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
Leave a Reply