ORS 9.460 is a state law that describes what an attorney licensed by the State of Oregon shall provide. This state law does not say that an attorney shall provide unbiased and effective representation to all clients. There are many citizens in the State of Oregon who cannot receive unbiased and effective legal representation from some attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon. SB 818 was a bill before the 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly that would have amended ORS 9.460 to state that an attorney shall “provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients.”
There is no state law that requires attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon to be accountable to all their clients by providing unbiased and effective representation when the clients retain these attorneys. In the future, there will be many life events in which attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon will be required; Oregon citizens need to know that these attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon can provide unbiased and effective representation and can be held accountable by state law. Attorneys who can provide unbiased and effective representation and who are accountable by state law are essential to Oregon society where citizens can defend their citizenship rights. Without attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon who can provide unbiased and effective representation, there is no access to justice.
According to ORS 9.310 and ORS 9.320, only an attorney can represent another person in Oregon courts. Because of this, the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) believes that an attorney licensed by the State of Oregon has a duty as well as an obligation to not let his or her fears, biases or any other personal consideration prevent him or her from providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
SB 818 is a bill that was introduced in the 2009 Oregon Legislative Session. State Senator Vicki Walker (D-Eugene) and State Senator Jackie Winters (R-Salem) introduced SB 818 at the request of the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA). This bill exposes the problem of the failure that some Oregon citizens have in receiving unbiased and effective representation from some attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon. OABA recognized that it had brought up a problem (SB 818) before 2009 Oregon Legislative Session that the Oregon State Bar (OSB) did not want to be heard and that OSB would hide its hands while it got its members, who are legislators, to do the work of stopping SB 818 from being discussed at a legislative hearing. From OABA understanding of the actions of the Oregon State Bar toward SB 818, the Oregon State Bar does not want a state law to hold attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon accountable for providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients. Also it appears that providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients, by state law, is a standard to which the Oregon State Bar does not want attorneys to be held.
SB 818 would have amended ORS 9.460 to read “An attorney shall ‘provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients’.” Also SB 818 would have provided for “all active members of the Oregon State Bar to “receive cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.”
Perhaps, you did not hear about SB 818 during the 2009 Oregon Legislative Session because the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairperson refused to hold a hearing on the bill. Also you did not hear about it because Oregon electronic and print news media did not cover the importance of this bill to ALL Oregon citizens in the future as they seek to use and protect their civil rights. From OABA discussions with some of the newspapers’ editors, there were indications that they saw SB 818 as something that Black Oregonians wanted and that it was not needed. Also there was one newspaper editor who was not willing to cover the bill because of the position of the Oregon Sate Bar.
Since its establishment in 1977, OABA has received many complaints from many Blacks in Oregon. Among such complaints, it has been revealed to OABA that these Black individuals have had extreme difficulties in finding attorneys licensed by the Sate of Oregon who would take their cases. When these individuals were able to obtain an attorney, the attorney did not pursue the case with vigor nor provide the effective legal representation that leads to good results. OABA concluded that because many Black Oregonians have experienced tremendous difficulty in securing effective legal representation, many Blacks in Oregon feel they must bear with, even tolerate, crimes or discrimination against them rather than be further victimized, even humiliated, by not being able to get effective legal representation. Yes, some Black Oregonians are scared to talk about this, and they will deny it when they are asked about it, and they get silent by saying that is just the way it is.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) is aware that other people of color as well as some White Oregonians have experienced biased and ineffective legal representation from some attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon. When the Oregon Attorney General went to the King City Community Center to talk with some senior citizen about his proposal on civil rights before the 2009 Oregon Legislature, Oregon Attorney General was told by some of the seniors that they had not been receiving effective legal representation for the attorney licensed by the State of Oregon whom they had retained.
In the “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System” dated May 1994, one of the conclusions that was made is the following:
“All nonminorities involved in the justice system—judges, court staff, lawyers, law school professors and law students—need ongoing, cross-cultural training. Nonminorities have contributed to most of the problems facing minorities today. Nonminorities must recognize that problems exist; nonminorities must address them with resolve and sensitivity.”
The purpose of SB 818 was to correct the difficulties that Black Oregonians as well as other Oregonians have had in obtaining effective legal representation in Oregon, regardless of their ability to pay or their status in society.
