2026-11-05 - Finance & Governance Committee (Whole)

>> IT IS 9:31 A.M. ON NOVEMBER

5TH, 2026. I DON'T HAVE A GAVEL.

SO THAT IS A CELL PHONE THAT I

AM HITTING UP. REBECCA, WILL

YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> GOOD MORNING, CLERK GREEN

HERE. ZIMMERMAN.

>> AVALOS PRESENT. SMITH HERE.

>> SO PIRTLE-GUINEY.

>> I HAVE THIS OUTSIZED

PRIORITY I THINK COMING TO

TEXAS. RYAN HERE.

>> KOYAMA LANE.

>> I'M SICK, BUT I'M HERE.

>> MORILLO.

>> OR I AM HERE.

>> NOVICK.

>> HERE. DUNPHY I'M HERE.

>> KANAL.

>> HERE.

>> THANK YOU. AND CHRISTOPHER,

COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE

STATEMENT OF CONDUCT?

>> YES. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME

TO THE MEETING OF THE FINANCE

AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE

WHOLE. TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS

COMMITTEE IN PERSON OR

VIRTUALLY, YOU MUST SIGN UP IN

ADVANCE IN THE COMMITTEE AGENDA

AT

WWW.PORTLAND.GOV/COUNCIL/AGENDAE

OR BY CALLING 311. INFORMATION

ON ENGAGING WITH THE COMMITTEE

CAN BE FOUND AT THIS LINK.

REGISTRATION FOR VIRTUAL

TESTIMONY CLOSES ONE HOUR PRIOR

TO THE MEETING IN PERSON.

TESTIFIERS MUST SIGN UP BEFORE

THE AGENDA ITEM IS HEARD. IF

PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN

ON AN ITEM, INDIVIDUALS MAY

TESTIFY FOR THREE MINUTES

UNLESS THE CHAIR STATES

OTHERWISE, YOUR MICROPHONE WILL

BE MUTED. WHEN YOUR TIME IS

OVER, THE CHAIR PRESERVES ORDER

DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT SUCH AS

SHOUTING, REFUSING TO CONCLUDE

YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN YOUR TIME

IS UP, OR INTERRUPTING OTHERS

TESTIMONY OR COMMITTEE

DELIBERATIONS WILL NOT BE

ALLOWED. IF YOU CAUSE A

DISRUPTION, A WARNING WILL BE

GIVEN FOR THE DISRUPTION WILL

RESULT IN EJECTION FROM THE

MEETING OR IN THIS CASE, BEING

MUTED. ANYONE WHO FAILS TO

LEAVE ONCE EJECTED IS SUBJECT

TO ARREST FOR TRESPASS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMITTEE MAY

TAKE A SHORT RECESS AND

RECONVENE VIRTUALLY. YOUR

TESTIMONY SHOULD ADDRESS THE

MATTER BEING CONSIDERED WHEN

TESTIFYING. STATE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD. IF YOU'RE A

LOBBYIST, IDENTIFY THE

ORGANIZATION YOU REPRESENT.

VIRTUAL TESTIFIER SHOULD UNMUTE

THEMSELVES WHEN THE CLERK CALLS

YOUR NAME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU BOTH. SO,

COLLEAGUES, TODAY WE'VE GOT A

FULL AGENDA. WE PROBABLY WILL

NOT GET TO THE LAST ITEM, WHICH

IS A CONTINUATION OF THE

COUNCIL LEADERSHIP ELECTION

PROCESS DISCUSSION THAT WILL BE

MOST LIKELY CONTINUED TO

ANOTHER MEETING. I WOULD LIKE

TO TRY TO GET THROUGH

EVERYTHING ELSE, OR AT LEAST

THE TESTIMONY ON THE LAST THING.

