Category: Council Emails

Hello Jonathan,

Confirming receipt of your email, 6/3/2026.

Ashley Bontje
CITY RECORDER
City Manager’s Office

To: Bend City Council (councilall@bendoregon.gov)
Cc: Ashley Bontje, City Recorder (abontje@bendoregon.gov); City Manager’s Office (communications@bendoregon.gov)
Subject: Petition for Council Review of Police Department Policy 428 — Bend Code 1.30.005(C)

---

To the City Council, Ms. Bontje, and the City Manager’s Office,

Attached is a petition, submitted under Bend Code 1.30.005(C), requesting that the City Council review Bend Police Department Policy 428 (Automated License Plate Readers) at a public meeting with opportunity for public comment.

Bend Code 1.30.005(C) provides that “the Council may review any regulation adopted by the City Manager on its own motion, or on petition of any person filed within 30 calendar days of the first public posting of the regulation.” This petition is filed within that window. Under BC 1.05.020, the 30-day period runs through Monday, June 15, 2026, whether Policy 428 was first posted on May 14 or May 15, 2026. The petition explains the basis for those dates.

Because 1.30.005(C) does not specify a filing location, I am submitting this petition by email to the City Council, the City Recorder, and the City Manager’s Office to ensure proper receipt. A hard copy is also being delivered to City Hall / mailed to the City Recorder. If the City believes this petition should be filed in a different manner or location, I respectfully request written notice so I can promptly correct it within the time allowed.

I would appreciate written acknowledgment of receipt, including the date of filing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Westmoreland
Resident, City of Bend, Oregon

---

Attachment: Petition for City Council Review of Bend Police Department Policy 428 (BC 1.30.005(C))

Hi Melanie,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, and for offering to talk individually. I understand the public-meeting-law concern and appreciate you moving Council to BCC.

I agree on the core points: Council does not directly manage the Police Chief or department staff, police policies are generally administrative documents, and state law applies whether or not Policy 428 restates it.

The distinction I am trying to draw turns on a word in your own reply. You wrote that Council does not “typically” review administrative police policies. I agree — and that is the distinction. Policy 428 is not a typical administrative policy. Most department policies govern internal officer conduct. Policy 428 governs a public-facing surveillance system: the collection, retention, sharing, auditing, and oversight of automated license plate reader data associated with members of the public, most of whom are not suspected of anything. A policy that determines how the City collects, stores, shares, and may search time-and-location data associated with ordinary residents’ vehicles feels like a matter of public governance and civil liberties, not only day-to-day administration.

In looking at how the Charter and Code address this kind of question, a few provisions seemed relevant and I wanted to flag them for the conversation. Charter Section 6 vests all powers of the City in the Council except as the Charter provides otherwise, and Section 5 directs that the Charter be liberally construed so the City may exercise its powers fully. Bend Code 1.30.005(E) requires the City Manager’s regulations, policies, and guidelines to be consistent with the Charter, the Bend Code, and Council ordinances, and 1.30.005(C) provides a mechanism for Council review of a City Manager regulation, either on its own motion or on petition of any person within 30 days of first public posting. I’m not assuming Policy 428 falls within (C) — the Code doesn’t define “regulation,” and I’d genuinely value the City’s view on that. But it does seem like the kind of question worth understanding the answer to, given the public-facing nature of what 428 governs.

A couple of things I’d appreciate your thoughts on whenever we talk: how the City thinks about whether a public-facing surveillance policy like 428 falls within 1.30.005(C), and whether there’s a sense of when Council might see the Policy 428 framework — and any related safeguards — in a public setting. I appreciate your clarification that any new fixed-ALPR use will require a contract that comes before Council with public comment, and that’s helpful. My remaining concern is sequencing: by the time a contract reaches Council, the governing framework may already be largely set by the department policy and the vendor’s terms. Seeing the policy framework publicly before or alongside any such contract would let the community weigh in while the rules can still be shaped.

That same reasoning is why I raised the surveillance-technology procurement and oversight ordinance in my original letter. Adopting an ordinance is legislation, squarely Council’s role, and it would set clear public rules up front rather than handling each issue ad hoc after it becomes a controversy. I’d love to discuss that on the call as well, if you have time.