The sponsors of SB 818 in the 2009 Oregon Legislative Session were: Senator Jackie Winters (R-Salem), Senator Vickie Walker (D-Eugene); Senator BATES, Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas), Senator Peter Courtney (D-Salem), Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland), Senator Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day), Senator Mark Hass (D-Beaverton/Aloha/SW Portland), Senator Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg), Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham), Senator Rod Monroe (D-Portland), Senator Bill Morrisette (D-Springfield), Senator Frank Morse (R-Albany), Senator Diane Rosenbaum (D-Portland), Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend), Senator Joanne Verger (D-Coos Bay), Representative Jules BAILEY (D-Portland), Representative Michael DEMBROW (D-Portland), Representative Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Representative Sara Gelser (D-Corvallis), Representative Paul Holvey (D-Eugene), Representative Dave Hunt (D-Clackamas County), Representative Tina Kotek (D-Portland), Representative Ron Maurer (R-Grant Pass), Representative Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro), Representative Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley/SE Portland), Representative Chip Shields (D-Portland), Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Salem), and, Representative Jim Weidner (R-McMinnville).
If you examine the sponsors of SB 818, you will see that there were sixteen (16) of the 30 state senators who were sponsors and co-sponsors of SB 818. And there were thirteen (13) state representatives who were co-sponsors of SB 818. The co-sponsors included Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem) and Oregon House of Representatives Speaker Dave Hunt (D-Clackamas County)
SB 818 was introduced in the Oregon Senate and it was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. State Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) was chair of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2009 Oregon Legislative Regular Session, and he is a member of the Oregon State Bar. Senator Prozanski told the OABA President that he had made an individual decision not to hear SB 818, and he essentially argued the positions of the Oregon State Bar as the bases of his decision. This certainly raises the question: “when does an elected official use the elected official position to deny a hearing on a problem in the profession in which he or she is trained and a member?” It is OABA’s position that the Oregon Legislative Assembly should not allow the Oregon State Bar to dictate to it what bills of Oregon citizens that the Oregon Legislative Assembly should hear whether or not the bill may point out problems with attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon in providing unbiased and effective legal representation for all clients. By his individual decision, Senator Prozanski denied the majority (sixteen (16) of the 30 state senators) of the Oregon Senate from hearing what citizens had to say about this problem that SB 818 was introduced to address.
After Senator Prozanski refused to call a hearing on SB 818, OABA requested Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney to take action to move SB 818 through the Senate, but he did not take the actions requested. Instead, his office expressed that Senator Courtney wanted hearings to be held on the bill after the regular session.
Senator Walker resigned her senate seat to take a position on the Oregon Parole Board, and Senator Winters stated that she will work for a hearing on SB 818 during the interim period of the Oregon Legislature.
Because of actions of legislators and the silence of the news media on this important piece of legislation, there needs to be greater sunshine on the actions of legislators who would use their public positions to protect the positions of Oregon State Bar rather than take the corrective action needed to address this problem facing citizens of Oregon and on the failure of some attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon to provide unbiased and effective representation to all clients.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) notified Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown, Oregon State Treasurer Ben Westlund, Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, Oregon BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian, Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz, and Oregon Court of Appeals Chief Judge David V. Brewer concerning SB 818 and requested their support of the bill. Only one of these statewide officeholders responded to the request.
Also, since some people might believe that OABA was presenting such a bill to benefit Black Oregonians only, the question is: “As citizens of Oregon, do you believe that ALL members of Oregon Society (including Black Oregonians) should receive unbiased and effective legal representation from attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon, regardless of their status in Oregon society or their ability to pay, when these attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon are retained by these Oregonians to handle their legal issues?” If you do, will you help?
If an Oregon citizen does not know his or her rights, she or he does not have any rights. Attorneys licensed by the State of Oregon are the best source to help Oregon citizens to understand and to protect their rights.
OREGON ASSEMBLY FOR BLACK AFFAIRS - An Organization For CHANGE And Building A Better Oregon for the Black Community. What Benefits Black Oregonians Benefits ALL Oregonians. --- OABA, P. O. BOX 12485, SALEM, OREGON 9730
Monday, March 29, 2010
Senate Bill 818
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
Senate Bill 818 Sponsored by Senators WINTERS, WALKER; Senators BATES, BOQUIST, COURTNEY, DINGFELDER, FERRIOLI, HASS, KRUSE, MONNES ANDERSON, MONROE, MORRISETTE, MORSE, ROSENBAUM, TELFER, VERGER, Representatives BAILEY, DEMBROW, ESQUIVEL, GELSER, HOLVEY, HUNT, KOTEK, MAURER, RILEY, SCHAUFLER, SHIELDS, THATCHER, WEIDNER (at the request of Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editors brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires that minimum continuing legal education requirements of Oregon State Bar include cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation of clients. Provides that members of bar must provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to attorneys; amending ORS 9.112 and 9.460.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 9.112 is amended to read:
9.112. (1) The board of governors shall by rule establish minimum continuing legal education requirements for all active members of the Oregon State Bar. Rules adopted by the board of governors are subject to review by the Supreme Court.