SO WE HAVE A FIRST HOUR MINUTES

APPROVAL, WHICH I'LL GO TO IN A

SECOND. THEN THE COMMITTEE

CHAIR UPDATE. AFTER THAT, WE

WILL BE DISCUSSING THE

INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE CITY,

WHICH IS AN ANNUAL RESOLUTION

THAT WE ADOPT WITH THE EXHIBIT

TO THAT RESOLUTION BEING THE

INVESTMENT POLICY ITSELF. WE'VE

HAD A COUPLE DISCUSSIONS ON

THIS STEMMING FROM AN AMENDMENT

LAST YEAR TO A WORK SESSION

KIND OF CONVERSATION IN AUGUST,

AND THIS IS THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT

COMING BACK TO US FOR FIRST

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIALLY

REFERRAL TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE'LL

CONTINUE THE TWO ITEMS FROM THE

CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSION

FROM LAST MEETING, STARTING

WITH THE TESTIMONY WILL BE

READING THOSE TWO ITEMS

TOGETHER INTO THE RECORD. SO

WITH THAT, REBECCA, COULD YOU

PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM INTO

THE RECORD.

>> ITEM ONE FINANCE AND

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE

WHOLE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 6TH,

2026. AUGUST 13TH, 2026.

SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2026. SEPTEMBER

10TH, 2026, SEPTEMBER 16TH,

2026 AND SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2026.

>> THANK YOU. MINUTES FOR THESE

SEVEN MEETINGS WILL BE APPROVED

BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. IF THERE

ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THEN

THERE'LL BE APPROVED. ARE THERE

ANY OBJECTIONS? SEEING NONE AND

SEEING SOME HEAD SHAKES TO THAT.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THANK

YOU. REBECCA, CAN YOU PLEASE

READ ITEM TWO?

>> ITEM TWO COMMITTEE CHAIR

UPDATES. DOCUMENT NUMBER

2026-394.

>> THANK YOU. SO THE CHAIR'S

UPDATE FOR THIS WEEK? I DON'T

HAVE PRINTOUTS, OBVIOUSLY, BUT

THEY ARE POSTED ONLINE, AND

WE'LL GET TO COUNCILOR NOVAK'S

PORTION IN JUST A MOMENT. BUT I

DID WANT TO JUST KIND OF FLAG

THAT MOST OF THE APPOINTMENTS

THAT WERE FLAGGED ON THE 18TH

HAVE BEEN MOVED UP TO NEXT WEEK,

THE 12TH OF NOVEMBER, AND WILL

FOLLOW THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

THAT COLLEAGUES IN THE WORK

GROUP HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.

THERE ARE A FEW APPOINTMENTS

THAT ARE STILL SCATTERED AROUND

THROUGH THE REST OF THE YEAR,

AND WE'RE TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE

THOSE AS WELL. THE OTHER THING

I WANTED TO BRING BACK UP IS

THAT THERE WILL BE A OVERSIGHT

HEARING ON DECEMBER 3RD. WE DO

HAVE ONE FORECLOSURE THAT WAS

TABLED THAT WILL BE BRINGING

BACK. THE OTHER. FORECLOSURES

HAVE BEEN THE ADMINISTRATION

HAS ASKED TO HOLD THOSE BACK

FOR A LITTLE LONGER. SO THOSE

PROBABLY WON'T COME UNTIL NEXT

YEAR. BUT THE ONE THAT WAS

TABLED WILL COME BACK, AND

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THE

FIRST PAGE. NOTHING NEW ON THE

SECOND PAGE OF THINGS THAT ARE

PROPOSED BUT NOT YET SCHEDULED.

