Mayor and Councilors,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Exhibit A to Agenda Item 5 from the May 20 Business Meeting. I have one targeted suggestion for BC 1.20.015(I), City Manager Advisory Groups.
As drafted, subsection (I) creates a category of informal or structured advisory groups, including technical advisory groups, focus groups, task forces, evaluation teams, and steering committees, that may or may not be subject to Oregon Public Meetings Law depending on the group’s role and authority.
For surveillance-related work, that distinction matters. Vendor evaluation, pilot deployment, policy scoping, and early procurement recommendations often occur before a formal Council vote. If those discussions happen in informal structures that are not treated as public meetings, the public may not have meaningful visibility until the major choices have already been shaped.
A narrow carve-out would close that gap without disturbing the rest of Chapter 1.20.
Proposed addition to the end of BC 1.20.015(I):
«Notwithstanding the foregoing, any group or committee created under this subsection whose scope includes the evaluation, selection, procurement, deployment, oversight, or policy governance of surveillance technology shall comply with the notice, access, minutes, and other open-meeting requirements of Oregon Public Meetings Law, regardless of whether the group or committee makes a recommendation to the City Council or another advisory body.»
Recommended companion definition, added to BC 1.20.005 or incorporated by reference:
«“Surveillance technology” means any electronic device, system, hardware, software, or hosted software solution used, designed, or primarily intended to collect, retain, analyze, process, or share audio, visual, biometric, location, or other data associated with identifiable individuals or groups. The term includes, without limitation, automated license plate readers, facial recognition systems, body-worn and fixed-location cameras with analytic capability, drones and aerial surveillance platforms, cell-site simulators, social media monitoring tools, predictive policing software, and data aggregation or fusion platforms. The term does not include standard office productivity software, routine IT security tools, or city-operated infrastructure cameras used solely for traffic signal operation.»
The “notwithstanding” construction is intended to make this a narrow exception to the discretionary language earlier in subsection (I), without requiring broader changes to Chapter 1.20. The verb list is intentionally broad enough to cover the full procurement and policy lifecycle. The definition is also modeled on language used in comparable surveillance oversight ordinances adopted in cities such as Oakland, Seattle, and Cambridge.
Respectfully,
Jonathan
Leave a Reply