Portland Councilors Charged With Violating Public Meetings Law

Portland City Councilors Face Allegations of Breaking Transparency Rules

Seven members of the Portland City Council are under scrutiny for allegedly violating Oregon’s public meetings law, following revelations that they engaged in private communications through a text message thread. The allegations center around a group of six councilors who regularly exchanged messages and coordinated with a seventh member during a contentious budget vote. These actions have sparked complaints from residents and raised concerns about transparency and democratic accountability.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission has received over a dozen complaints against the councilors, including Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo, and Steve Novick. However, these complaints are expected to be dismissed due to procedural issues. Specifically, complainants did not first file a written grievance with the city of Portland as required by law, according to Susan Myers, the executive director of the ethics commission.

In addition to the ethics commission, the Portland City Attorney’s Office has also received grievances regarding the text exchanges. These private discussions, first reported by Willamette Week, occurred during budget deliberations this spring and led to a decision to reallocate $2 million in police funding to parks maintenance. The move was made by the six councilors on the text thread, along with Novick, sparking criticism from residents and watchdogs.

Bob Weinstein, a City Hall observer and former candidate, described the situation as “backroom deals” made through group chats. He argued that the outcome of the vote had already been decided before the public saw it, calling it “no democracy — that’s theater.”

The Peacock Group and Private Communications

Since March, a left-leaning group of councilors known as the “Peacock” — a nickname for their progressive caucus — has been communicating through a private text thread. Public records show that the group, which includes Avalos, Dunphy, Green, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Morillo, has maintained regular contact. Their communication intensified significantly during marathon budget hearings in May and June.

Despite exchanging hundreds of messages, the group did not constitute a quorum of the 12-member City Council under Oregon’s public meetings law. The law prohibits a quorum from deliberating privately on matters related to the public body. Experts say the Peacock group may have crossed this threshold as they discussed reallocating funds from police to parks.

On May 20, Morillo sent a message to her five colleagues: “Sounds like Steve wants it to go to parks maintenance and his vote might be contingent on that.” The next day, during a budget meeting, the group continued to factor Novick into their decision-making process.

At one point, Dunphy asked, “Do we need to figure out a way to bring Steve into peacock without violating quorum?” Avalos responded, “He’s an honorary member, the 7th man.” Later that evening, Morillo wrote, “If Steve does not step up for the police vote we need to push it, we will lose momentum.” Avalos replied, “I think he’s still down,” suggesting ongoing communication with Novick.

Eventually, the council voted 7-5 to move the $2 million in police funding to parks.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Experts believe the discussions involving Novick may have violated the public meetings law, particularly the provision on serial communications. According to the law, prohibited serial communications include deliberations among a quorum of members, even when using an intermediary.

Steven Wilker, a public records law expert, said the text exchanges likely violate the law. “You’re involving the voices of a quorum in that decision, and you’re doing it out of the public eye,” he said. “The public meetings law is designed to bring decision making out into the public.”

Tim Gleason, a professor emeritus, criticized the numerous text exchanges during public budget hearings. “It’s clearly a violation of the spirit of the public meetings law to be holding essentially private conversations in the middle of a public meeting when you’re a public officer,” he said. “That just erodes the public’s trust.”

Responses from Council Members

Morillo defended the actions of her colleagues, stating that what was discussed in the chat was either stated aloud or voted on in real time. She called the accusations “politically motivated attacks” against progressive officials.

Kanal emphasized that his office would continue to operate within the law and prioritize transparency. “I take ethics very seriously and seek to uphold public meetings laws at all times,” he said.

Novick claimed he was unaware that other councilors had been communicating via a separate text thread. He noted that he had publicly proposed an amendment to cut police funding and redirect it to parks.

The city attorney’s office is currently reviewing multiple complaints, though no specific number has been released. A response is expected later this week.

This case highlights the ongoing challenges of balancing internal communication with the principles of transparency and public accountability in local governance.