REALLY NOTHING ELSE THAT'S NEW

AT ALL, OTHER THAN THE FACT

THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO HANDLE THE

ONE UPCOMING COUNCIL DEADLINE

FOR THE ADMINISTRATION IN A

FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TODAY. ANY

QUESTIONS FOR ME BEFORE I PASS

IT OVER TO CHAIR NOVICK FROM

THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY

COMMITTEE? CHAIR? NOVICK,

PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO

WE'VE GOT THREE MEETINGS OF THE

COMMITTEE LEFT IN THE YEAR ON

THE 17TH. COUNCILOR MORILLO IS

GOING TO CHAIR A MEETING WHICH

WILL INCLUDE CODIFICATION OF

THE COMMUNITY SAFETY BUREAU, AS

RECOMMENDED WITH THE PPS BY THE

PSR COMMITTEE REPORT AND THE

PSA, AND THEN ON THE FIRST,

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE OUR

DISCUSSION OF POLICE RESPONSE

TIMES, FOLLOWING UP ON SOME OF

THE THINGS THAT THE POLICE SAID

THE LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THEM

AND ASKED THEM FOR, YOU KNOW,

INFORMATION BEHIND WHAT THEY

SAID. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY SAID

THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH MORE.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR LOW

RESPONSE TIMES? THEY'RE DEALING

WITH MORE COMPLEX SITUATIONS

AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PAYING

MORE ATTENTION TO DE-ESCALATING

SITUATIONS, ETC. WHICH IMPLIES

THAT, OKAY, THAT MEANS THAT

THERE'S CALLS THAT ARE TAKING

MORE TIME, THAT CALLS USED TO

TAKE TEN YEARS AGO. SO WHAT I'M

ASKING THEM IS, OKAY, CAN YOU

BREAK THAT DOWN FOR US? DOES

THAT MEAN THAT TEN YEARS AGO

YOU HAD 250 CALLS THAT REQUIRED

THREE HOURS OF POLICE OFFICER

TIME ON SCENE, AND NOW YOU HAVE

1600 OF THEM? WHAT'S THE WHAT'S

THE NUMBERS BEHIND THAT? THEY

ALSO TOLD US THAT THE NUMBER OF

SELF-INITIATED CALLS HAS GONE

UP, WHICH THEY THINK IS A GOOD

THING. SO MY QUESTION IS, OKAY,

THAT IMPLIES THAT YOU HAVE

DECIDED THAT SOME FORMS OF

SELF-INITIATED CALLS ARE MORE

IMPORTANT THAN IMPROVING

RESPONSE TIMES IN SOME KINDS OF

CALLS. SO CAN YOU BREAK THAT

DOWN FOR US? SO THOSE WILL BE

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE'RE

WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THEM.

AND WE ALSO ARE GOING TO ASK

CHIEF DAY TO GIVE US AN UPDATE

ON WHETHER THEY'RE TAKING MORE

ADVANTAGE OF RESTORATIVE

JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BECAUSE WHAT

WE HEARD BEFORE IS THAT THERE'S

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMS

THAT ARE LOOKING FOR REFERRALS

FROM THE POLICE THAT AREN'T

GETTING THEM. SO WE'RE GOING TO

ASK THE CHIEF IF HE HAS ANY

UPDATE ON THAT. ON THE 15TH,

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A

DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY CRIMES.

ACCORDING TO NATIONAL

STATISTICS, WE ARE SECOND WORST

IN THE NATION IN PROPERTY

CRIMES. SO WE WANT TO EXPLORE

THAT. WHICH PARTICULAR CRIMES

ARE WE PARTICULARLY BAD AT?

PICK SOME CITIES TO COMPARE US,

TO PICK SOME DEMOGRAPHICS OF

CITIES TO COMPARE US TO? AND DO

WE HAVE AND ALSO TALK A BIT

ABOUT CLEARANCE RATES, OUR

CLEARANCE RATES BETTER OR WORSE

THAN OTHER PLACES? WHAT MIGHT

WE DO TO IMPROVE THEM? AND THEN

ALSO THE 15TH WILL ALSO HAVE A

CALL ALLOCATION STUDY UPDATE,

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WE HEARD

BEFORE THAT ON WELFARE CHECKS

THAT WE SHOULD BE MOVING

TOWARDS UNARMED FOLKS TAKING

MORE OF THE WELFARE CHECKS, BUT

THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL

TRAINING CHANGES IN LABOR

CONTRACTS, ETC. SO I WANT TO

KNOW WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN

MADE. ARE THERE ANY BENCHMARKS

WE'VE ALREADY PASSED? WHAT

NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MOVE AHEAD

WITH THAT? SO THAT'S WHAT I GOT.