(2) Rules adopted under this section shall ensure that all active members of the bar receive cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
SECTION 2. ORS 9.460 is amended to read:
9.460. An attorney shall:
(1) Support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state; (2) Employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of law or fact; (3) Maintain the confidences and secrets of the attorney¢s clients consistent with the rules of professional conduct established pursuant to ORS 9.490; [and] (4) Never reject, for any personal consideration, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed; and (5) Provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 3080
Senate Bill 818 Sponsored by Senators WINTERS, WALKER; Senators BATES, BOQUIST, COURTNEY, DINGFELDER, FERRIOLI, HASS, KRUSE, MONNES ANDERSON, MONROE, MORRISETTE, MORSE, ROSENBAUM, TELFER, VERGER, Representatives BAILEY, DEMBROW, ESQUIVEL, GELSER, HOLVEY, HUNT, KOTEK, MAURER, RILEY, SCHAUFLER, SHIELDS, THATCHER, WEIDNER (at the request of Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editors brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires that minimum continuing legal education requirements of Oregon State Bar include cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation of clients. Provides that members of bar must provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to attorneys; amending ORS 9.112 and 9.460.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 9.112 is amended to read:
9.112. (1) The board of governors shall by rule establish minimum continuing legal education requirements for all active members of the Oregon State Bar. Rules adopted by the board of governors are subject to review by the Supreme Court.
(2) Rules adopted under this section shall ensure that all active members of the bar receive cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
SECTION 2. ORS 9.460 is amended to read:
9.460. An attorney shall:
(1) Support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state; (2) Employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of law or fact; (3) Maintain the confidences and secrets of the attorney¢s clients consistent with the rules of professional conduct established pursuant to ORS 9.490; [and] (4) Never reject, for any personal consideration, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed; and (5) Provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients.
NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 3080
Purpose of OABA Bill SB 818
The Purpose of OABA Bill SB 818 is to correct the difficulties that Black Oregonians as well as other Oregonians have in obtaining effective legal representation in Oregon, regardless of their ability to pay or their status in society.
The chief sponsors of SB 818 were State Senator Jackie Winters (R) and State Senator Vicki Walker (D).
SB 818 was introduced and sponsored, in the 2009 Oregon Legislature, at the request of the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA), and its main purpose was to amend ORS 9.460 to read that “An attorney shall ‘provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients’.” Also SB 818 would have provided for “all active members of the Oregon State Bar to “receive cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.”
The “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System” dated May 1994, points out two outstanding admissions. They are:
1. “Nonminorities have brought about many of the problems that minorities encounter and are discussed in this report. Addressing these problems, and ultimately solving them, is the joint responsibility of nonminorities and minorities.”
2. If a poll were taken of all the lawyers, court staff and judges in Oregon, it is doubtful that even one person would admit that he or she discriminates against minorities in any way…That attitude makes the education process even more difficult.” “The truth is that many nonminorities were raised in a culture in which discrimination was common, even accepted. Not surprisingly, the habits and attitudes learned as children carry over into adult life."
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) cannot speak for all minorities in Oregon, but it can share what is happening with Black Oregonians. Also OABA knows "What Benefits Black Oregonians Benefits ALL Oregonians," and this does not work in reverse. OABA has received evidence that attorneys are not providing effective legal representation for Black Oregonians.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) has defined a problem faced by one group of minorities and has determined the cause of this problem. The problem is the difficulty that Black Oregonians have in obtaining effective legal representation in Oregon, regardless of their ability to pay or their status in society. It is OABA position that Blacks in Oregon receive ineffective legal representation because of fear and racism. OABA has corresponded about this problem with many elements of the legal system in Oregon, which include Black attorneys, the Oregon State Bar President, Oregon State Bar Executive Director, Oregon State Supreme Court, Oregon Governor, Oregon Legislative Assembly, Oregon Labor Commissioner, and the deans of law schools in Oregon.
Should effective legal representation be based upon whether one has an attorney who looks like oneself to handle the case? OABA does not think so. Should any attorney licensed by the State of Oregon be capable of providing effective legal representation to any client regardless of the client’s race or position in society? OABA believes that all attorneys should be able to do so.
It is OABA understanding that the “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues” is not law in Oregon. However, Conclusion 11 of this Task Force Report would go a long way to ensuring effective legal representation for Black Oregonians if it was law in Oregon. This conclusion states:
“All nonminorities involved in the justice system—judges, court staff, lawyers, law school professors and law students—need ongoing, cross-cultural training. Nonminorities have contributed to most of the problems facing minorities today. Nonminorities must recognize that problems exist; nonminorities must address them with resolve and sensitivity.”
OABA believes that attorneys, like teachers, must be culturally competent in the cultures of their clients if effective legal representation is to be possible. When the OABA Board of Directors learned on January 6, 2007, that some members of the Oregon State Bar were trying to eliminate mandatory bias training for attorneys and that the Oregon State Bar might eliminate its Affirmative Action Committee, the OABA Board of Directors recognized that these efforts will not make effective legal representation of Black Oregonians better. When OABA Board learned that the Oregon Supreme Court approved only a delay in the elimination of the bias training so that a study could be conducted, the OABA Board expressed that both mandatory culturally competency training for attorneys and effective legal representation should be established by law.
