Portland’s method of enforcing parking tickets is unprofessional and leaves room for “favoritism” and “illegal conduct,” according to a consultant’s report obtained by The Oregonian.

A spokesman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, which administers the city parking tickets system, provided a statement Friday in which the bureau denied its practices were improper, but which nevertheless acknowledged changes ought to be made.

According to the report, the central issue is how parking enforcement officers handle situations when a person issued a ticket files an appeal, which is ultimately decided by a Multnomah County judge.

The officer and the person who has appealed meet at the courthouse shortly before appearing before the judge. That informal conversation is called a “settlement conference,” during which the officer and ticket holder negotiate whether to reduce or dismiss the ticket. The negotiation is held in a large, open area where privacy is not guaranteed.

“This entire process needs to be changed in an effort to bring a sense of privacy and professionalism into this judicial procedure,” the consultants wrote in the report, obtained by The Oregonian via public records request.

They said the settlement conference procedure is “unheard of within the parking industry” and “absolutely compromises the integrity of the entire process as the officer can issue and then reduce or dismiss a ticket as they see fit.” The report states it would be “very easy to show favoritism or even get into a situation of unethical and/or illegal conduct.”

Consultants also observed traffic court and found the judge, who was not named, accepted 100 percent of officers’ recommendations “with no explanation or justification.” That led to the conclusion that the parking officer “basically becomes the judge.”

Complicating matters was that officers have no “supervision, guidance, instruction, protocols or reasoning” for using their powers to reduce or dismiss tickets.

“It’s all at their sole discretion which is a huge accountability issue and creates possible integrity concerns,” the report states. “There is no one from the city monitoring these proceedings and therefore no consistency for any of the decisions that are being made.”

Representatives of the consulting firm, called SP+, did not return a request for comment.

Their findings raise questions about whether the system of enforcing traffic citations issued by uniformed police officers suffers the same vulnerabilities. A Portland Police Bureau spokesman, Sgt. Kevin Allen, said Friday that settlement conferences are a “common” method for officers to resolve traffic citations, but are not required. He declined to comment on the consultant’s findings.

The consultant’s report, which was issued in October 2018, recommends city officials “express their concern” to Multnomah County judges and enact “very strict guidelines as to when a ticket can be reduced or dismissed.”

Another suggested option was to create an administrative appeal that takes place before the court date. Such systems are used nationwide and reduce court system workloads, the report states.

John Brady, a spokesman for the Bureau of Transportation, said the agency will put in place “new guidelines for the settlement conferences” within three to six months. He said the agency did not yet have a draft of the regulations.

Brady said the purpose of the guidelines will be to “ensure the conferences are conducted in a consistent and equitable manner.”

The bureau had not tracked data that could show whether settlement decisions favor certain drivers. And Brady said it does not plan to track such data in the future, either.

“We believe that these and other changes still to be made will bring heightened transparency and equity to the current process,” the statement said. “At the same time, it is important to note that we believe in the overall integrity and soundness of the current settlement practice.”

Brady said that is because settlement conferences offer members of the public “a valuable opportunity to humanize what could otherwise be an impersonal process.” Even if an agreement is reached, he said, the decision to accept it is ultimately the judge’s.

Barbara Marcille, the Multnomah County trial court administrator, said the court was aware that a review was taking place but had not seen the report. Upon being provided a copy by The Oregonian on Thursday, Marcille said there had not been enough time to review it for the presiding judge, Stephen Bushong, to comment.

Marcille said court officials met with the consultants, who were “unfamiliar” with municipalities like Portland where parking citations are handled in the courts rather than via an administrative process.

“It isn’t clear to us what differences they see between the administrative processes they are more familiar with and our judicial process that would generate the stated concerns,” Marcille said, adding that the court “supports settlement conferences” because they offer both sides an opportunity to resolve differences.

Marcille and Brady noted that the new Multnomah County courthouse, set to open in 2020, will have meeting spaces for private settlement conferences that the current courthouse lacks.

— Gordon R. Friedman

GFriedman@Oregonian.com