UNLESS COUNCILOR AYE, MORILLO

WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING, IF

THERE'S ANY OTHER TOPICS YOU

WANT TO ADD ON TO OTHER THAN

THE COMMUNITY SAFETY BUREAU

THAT YOU WANT TO ADD ON TO THE

17TH?

>> NO, I THINK YOU COVERED IT

ALL. WE WERE LOOKING AT A FEW

DIFFERENT POTENTIAL ITEMS, BUT

IT WAS SORT OF A QUICK

TURNAROUND TO TRY TO GET MORE

FOLKS, YOU KNOW, TO COME TO

PRESENT AND STUFF.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR NOVICK. I

SEE COUNCILOR RYAN'S IN THE

QUEUE. SO COUNCILOR RYAN, DO

YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> I JUST WANT TO THANK

COUNCILOR NOVICK FOR THAT

PREVIEW. I'M NOT ON THE

COMMITTEE, SO IT REALLY HELPS

TO HEAR WHAT'S COMING UP. AND

I'LL JUST PLUG HOW IMPORTANT

RIDE ALONGS ARE. I DO TWO A

YEAR. I SPENT FRIDAY NIGHT FROM

8 P.M. TO 3 A.M. INTO SATURDAY

MORNING. IT WAS JUST SO TELLING

AND EVERYTHING THAT COUNCILOR

NOVICK WAS SAYING. I NOW HAVE

SOME REALLY GOOD INSIGHT INTO

WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

BECAUSE I KEEP IT FRESH IN

TERMS OF RIDE ALONGS, SO I HOPE

ALL THE COLLEAGUES ARE DOING

THOSE. SO IT'S THE BIGGEST PART

OF OUR BUDGET, AND IT'S

IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE

INSIGHT INTO WHAT GOES ON IN

THE BEST WAY TO SEE THAT AS A

RIDE ALONG. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR RYAN.

CHAIR NOVICK, I JUST HAVE ONE

CLARIFYING QUESTION, WHICH IS

YOU MENTIONED THE THIRD MEETING

COMING UP THE 15TH. THAT IS

DECEMBER 15TH, RIGHT?

>> AND YES.

>> AND I GUESS THE OTHER PIECE

ACTUALLY, SORRY, THAT WAS ON

DECEMBER 1ST. YOU MENTIONED THE

CONVERSATION INCLUDED

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ON ON

DECEMBER 1ST AS WELL.

>> YES. WE JUST WANT TO I MEAN,

WE KNOW THAT THE POLICE HAVEN'T

BEEN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF

REFERRALS TO RESTORATIVE

JUSTICE PROGRAMS. WE KNOW THAT

THE CHIEF IS A BELIEVER IN

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMS.

SO I JUST WANT TO ASK THE CHIEF

TO COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW,

HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY STEPS TO

INCREASE THE EXTENT TO WHICH

WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THOSE

PROGRAMS?

>> APPRECIATE IT. I ACTUALLY

GOT ASKED ABOUT THIS AT A

COMMUNITY EVENT A COUPLE DAYS

AGO. SO EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO

REPORT BACK AND SAY, THIS IS

THE DAY TO COME IN. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO

THE CHAIR'S UPDATE? OKAY. WITH

THAT, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

REBECCA, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL

ITEM THREE.

>> ITEM THREE ADOPT CITY OF

PORTLAND INVESTMENT POLICY

DOCUMENT NUMBER 2026-396.

>> ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES, LAST

YEAR WE HAD A AN AMENDMENT MADE

TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY

RESOLUTION, BUT NOT TO THE

INVESTMENT POLICY ITSELF, WHICH

IS AN EXHIBIT ON IT. WE THEN

HAD A REPORT BACK FROM OUR

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JONAS

BIERY, WHO'S HERE WITH US TODAY,

AS WELL AS OUR INVESTMENT

OFFICER AND OUR TREASURER IN

AUGUST. AND WE KIND OF HAD A

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION AND

PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK. THE

RESOLUTION HAS BEEN REFILED BY

THE BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. AND

WE ARE HERE. AND THIS IS THE

NEXT STEP. WE CAN CONTINUE THIS

CONVERSATION AND OR REFER IT TO

THE FULL COUNCIL TODAY. AND

WITH THAT, I'LL PASS IT OVER TO

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER JONAS

BIERY.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND

JUST A THUMBS UP THAT YOU CAN

HEAR ME. OKAY, AWESOME. THANK

YOU SO MUCH. GOOD MORNING,

CHAIR COUNCILORS. FOR THE

RECORD, JONAS BIERY, THE CITY'S

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, YOU'LL

HEAR A LITTLE BIT FROM ME AND

TREASURER BRIDGET O'CALLAHAN

HERE JUST BRIEFLY THIS MORNING,

SO WE CAN GET TO, I THINK,

PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS.

SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO MOVE

FORWARD. THE CITY'S INVESTMENT

POLICY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2027.

THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS

THE CHAIR IDENTIFIED AS

RESPONSIVE TO RESOLUTION 37723,

APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER

OF LAST YEAR AND REFLECTS

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CONDUCTED

DURING 2026 AND REFLECTS THE

PRIOR CONVERSATION WITH THIS

COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF MONTHS

AGO. IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING

THE CITY'S CORE FIDUCIARY AND

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED

TO INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC DOLLARS,

THIS LEGISLATION PROPOSES

ADDING A SUPPLEMENTAL SCREENING

TOOL TO ADVANCE AN ETHICAL

INVESTMENT POLICY, AS WAS

DISCUSSED AND DESCRIBED IN LAST

YEAR'S COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. AND

WHILE WE PRESENTED SOME

BACKGROUND TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER

FOR FULL PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY,

WE'LL VERY BRIEFLY TOUCH ON

SOME OF THOSE KEY POINTS AGAIN

TODAY WITH REGARD TO THE CITY'S

CURRENT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

AND POLICY. AND THEN WE'LL

DESCRIBE THE NEW RECOMMENDED

POLICY SECTION REGARDING THAT

ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT SCREEN.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YEP. GOT IT.

THANK YOU.

>> JUST FOR ONE.

>> SECOND, OF COURSE.

>> WHOEVER'S SHARING THE SLIDES,

CAN YOU GO TO DISPLAY SETTINGS

AND INVERT THE WE'RE SEEING

YOUR BACK END VIEW.

>> OH MY APOLOGIES.

>> GO UP TO THE TOP.

>> SHOULD WE DISPLAY SETTINGS?

>> MY APOLOGIES BECAUSE THIS IS

NOT MY MY FORTE DISPLAY

SETTINGS. I'M NOT SEEING THAT.

>> I'M SEEING IT UP AT THE TOP

OF YOUR SCREEN HERE.

>> MY APOLOGIES. I DON'T USE

ZOOM VERY OFTEN. AND THEN SWAP.

IS THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO?

THANK YOU. MY APOLOGIES ABOUT

THAT.

>> NO WORRIES. SORRY FOR THE

INTERRUPTION.

>> YEAH IT'S GREAT. SORRY FOR

THE INTERRUPTION, CFO BIERY.

