The city of Portland on Friday submitted a

to a state panel that will decide whether to overturn an arbitrator's ruling that ordered the city to reinstate Ronald Frashour as a Portland police officer.

Attorneys hired by the city argue that rehiring Frashour, who was fired for fatally shooting an unarmed man in the back Jan. 29, 2010, would violate public policy, as his use of deadly force was "unjustified and egregious.''

Attorneys Howard Rubin and Jennifer Nelson contend that the state Employment Relations Board should consider that Portland police policies on the use of deadly force are more restrictive than federal or state law.

City deputy attorney Dave Woboril testified during the arbitration hearing that the bureau's force policy adopted in 2008 reflects the bureau's desire that its officers "when practical use less force than the maximum allowed by law.''

More

The city-hired attorneys also urge the state panel to consider a recent report by outside consultants, the Los Angeles-based Office of Independent Review, who described the bureau's investigation of the shooting as thorough and persuasive.

Further, the attorneys say that the state board's past interpretation of the "public policy exemption'' adopted into state law in 1995 is too narrow and "inconsistent'' with the intent of state lawmakers who drafted it.

Based on court rulings, Oregon's Employment Relations Board has used a three-part test to determine whether an arbitrator's decision violates public policy: Did the arbitrator find the employee guilty of misconduct? If so, did the arbitrator relieve the person of responsibility for the misconduct? And is there a clearly defined public policy in statutes or judicial decisions that makes the award unenforceable?

Attorneys for the Portland Police Association have argued that the city will lose outright on the first question because the arbitrator found that Frashour acted within bureau policy and training. Union attorneys also contend that returning Frashour to the force would not violate public policy clearly set out in a statute or judicial decision, and that local policies aren't relevant in the board's consideration.

The attorneys for the city say the three-part test should be thrown out.

"The three-part analysis for enforcement of arbitration awards created by the Board, and which forms the basis for the PPA's argument, is a recipe for rubber-stamping rather than meaningful review,'' Rubin and Nelson wrote in the city's brief.

Frashour shot Aaron Campbell in the back with an AR-15 rifle after another officer had fired multiple beanbag shotgun rounds at Campbell and Campbell turned to run toward his girlfriend's apartment building. Campbell was unarmed, but Frashour said he thought Campbell was reaching for a gun.

The mayor and Police Chief Mike Reese fired Frashour in November 2010 after concluding that Campbell did not pose an immediate threat of death or physical injury and Frashour failed to consider other tactical options.

But on March 30, Arbitrator Jane Wilkinson ordered the city to reinstate him with lost wages, saying a reasonable officer could have concluded that Campbell "made motions that appeared to look like he was reaching for a gun.'' The mayor refused to reinstate Frashour, and the union filed an Unfair Labor Practice Complaint against the city.

"If the Board allows the arbitrator's award and reinstatement remedy to stand, the result will be that the PPB and other Oregon law enforcement agencies, will not be able to set and enforce the higher standards for the use of force that the federal and state law endorse and our community expects,'' the attorneys for the city wrote in their brief.

If the state panel upholds the arbitrator's ruling, the city asks that it deny the police union's request that Frashour be awarded interest on back pay, as well as a civil penalty against the city.

--