1doj.JPG

Mayor Charlie Hales attends a news conference in November 2013 in which federal, city and police union officials explained elements of a police reform agreement. The lack of an independent court monitor, however, is one of the agreement's vulnerabilities.

(Oregonian/OregonLive file photo)

A recent memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions that telegraphs his disdain for federal involvement in local police reform should trigger Portland leaders to make one bold move for police accountability: They should ask a federal judge to step in and appoint an independent monitor to keep the city honest about its progress on promised police reforms.

That's the set-up already in place in more than a dozen other cities where, like Portland, the local police agency was found to have engaged in excessive force. The idea has already been recommended to Portland officials by a now disbanded citizens panel that struggled to provide that same kind of oversight. And there's one more critical benefit of switching to an independent monitor: It would help assure the community that someone immune to shifting political winds is holding Portland accountable for the promises it made.

Sessions' March 31 memo, as reported by The Oregonian/OregonLive's Maxine Bernstein, makes all too clear why an independent monitor will matter. While Sessions said the department will fulfill its mission statement of ensuring public safety and administration of justice for all Americans, he called for a review of the department's consent decrees governing police reform efforts in cities across the country. He emphasized the need for the department to promote officer morale and public respect and expressly noted that "local control and local accountability are necessary for effective local policing. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies."

Editorial Agenda 2017

Boost student success

Get Oregon's financial house in order

Help our homeless

Honor our diverse values

Make Portland a city that works

Expand access to public records

________________________

.

That signals concern for those cities without established police reform plans. But Portland's agreement, approved in 2014, is especially vulnerable compared to those in other cities operating under finalized plans. The city, by design, has only nominal court involvement and no independent, court-appointed monitor to measure its progress and compliance with agreed-upon police reforms. Rather it's up to a city-hired compliance team and a community oversight board -- which dissolved recently -- to evaluate Portland's progress. And as the only other party to the settlement, the Department of Justice provides annual status updates to a federal judge on whether it believes the city is meeting the settlement terms.

As recently as last fall, Department of Justice lawyers ripped then Mayor Charlie Hales and the police bureau for accountability failures connected to their secrecy surrounding a criminal investigation of then-Police Chief Larry O'Dea for an apparently accidental shooting of a friend.

But U.S. Attorney for Oregon Bill Williams struck a more positive tone in a recent conversation with The Oregonian/OregonLive's Editorial Board. Williams said the Department of Justice is continuing to work with Portland leaders about what still needs to be done, adding that he is optimistic about Mayor Ted Wheeler's commitment to meeting the terms of the settlement agreement. The goal, he said, is for the parties to achieve success and move on.

The problem is defining "success" is left up to a city with a bleak history of police reform and a federal agency that may no longer want the responsibility.

This should set off alarm bells. While the Portland Police Bureau has made many significant improvements, there are key parts of the settlement that remain unfulfilled. The city has yet to come up with a plan for reviving the community oversight board and has not streamlined the byzantine process for handling citizens' complaints against police officers. And while not directly related to the settlement, the placing of current Police Chief Mike Marshman on leave amid misconduct allegations -- the second time in a year that the bureau's chief has been put on leave -- threatens to distract the bureau's progress and attention.

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.

Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Mark Katches, John Maher and Len Reed.

To respond to this editorial:

Post your comment below, submit

, or

.

If you have questions about the opinion section, contact Laura Gunderson, editorial and commentary editor, at 503-221-8378 or lgunderson@oregonian.com.

This isn't to say that the city is uninterested or insincere about police reform. But without someone with the authority to hold the city to its promises, there's always the risk that leaders might shift their money or attention to other priorities. It is too easy for Portland leaders to let deadlines or responsibilities slip if they no longer feel the pressure.

Realistically, it's hard to imagine Portland City Council would willingly put the city under the oversight of a court-appointed monitor, a judge or other independent body. After all, commissioners under Mayor Hales twice appealed even the most modest orders by U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, who simply sought to have the city to share more information about its progress in a public setting.

But under Wheeler, the council has the opportunity to take stock of where police reform stands -- in Portland, and in the portfolio of the federal justice department. It can weigh the troubles of the police bureau and the perception of the public. And it can consider the importance of credibility in such a sensitive issue as police reform. The city can declare success on its own, but it's the public that will decide whether we move on.

-- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board