>> NO NO WORRIES. THANK YOU FOR

FLAGGING THAT. I CAN'T SEE YOU

SEE MY SCREEN AS I'M LOOKING AT

MY NOTES HERE, SO APPRECIATE

ANY HELP ALONG THE WAY. ALL

RIGHT. SO LET ME MAKE SURE

WE'RE ON HERE. YEAH. PERFECT

SLIDE. GREAT. SO THE CITY'S

INVESTMENT POLICY PROVIDES A

CLEAR FRAMEWORK AND CRITERIA

THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY

FOLLOWED BY THE CITY'S

INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS IN

MANAGING THE CITY'S INVESTMENT

PORTFOLIO. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

LIKE MOST GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT

FRAMEWORKS, THE INVESTMENT

POLICY ENCOURAGES SAFE AND LOW

RISK INVESTMENTS. ITS

OBJECTIVES ARE TO PRESERVE

PRINCIPAL ENSURE LIQUIDITY,

I.E. ENSURE THAT FUNDS ARE

AVAILABLE TO SPEND WHEN THEY'RE

NEEDED TO COVER EXPENDITURES,

AND LASTLY, TO EARN A MARKET

RETURN. AND BY MARKET RETURN,

WE MEAN CONSISTENT WITH

BENCHMARKS THAT MIRROR THE

CITY'S CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENT

CONSTRAINTS. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE

POLICY IS GUIDED AND SUPERSEDED

BY STATE LAW RELATED TO PUBLIC

INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING A

REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL RE

ADOPTION OF THE POLICY, WHICH

IS THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU

TODAY. WE ARE OBLIGATED THE

COUNCIL IS OBLIGATED TO PASS

THAT POLICY BY THE END OF THE

CALENDAR YEAR SO THAT OUR

INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS CAN

CONTINUE INVESTING PUBLIC FUNDS

BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST. THE

POLICY IS WRITTEN IN ALIGNMENT

WITH STATE TREASURY TEMPLATES

AND EXPECTATIONS, AND IT'S

PERIODICALLY REVIEWED FOR

ONGOING COMPLIANCE. NEXT SLIDE

PLEASE. AND THEN WE WANTED TO

JUST ACKNOWLEDGE HERE WE'VE HAD

SOME DIALOG ABOUT THIS

OBVIOUSLY OVER THE LAST MANY

MONTHS, BUT I WANTED TO

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE INVESTING HAS BEEN

A CITY PRIORITY SINCE AT LEAST

THE EARLY 20 TENS, AND THE CITY

HAS BEEN A NATIONAL LEADER IN

THIS SPACE. THIS SLIDE LISTS

SOME OF THE MAJOR DISCUSSIONS,

PRIOR COUNCIL DIRECTIVES, AND

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT

DEMONSTRATE THE CITY'S

CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION TO STAY AT

THE FOREFRONT OF SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE INVESTING. AND

TODAY'S PROPOSAL WILL CONTINUE

THAT LEADERSHIP. AND NOW I'LL

HAND TO CITY TREASURER

O'CALLAHAN TO DESCRIBE THE

CURRENT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

AND CURRENT INVESTMENT

LIMITATIONS.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU, CFO BIERY.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS

BRIDGET O'CALLAHAN AND I'M THE

CITY TREASURER. ALSO JOINING ME

HERE TODAY IS THE CITY'S

INVESTMENT OFFICER, MICHAEL

MONTGOMERY. BY WAY OF HISTORY

AND BACKGROUND, THE CITY'S THE

CITY MANAGES ALL CITY FUNDS IN

A POOL, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT

FUNDS FROM ANY COLLECTION POINT,

WHETHER THEY BE TAXES, FEES,

ETC. ARE ALL CENTRALLY

COLLECTED BY THE CITY'S

TREASURY DEPARTMENT. IF YOU

SORT OF THINK OF US AS THE BANK

FOR THE CITY IN THE SENSE THAT

WE COLLECT THE FUNDS, BUT WE

ALSO FINANCE TRANSACTIONS

THROUGH OUR PUBLIC FINANCE ARM.