The “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues” is an excellent study of bias and racism that exist in the legal system; but the recommendations and conclusions made in this report are not law. However, many of them should be in law. Attorney’s fear when providing effective legal representation for Blacks in Oregon is not addressed by the report. This is the reason for OABA bill for effective legal representation.
OREGON ASSEMBLY FOR BLACK AFFAIRS - An Organization For CHANGE And Building A Better Oregon for the Black Community. What Benefits Black Oregonians Benefits ALL Oregonians. --- OABA, P. O. BOX 12485, SALEM, OREGON 97309
The chief sponsors of SB 818 were State Senator Jackie Winters (R) and State Senator Vicki Walker (D).
SB 818 was introduced and sponsored, in the 2009 Oregon Legislature, at the request of the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA), and its main purpose was to amend ORS 9.460 to read that “An attorney shall ‘provide unbiased and effective representation for all clients’.” Also SB 818 would have provided for “all active members of the Oregon State Bar to “receive cultural competency training designed to educate members on providing unbiased and effective representation for all clients.”
The “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System” dated May 1994, points out two outstanding admissions. They are:
1. “Nonminorities have brought about many of the problems that minorities encounter and are discussed in this report. Addressing these problems, and ultimately solving them, is the joint responsibility of nonminorities and minorities.”
2. If a poll were taken of all the lawyers, court staff and judges in Oregon, it is doubtful that even one person would admit that he or she discriminates against minorities in any way…That attitude makes the education process even more difficult.” “The truth is that many nonminorities were raised in a culture in which discrimination was common, even accepted. Not surprisingly, the habits and attitudes learned as children carry over into adult life."
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) cannot speak for all minorities in Oregon, but it can share what is happening with Black Oregonians. Also OABA knows "What Benefits Black Oregonians Benefits ALL Oregonians," and this does not work in reverse. OABA has received evidence that attorneys are not providing effective legal representation for Black Oregonians.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) has defined a problem faced by one group of minorities and has determined the cause of this problem. The problem is the difficulty that Black Oregonians have in obtaining effective legal representation in Oregon, regardless of their ability to pay or their status in society. It is OABA position that Blacks in Oregon receive ineffective legal representation because of fear and racism. OABA has corresponded about this problem with many elements of the legal system in Oregon, which include Black attorneys, the Oregon State Bar President, Oregon State Bar Executive Director, Oregon State Supreme Court, Oregon Governor, Oregon Legislative Assembly, Oregon Labor Commissioner, and the deans of law schools in Oregon.
Should effective legal representation be based upon whether one has an attorney who looks like oneself to handle the case? OABA does not think so. Should any attorney licensed by the State of Oregon be capable of providing effective legal representation to any client regardless of the client’s race or position in society? OABA believes that all attorneys should be able to do so.
It is OABA understanding that the “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues” is not law in Oregon. However, Conclusion 11 of this Task Force Report would go a long way to ensuring effective legal representation for Black Oregonians if it was law in Oregon. This conclusion states:
“All nonminorities involved in the justice system—judges, court staff, lawyers, law school professors and law students—need ongoing, cross-cultural training. Nonminorities have contributed to most of the problems facing minorities today. Nonminorities must recognize that problems exist; nonminorities must address them with resolve and sensitivity.”
OABA believes that attorneys, like teachers, must be culturally competent in the cultures of their clients if effective legal representation is to be possible. When the OABA Board of Directors learned on January 6, 2007, that some members of the Oregon State Bar were trying to eliminate mandatory bias training for attorneys and that the Oregon State Bar might eliminate its Affirmative Action Committee, the OABA Board of Directors recognized that these efforts will not make effective legal representation of Black Oregonians better. When OABA Board learned that the Oregon Supreme Court approved only a delay in the elimination of the bias training so that a study could be conducted, the OABA Board expressed that both mandatory culturally competency training for attorneys and effective legal representation should be established by law.
The “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues” is an excellent study of bias and racism that exist in the legal system; but the recommendations and conclusions made in this report are not law. However, many of them should be in law. Attorney’s fear when providing effective legal representation for Blacks in Oregon is not addressed by the report. This is the reason for OABA bill for effective legal representation.
