What happened at Portland City Hall this week wasn't pretty.

A police union contract approved with little public input. A crowd throwing bottles and screaming at police officers. A public building surrounded by cops in riot gear.

It's not a good look.

I doubt most Portlanders have closely followed the Portland Police Association contract negotiations. Not that it hasn't been reported. A quick search found at least 22 articles and opinion pieces in The Oregonian/OregonLive since February about the contract and the community's concerns.

But most Portlanders don't have frequent actions with police. They aren't regularly pulled over. They have not had a loved one killed following an interaction with an officer. A police union contract isn't top of mind.

So it's worth it to remind ourselves how we got here.

Among the points of contention:

- The contract was negotiated behind closed doors, unlike in 2013 and 2010, when the police association's contract negotiations were held publicly. In 2010, association president Officer Daryl Turner said "Holding negotiating sessions in a public forum allows for transparency, and opens lines of communication in ways important to our association and the citizens we protect." Those negotiations weren't public this time, and the city refused to release the full contract during negotiations.

- The contract includes a double-dipping "retire-rehire program" that allows officers eligible for retirement to retire and then be immediately rehired at the top of their pay grade while still drawing their pension. Protesters fear efforts to change the culture at the Police Bureau will fail if members of the old guard stay on.

- It's being rushed through. The current contract doesn't expire until June 2017. Why not let incoming mayor Ted Wheeler work on it in January?

- It does not clear up questions about the bureau's body camera policy. A draft policy that allows officers to review body camera footage before being interviewed in most internal affairs cases was provided with the contract, but Mayor Charlie Hales later said nothing's final about the policy. Still, whatever the policy is, it will need to be approved by the union. The practice of allowing officers to review video before making statements about an incident has been criticized by the Department of Justice. If you want to understand an officer's perspective at the time of an incident, you want to hear the officer's version of events before he or she watches the video. This draft policy raises questions about whether the city is serious about implementing reforms from a 2012 federal investigation into excessive force by officers.

- It doesn't give the City Auditor's Independent Police Review division any meaningful oversight. The IPR is "an independent, civilian oversight agency tasked by Portland City Council to investigate and monitor allegations of misconduct," its website states. Yet it doesn't have the authority to compel officers to speak with its members, and it doesn't have jurisdiction over deadly force cases. This is another issue raised by the Justice Department that is not addressed in the new contract. The contract is good until 2020, so it will be at least eight years after the federal settlement before we can even hope to have this changed.

That's the message of Don't Shoot Portland; now let's talk about the method. I can agree the contract has serious flaws, and I can still cringe at some of the protesters' actions.

Activist and former mayoral candidate Jessie Sponberg captured a 53-minute video of Wednesday's protest at City Hall, which shows the events leading up to the protesters being forced from the second floor lobby. As of Saturday, it had been watched more than 18,000 times.

According to Sponberg's narration, about 15 minutes passed from when protesters were told to leave to when officers marched forward and pushed people out of the building. Before the forceful evacuation, Sponberg is heard cursing at the officers, calling them "real gross," "disgusting pig(s)" and taunting them with language that's too offensive for me to list here.

To be fair, a man with a megaphone can be heard in the video telling protesters "don't yell at them," but in the heat of the moment, vulgar things were said.

As officers advanced, they shoved protesters outside and down a series of steps. Several people fell. Others were pepper sprayed as officers attempted to close the doors of City Hall and lock people out.

I talked with Sponberg on Thursday, when he was still "nursing his wounds" before further protests on Friday. He described the events as a last resort after writing letters, giving testimony and attempting to talk with city leaders.

"What else do they expect us to do? Write another letter to the editor? Make more protest signs?" he asked. "What's the alternative? Dig a hole and climb in? We've done everything we were asked to do and it's still not enough."

Things have - predictably -- continued to escalate. Protesters spent Friday night camped in front of Hales' home demanding he resign before his term ends on Jan. 1.

I don't support these tactics. There's enough vulgarity in politics, we don't need to add to it by hurling expletives at city officials and bringing Hales' neighbors into the melee. I believe more things get solved when we lower our voices and look each other in the eye.

But I understand that doesn't always happen.

I also understand that if I hadn't watch video of people being pepper sprayed on the steps of City Hall, this column wouldn't have been written. The conversation about the police contract would be over.

Where does that leave us? I don't know. I couldn't tell you where that "sweet spot" is for a protest that causes just the right amount of public sympathy without too much discomfort.

I can say that when citizens feel shut out of the governmental process, this is what happens.

It isn't pretty.

-- Samantha Swindler

@editorswindler / 503-294-4031

sswindler@oregonian.com