My schedule is pretty flexible for the next week or so — if you can send a couple of times that work for you, I can accommodate. Thank you again for engaging with this so seriously.

Best,
Jonathan Westmoreland

Hi Jonathan,

The City Council does not typically review administrative polices of the police department, as we are not direct managers of the police department nor any other staff other than the City Manager. This is why I forwarded your feedback to the Chief. Also, it’s not possible to really engage in discussion and deliberation with you over email with all of us included as that would violate public meeting laws. I’m happy to give you a call to discuss more individually. I am moving Council to BCC to avoid further group emails at this point.

Some other clarifications:

Any new use of fixed ALPR will require a contract, that contract will come before Council at a public meeting at which public comment will be available, and discussion can be had at that time of whether Councilors want to support such a contract or not. Written comments from the public on items of general interest are received directly to us via email to Councilall@bendoregon.gov – unless it is a land use public hearing our staff typically do not compile comments for the agenda packet but we see them in our email.

On policy 428 – as is the case with many administrative or city policies that are governed by state law, it is not necessary to copy the exact, full language of the statute into our policy. The state law will always apply, even if our policy does not incorporate each and every word. Admin policies guide our departments and are operational documents – they do not replace or override state laws and statutes, which always apply.

Please let me know if you’d like to chat further and I can give you a call.

Thanks,

Melanie

Councilors,

Attached are my detailed comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428, dated May 15, 2026, along with a one-page summary of requested amendments and Exhibit A, a section-by-section comparison of SB 1516 and Policy 428.

My central concern is that Policy 428 has two separate problems.

First, the policy contains specific operational and textual gaps that should be closed before adoption — places where the policy authorizes uses broader than the statute permits, omits required vendor contract terms, or fails to require audit and logging fields the statute requires the operative documents to contain.

Second, even where the policy fits within SB 1516, it adopts the broadest uses state law still allows rather than a narrower local standard appropriate for Bend.

SB 1516 is the statutory floor for ALPR use in Oregon — it is not the ceiling for local privacy protection.

The clearest example is the parking-use authorization. SB 1516 §4(2)(g) permits ALPR use for “regulating the use of parking facilities” — one bounded purpose. Policy 428.3 expands this to “parking regulation and the management of parking facilities” — two distinct authorizations joined by “and.”

That is the operative permission on the face of the document and cannot be cured by deference to state law.

The attached letter identifies similar operational gaps in the policy’s required vendor contract terms, including missing CJIS Security Addendum execution and security-incident notification language; the monthly vendor audit fields, including missing the per-search detail SB 1516 §6(1)(i) requires; and the outside-agency search log, including the missing cameras-accessed field SB 1516 §5(2)(b)(C) requires.

It also addresses SB 1516 §5(2)(b)’s substantive scope limits on outside-agency sharing — “limited to data relevant” and “no unrestricted or ongoing access” — which are independent of the prohibited-purpose list in Policy 428.6.3 and worth operationalizing through the written request-certification process described in Part II.

The letter also describes eighteen local strengthenings grouped into seven categories:

• administrative-use limits,
• sensitive-location and occupant protections,
• outside-agency controls,
• retention and historical-search limits,
• vendor and cybersecurity controls,
• public accountability and complaint redress, and
• Council-approval requirements.

Each is consistent with SB 1516; none asks the City to use ALPRs in a way state law prohibits.

I respectfully ask Council not to treat Policy 428 as final until Bend PD closes the operational and textual gaps identified in the letter and Exhibit A, and until Council considers stronger local safeguards.

I would also encourage Council to advance the broader Bend Surveillance Technology Accountability, Privacy, and Civil Rights Ordinance so future surveillance technologies are not added in piecemeal department-policy form without public notice and Council approval.

I am happy to answer questions, provide further clarification, or discuss any of the items in the attached materials at the Council’s convenience. I can be reached at

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

---

Attachments

The documents attached to my email to Council are available below:

• Council letter regarding Policy 428
• Exhibit A: SB 1516 vs. Policy 428 comparison
• Requested amendments one-page summary