OREGON ASSEMBLY FOR BLACK AFFAIRS - An Organization For CHANGE And Building A Better Oregon for the Black Community. What Benefits Black Oregonians Benefits ALL Oregonians. --- OABA, P. O. BOX 12485, SALEM, OREGON 97309
Revelations By The Shooting Of A 12-Year Old Black Girl By A Portland Police Officer Needs Further Actions By Portland City Officials
January 6, 2010
TO: The Honorable Sam Adams, Portland Mayor The Honorable Amanda Fritz, Portland Commissioner, Position 1 The Honorable Nick Fish, Portland Commissioner, Position 2 The Honorable Dan Saltzman, Portland Commissioner, Position 3 The Honorable Randy Leonard, Portland Commissioner, Position 4 The Honorable LaVonne Griffin-Valade, Portland Auditor SUBJECT: Revelations By The Shooting Of A 12-Year Old Black Girl By A Portland Police Officer Needs Further Actions By Portland City Officials
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) has followed with great interest the information in the media regarding the shooting of a 12-year old Black girl (on November 14, 2009) by a sworn Portland police officer. It is OABA understanding that Portland Police officer Chris Humphreys shot this 12-year old Black Girl while another Portland police officer was holding her down. Also it is OABA understanding that Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who is in charge of the Portland Police Bureau, placed this police officer who shot the 12-year Old Black girl on leave with pay until an investigation is to be completed and its results are known. It is also OABA understanding that the Portland Police Association asked its 922 members for a vote of no confidence in the Portland Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Chief Rosie Sizer that would be held on November 30, 2009. According to The Oregonian Report Maxine Bernstein, Sgt. Scott Westerman, President of the union, speaking at a press conference stated that the union’s faith in the leadership of the Police Bureau is gone and that the union is angry over a decision to place Officer Chris Humphreys on paid leave as the Portland Police Bureau investigates his firing of a beanbag shotgun at a 12-year-old Black girl. It is OABA understanding that on November 24, 2009, Portland police officers marched and held a rally before they were to hold a no-confidence vote on Police Chief Sizer and City Commissioner Saltzman because of this shooting incident involving Police Officer Humphreys. It is OABA understanding that some police officers from other political subdivisions participated in this protest march. It is OABA understanding that a state legislator participated in the Portland police march and rally. On November 25, 2009, the Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA) held a press conference in support of Police Chief Sizer and City Commissioner Saltzman for taking their actions until an investigation is completed. It has been said by The Oregonian Editorial Board that a no-confidence vote was taken but the Portland Police Union announced that it wouldn’t be releasing the results of that no-confidence vote because of the prolonged negotiation over the Thanksgiving weekend. Also, according to The Oregonian, City Commissioner Dan Saltzman retreated, on November 30, 2009, and announced that Officer Humphreys will allowed to perform desk duty. It is OABA understanding that shooting a 12-year old girl with a beanbag by a police officer can be viewed as deadly force.
It is of great concern that there was a decision by the Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman to suspend the officer for shooting the 12-year old Black girl while the investigation was in process and then to see that the suspension of the police officer was reversed. Further, it is of concern that the public is left with a concern that the vote of no-confidence results was withheld from the public seemingly because the police officer was reinstated. This appears to allow Commission Dan Saltzman to trade the reinstatement of the police officer for the withholding of information from the public.
OABA firmly believes that all matters related to public safety must be reviewed in light of extenuating circumstances. The Portland City Commissioners and the Portland Police officers as well as all duly elected officials have a responsibility to carry out their duties in accordance with the laws and regulations. They signed oaths of office and swore to uphold the law. All elected and State, County, and City employees must be held accountable for their actions and must represent the public without taking the side of specific agencies based on political pressure or perceived benefit. Should an Oregon elected official be marching in an event that is designed to pressure a city to reverse its action?
The OABA Board of Directors expressed that this shooting of a 12-year old Black girl revealed issues greater than this 12-year old Black girl or her parent, greater than just AMA or OABA involvements, greater than Portland Black Community, and greater than the citizens of Oregon. The questions become: “Is it safe for a Black American to be in Portland, Oregon?” and “Will Portland public officials (elected or appointed) honor their oaths of offices and uphold the law when Portland Police officers are inflicting unjustifiable use of deadly force or less lethal deadly force on members of the Black Community?” The issues revealed by this shooting need further attention by the City of Portland, State of Oregon and the United States.
Given the events that have occurred and the fact that no investigation report of this shooting of the 12 year Black girl has been completed and made public, OABA raises the following questions for you, as Portland Mayor, Portland Commissioners and Portland Auditor, who have multiple oversights over the actions of the Portland Police Bureau and its officers:
I. Reference to the Portland police officer’s actions toward the 12-year old Black girl:
A. Did the officer, who stopped the 12-year old African American female and subsequently shot her with a beanbag (on November 14, 2009), have just cause for singling her out? Why was the young female approached by this police officer?
B. What was the reason that this 12-year old African American female was stopped?
C. Had the 12-year old Black girl violated any law when she was stopped?
D. Was the 12-year old Black girl under control of another Portland police officer when the officer shot her?
E. Did the Portland police officers have to use deadly force or less lethal force to control a 12-year old Black girl?
II. QUESTIONS: Portland Police Commissioner and Portland Chief of Police:
A. Was Portland Police Commissioner acting within his authority when he suspended the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black Girl pending an investigation of the shooting of the 12-year old Black Girl?
