline of complaint
resolutions below the current 30-90 day goal. Commander Rogers said no,the new position will help
the Department to better meet the 30-90 day complaint resolution goal and that adequate time will
always be necessary to conduct thorough investigations.
Board Member Brown pointed out that use of racial epithets in the workplace is a 'Level 2' policy
violation and that he is concerned that if you have an officer using racial slurs or the 'N'word then that
is not an officer he wants to give an opportunity to commit a 'Level 1' policy violation. He advocated for
raising the discipline for this violation. Chief McAlpine thanked Board Member Brown for his observation
and that she agrees that it should be a 'Level 1' complaint. She went on to explain how use of racial
epithets can result in DPSST removing an officer's certification, even though it's listed as a 'Level 2'
policy violation on the slide.
Commander Rogers continued his presentation by describing the Complaints process at the Tigard Police
Department.
Board Member Brown asked if union or legal representation is required for officers when they are in the
discipline processes at the lower levels of the Tigard Police Department Discipline Guide pyramid.
Commander Rogers clarified that if discipline can result, then the officer is afforded the opportunity for
representation. He went on to say that in practice, employees are always given an opportunity to have
someone with them in the formal process, even when discipline will not result. Board Member Brown
responded that this is another reason why he would like to have a community representative involved in
the process and to have another set of eyes around any discipline cases. Board Member Officer Nunn
explained that the union always provides representation to their members.
Continuing Discussion— Proposal: Endorsement of Professional Standards Sergeant Position
Facilitator Marshall asked Chief McAlpine if there is urgency attached to the PSAB's endorsement of the
Professional Standards Sergeant position. Chief McAlpine confirmed that there is some urgency as this is
part of the Department's budget request which is being prepared now. She asked for a resolution of the
endorsement by January 24.
Board Member John Trinh asked what the City would lose by not having a Transit Sergeant. Chief
McAlpine explained that the City would not be losing anything by reallocating the FTE. She went on to
explain that being a part of the Transit police force was causing more headaches than benefits.
Commander McDonald explained that the officers assigned to transit were the most experienced, and
that those officers are needed for training new officers, so it made sense to pull them back from transit
duty and focus on City policing.
Facilitator Marshall introduced the draft recommendation.
Board Member Brown advocated for a companion recommendation that creates an Ombudsmen
position, as an example,to provide a community centered voice around complaints and discipline.
Facilitator Marshall asked if Board Member Brown would take the lead in writing this companion
recommendation. Board Member Brown said he was happy to draft the recommendation and would
have it ready for the PSAB at the next meeting. Chief McAlpine asked that Board Member Brown
consider the funding and contracting mechanisms for creating the position in his recommendation.
Board Member Officer Nunn raised concerns about privacy issues about an unsworn civilian being
B:\Office Data\Tigard Public Safety Advisory Board (38)\Materials\PSAB Meeting#25\PSAB Meeting#25 Meeting
Minutes.docx
involved in employee affairs. Board Member Sasaki volunteered to assist Board Member Brown with the
draft recommendation.
Board Member Sasaki asked about the Police Department's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and
if there is an upcoming presentation about the CBA. Facilitator Marshall clarified that there isn't a CBA
presentation on the schedule at the moment, but the prep team would work on adding one in the
upcoming meetings.
Board Member Low asked that Board Members Brown and Sasaki review Senate Bill 204 from 2021 as
part of their recommendation because it addresses privacy concerns around unsworn civilians involved
in police discipline processes.
6:55-7:00 Wrap Up and Next Steps
Facilitator Marshall reviewed the schedule through the end of June 2022.
Chair Stuhldryer concluded the meeting asking for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Trinh made the
motion, Board Member Sasaki seconded.
B:\Office Data\Tigard Public Safety Advisory Board (38)\Materials\PSAB Meeting#25\PSAB Meeting#25 Meeting
Minutes.docx