B. Was Portland Chief of Police acting within her authority when she initially placed the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black Girl on desk duties pending an investigation of the shooting of the 12-year old Black Girl?
C. Were Portland Police Commissioner and Chief of Police acting in the public interest when they rescinded the suspension of the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black girl?
D. Are sworn Portland police officers allowed to carry their badges and guns off duty and when the sworn Portland police officers are marching and rallying against Portland public officials?
III. QUESTIONS: Portland City Officials (Mayor, City Commissioners and Auditor):
A. Did the police officers and the public who marched against the Police Chief and City Commissioners have a public permit for their march?
B. Were any contracts, city codes or laws violated by those who marched in the protest against the Chief of Police and City Commissioners for their action to suspend the officer who shot the 12-year old Black girl?
C. Did the Portland Police Union violate its contract with the City of Portland when the union conducted a protest march and rally against city officials?
D. Is the Portland Police a quasi-military force?
E. When police officers participate in a protest police march against Portland city officials, is this the beginning of efforts to terrorize the city officials and its citizens?
F. What is the response of Portland City Officials regarding this protest march by sworn police officers?
G. Do City Officials plan to follow up if city codes or laws were violated?
H. Will the City make its response to the protest available to the public?
I. Will Portland officials (elected and appointed) honor their oaths of offices and uphold the laws when Portland police officers are inflicting unjustifiable use of deadly force or less lethal force on members of the Black Community?
IV. QUESTIONS: The Portland City Officials and Chief of Police With Respect to Portland Police Officers:
A. Under whose command were the Portland police officers who participated in the police protest march and rally against the Chief of Police and City Commissioners on November 24, 2009?
B. Were any of the Portland police officers participating in the protest march on duty during the time they were marching?
C. Were any of the supervisors (e.g., captains, sergeants, etc.) from the Portland police force participating in the protest march? If so, were they on duty during the time they participated in the protest march?
D. What did the on-duty Portland police officers assigned to the area where the police carried out their protest march do? Were they involved in protecting the public? Were they engaged in the protest?
E. Did any Portland police officers leave their post to participate in the protest march?
F. Did Portland police officers if they were on duty violate their oath to serve and protect the public?
G. Were there police officers from other political subdivisions (State, counties, or cities) participating in the Portland police protest march and rally against Portland City Officials and Portland Chief of Police?
OABA is asking you to consider the questions above when you receive the investigation report on the shooting of the 12-year old Black girl by one of your police officers.
From some of the media accounts of this incident, the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) is aware that some individuals are pleased that this officer shot the 12-year old Black girl, and it appears that many members of the Portland Police Union seems to agree with this. This form of police brutality is not good for the city of Portland, and it would not be tolerated if this were a 12-year old White girl who was shot by a Portland police officer.
It is OABA position that all of you have a duty and obligation to protect the public from those individuals who violate the law or other policies, rules and/or regulations even if those individuals are police officers. Also you have the responsibilities to report the extent to which you have held them accountable to the public at large. OABA asks that there be transparency in the process that you utilized to bring justice to all who have been impacted by the shooting of an unarmed 12-year old Black girl and by the protest march and rally of the Portland police officers. Justice cannot prevail if this incident is shoved under the rug and/or servants of the people bow to extortion or blackmail.
When police officers, through their union, express that they have more power than the elected officials who should be providing oversight, society loses and all citizens are threatened, not only Black Americans. Police officers take oaths to uphold the laws. OABA believes that this display of a police march and rally was designed to question civilian authority over them. When police officers take this approach, all citizens’ civil rights come into question.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) requests a copy of the investigation report of this shooting incident, and OABA requests that you provide written answers to the questions raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Calvin Henry
OABA President
CC:
The Honorable Barack Obama, United States President The Honorable Ted Kulongoski, Oregon Governor The Honorable Peter Courtey, President of Oregon Senate The Honorable Dave Hunt, Speaker of Oregon House of Representatives The Honorable Kate Brown, Oregon Secretary of State The Honorable John Kroger, Oregon Attorney General The Honorable Michael D. Schrunk, Multnomah County District Attorney Portland Police Chief Sizer The Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator The Honorable Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator The Honorable Earl Blumenauer, U.S. Representative in Congress, 3rd District U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Oregon Acting United States Attorney Kent Robinson OABA Board of Directors Dr. T. Allen Bethel, President, Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA)
Dr. H. L. Hodge, Portland NAACP President Portland Urban League President Marcus Mundy Portland IRC Director Mary-Beth Baptista, Portland CRC Chair Michael Bigham
TO: The Honorable Sam Adams, Portland Mayor The Honorable Amanda Fritz, Portland Commissioner, Position 1 The Honorable Nick Fish, Portland Commissioner, Position 2 The Honorable Dan Saltzman, Portland Commissioner, Position 3 The Honorable Randy Leonard, Portland Commissioner, Position 4 The Honorable LaVonne Griffin-Valade, Portland Auditor SUBJECT: Revelations By The Shooting Of A 12-Year Old Black Girl By A Portland Police Officer Needs Further Actions By Portland City Officials
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) has followed with great interest the information in the media regarding the shooting of a 12-year old Black girl (on November 14, 2009) by a sworn Portland police officer. It is OABA understanding that Portland Police officer Chris Humphreys shot this 12-year old Black Girl while another Portland police officer was holding her down. Also it is OABA understanding that Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who is in charge of the Portland Police Bureau, placed this police officer who shot the 12-year Old Black girl on leave with pay until an investigation is to be completed and its results are known. It is also OABA understanding that the Portland Police Association asked its 922 members for a vote of no confidence in the Portland Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Chief Rosie Sizer that would be held on November 30, 2009. According to The Oregonian Report Maxine Bernstein, Sgt. Scott Westerman, President of the union, speaking at a press conference stated that the union’s faith in the leadership of the Police Bureau is gone and that the union is angry over a decision to place Officer Chris Humphreys on paid leave as the Portland Police Bureau investigates his firing of a beanbag shotgun at a 12-year-old Black girl. It is OABA understanding that on November 24, 2009, Portland police officers marched and held a rally before they were to hold a no-confidence vote on Police Chief Sizer and City Commissioner Saltzman because of this shooting incident involving Police Officer Humphreys. It is OABA understanding that some police officers from other political subdivisions participated in this protest march. It is OABA understanding that a state legislator participated in the Portland police march and rally. On November 25, 2009, the Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA) held a press conference in support of Police Chief Sizer and City Commissioner Saltzman for taking their actions until an investigation is completed. It has been said by The Oregonian Editorial Board that a no-confidence vote was taken but the Portland Police Union announced that it wouldn’t be releasing the results of that no-confidence vote because of the prolonged negotiation over the Thanksgiving weekend. Also, according to The Oregonian, City Commissioner Dan Saltzman retreated, on November 30, 2009, and announced that Officer Humphreys will allowed to perform desk duty. It is OABA understanding that shooting a 12-year old girl with a beanbag by a police officer can be viewed as deadly force.
It is of great concern that there was a decision by the Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman to suspend the officer for shooting the 12-year old Black girl while the investigation was in process and then to see that the suspension of the police officer was reversed. Further, it is of concern that the public is left with a concern that the vote of no-confidence results was withheld from the public seemingly because the police officer was reinstated. This appears to allow Commission Dan Saltzman to trade the reinstatement of the police officer for the withholding of information from the public.
OABA firmly believes that all matters related to public safety must be reviewed in light of extenuating circumstances. The Portland City Commissioners and the Portland Police officers as well as all duly elected officials have a responsibility to carry out their duties in accordance with the laws and regulations. They signed oaths of office and swore to uphold the law. All elected and State, County, and City employees must be held accountable for their actions and must represent the public without taking the side of specific agencies based on political pressure or perceived benefit. Should an Oregon elected official be marching in an event that is designed to pressure a city to reverse its action?
The OABA Board of Directors expressed that this shooting of a 12-year old Black girl revealed issues greater than this 12-year old Black girl or her parent, greater than just AMA or OABA involvements, greater than Portland Black Community, and greater than the citizens of Oregon. The questions become: “Is it safe for a Black American to be in Portland, Oregon?” and “Will Portland public officials (elected or appointed) honor their oaths of offices and uphold the law when Portland Police officers are inflicting unjustifiable use of deadly force or less lethal deadly force on members of the Black Community?” The issues revealed by this shooting need further attention by the City of Portland, State of Oregon and the United States.
Given the events that have occurred and the fact that no investigation report of this shooting of the 12 year Black girl has been completed and made public, OABA raises the following questions for you, as Portland Mayor, Portland Commissioners and Portland Auditor, who have multiple oversights over the actions of the Portland Police Bureau and its officers:
I. Reference to the Portland police officer’s actions toward the 12-year old Black girl:
A. Did the officer, who stopped the 12-year old African American female and subsequently shot her with a beanbag (on November 14, 2009), have just cause for singling her out? Why was the young female approached by this police officer?
B. What was the reason that this 12-year old African American female was stopped?
C. Had the 12-year old Black girl violated any law when she was stopped?
D. Was the 12-year old Black girl under control of another Portland police officer when the officer shot her?
E. Did the Portland police officers have to use deadly force or less lethal force to control a 12-year old Black girl?
II. QUESTIONS: Portland Police Commissioner and Portland Chief of Police:
A. Was Portland Police Commissioner acting within his authority when he suspended the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black Girl pending an investigation of the shooting of the 12-year old Black Girl?
B. Was Portland Chief of Police acting within her authority when she initially placed the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black Girl on desk duties pending an investigation of the shooting of the 12-year old Black Girl?
C. Were Portland Police Commissioner and Chief of Police acting in the public interest when they rescinded the suspension of the police officer who shot the 12-year old Black girl?
D. Are sworn Portland police officers allowed to carry their badges and guns off duty and when the sworn Portland police officers are marching and rallying against Portland public officials?
III. QUESTIONS: Portland City Officials (Mayor, City Commissioners and Auditor):
A. Did the police officers and the public who marched against the Police Chief and City Commissioners have a public permit for their march?
B. Were any contracts, city codes or laws violated by those who marched in the protest against the Chief of Police and City Commissioners for their action to suspend the officer who shot the 12-year old Black girl?
C. Did the Portland Police Union violate its contract with the City of Portland when the union conducted a protest march and rally against city officials?
D. Is the Portland Police a quasi-military force?
E. When police officers participate in a protest police march against Portland city officials, is this the beginning of efforts to terrorize the city officials and its citizens?
F. What is the response of Portland City Officials regarding this protest march by sworn police officers?
G. Do City Officials plan to follow up if city codes or laws were violated?
H. Will the City make its response to the protest available to the public?
I. Will Portland officials (elected and appointed) honor their oaths of offices and uphold the laws when Portland police officers are inflicting unjustifiable use of deadly force or less lethal force on members of the Black Community?
IV. QUESTIONS: The Portland City Officials and Chief of Police With Respect to Portland Police Officers:
A. Under whose command were the Portland police officers who participated in the police protest march and rally against the Chief of Police and City Commissioners on November 24, 2009?
B. Were any of the Portland police officers participating in the protest march on duty during the time they were marching?
C. Were any of the supervisors (e.g., captains, sergeants, etc.) from the Portland police force participating in the protest march? If so, were they on duty during the time they participated in the protest march?
D. What did the on-duty Portland police officers assigned to the area where the police carried out their protest march do? Were they involved in protecting the public? Were they engaged in the protest?
E. Did any Portland police officers leave their post to participate in the protest march?
F. Did Portland police officers if they were on duty violate their oath to serve and protect the public?
G. Were there police officers from other political subdivisions (State, counties, or cities) participating in the Portland police protest march and rally against Portland City Officials and Portland Chief of Police?
OABA is asking you to consider the questions above when you receive the investigation report on the shooting of the 12-year old Black girl by one of your police officers.
From some of the media accounts of this incident, the Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) is aware that some individuals are pleased that this officer shot the 12-year old Black girl, and it appears that many members of the Portland Police Union seems to agree with this. This form of police brutality is not good for the city of Portland, and it would not be tolerated if this were a 12-year old White girl who was shot by a Portland police officer.
It is OABA position that all of you have a duty and obligation to protect the public from those individuals who violate the law or other policies, rules and/or regulations even if those individuals are police officers. Also you have the responsibilities to report the extent to which you have held them accountable to the public at large. OABA asks that there be transparency in the process that you utilized to bring justice to all who have been impacted by the shooting of an unarmed 12-year old Black girl and by the protest march and rally of the Portland police officers. Justice cannot prevail if this incident is shoved under the rug and/or servants of the people bow to extortion or blackmail.
When police officers, through their union, express that they have more power than the elected officials who should be providing oversight, society loses and all citizens are threatened, not only Black Americans. Police officers take oaths to uphold the laws. OABA believes that this display of a police march and rally was designed to question civilian authority over them. When police officers take this approach, all citizens’ civil rights come into question.
The Oregon Assembly for Black Affairs (OABA) requests a copy of the investigation report of this shooting incident, and OABA requests that you provide written answers to the questions raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Calvin Henry
OABA President
CC:
The Honorable Barack Obama, United States President The Honorable Ted Kulongoski, Oregon Governor The Honorable Peter Courtey, President of Oregon Senate The Honorable Dave Hunt, Speaker of Oregon House of Representatives The Honorable Kate Brown, Oregon Secretary of State The Honorable John Kroger, Oregon Attorney General The Honorable Michael D. Schrunk, Multnomah County District Attorney Portland Police Chief Sizer The Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator The Honorable Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator The Honorable Earl Blumenauer, U.S. Representative in Congress, 3rd District U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Oregon Acting United States Attorney Kent Robinson OABA Board of Directors Dr. T. Allen Bethel, President, Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA)
Dr. H. L. Hodge, Portland NAACP President Portland Urban League President Marcus Mundy Portland IRC Director Mary-Beth Baptista, Portland CRC Chair Michael Bigham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