SO THEY ARE ALL MANAGED FUNDS

ARE ALL MANAGED CENTRALLY. IT

REPRESENTS THE OPERATING FUNDS

OR THE CASH ASSETS, IF YOU WILL,

FOR THE CITY. AS OF JUNE 30TH,

THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 2.8

BILLION. IT'S CLOSER TO 3

BILLION TODAY. THE NET

INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THAT

PORTFOLIO ARE DISTRIBUTED BASED

UPON THE ALLOCATED FUND

BALANCES. SO IF YOU WILL,

WHATEVER TREASURY EARNS ON THE

FUNDS ARE ALL RETURNED BACK

DIRECTLY TO THOSE THOSE FUNDS,

THOSE PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE

THE THE BALANCES WERE

ATTRIBUTED TO. AND IN 2020,

FISCAL YEAR 2020 627, THAT WAS

$117 MILLION. NOW I'VE JUST

DONE SOMETHING STRANGE TO MY

SCREEN. SO MY APOLOGIES HERE.

THIS IS NOT, AGAIN, MY FORTE,

AND I'VE MANAGED TO GET MYSELF

TO A POINT WHERE I CAN'T CHANGE

SLIDES.

>> SO PLEASE CLICK ON THE SLIDE

THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO RETURN

TO OR SCROLL BACK IN.

>> OKAY, GIVE ME ONE MOMENT TO

TRY AND DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. IS

THAT. OKAY? WE'RE BACK. GIVE ME

ONE SECOND. OKAY. MY APOLOGIES.

THIS IS NOT MY EXPERTISE. ALL

RIGHT, SO THE CITY'S HISTORICAL

EARNINGS, AS YOU WILL SEE, WE

HISTORICALLY HAVE EARNED A

MARKET RETURN ON THE FUNDS. AND

AS JONAS REFERENCED, THAT'S THE

IMPORTANT PART ABOUT WHAT WE'RE

DOING, RIGHT? OUR FIRST FIRST

AND FOREMOST, OUR GOAL IS TO

PRESERVE THE PRINCIPLE. THEN

IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S

LIQUID AND AVAILABLE WHEN WE

NEED TO SPEND IT, AND THEN TO

EARN A MARKET RETURN. AND YOU

CAN SEE HERE SOME MOST RECENT

HISTORY IN TERMS OF THE FUNDS,

AGAIN, ALL THE FUNDS THIS PAST

YEAR, $117 MILLION WAS RETURNED

DIRECTLY TO THE BUREAUS WHERE

THOSE FUNDS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO.

NOW, FOR SOME REASON, THE

VERSION OF THE SLIDE I'M

LOOKING AT DOES NOT HAVE

BALANCES. ARE YOU SEEING THE

BALANCES IN THERE.

>> JUST FOR THE ONE THAT SAYS

U.S. TREASURIES?

>> OKAY, WELL, MY APOLOGIES. I

CAN GET YOU A BETTER COPY OF

THIS. WHAT THIS SLIDE WAS

INTENDED TO DO WAS TO GIVE YOU

A VIEW OF THE PORTFOLIO AS IT

STOOD AS OF 630 OF THIS YEAR,

THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AND

IT'S SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION

OF FUNDS. MY APOLOGIES. I CAN

GET YOU A BETTER VERSION OF OF

THIS SLIDE.

>> BUT SORRY, JUST TO INTERRUPT,

IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE VERSION

THAT'S POSTED ALONGSIDE THE

AGENDA ITEM DOES SHOW THESE

AMOUNTS. SO FOR FOLKS WHO WANT

TO SEE THOSE, IF YOU CAN ACCESS

THE AGENDA, IT'S AVAILABLE IN

THE POSTED PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WHAT I WANTED TO TAKE A FEW

MOMENTS TO TALK ABOUT HERE,

THOUGH, IS IN TERMS OF THE

SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE

PORTFOLIO, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS

THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR FUNDS

ARE IN TREASURIES AND AGENCY

SECURITIES. AGAIN, VERY SAFE

AND VERY STABLE INVESTMENTS.

AND A PORTION OF IT IS IN THE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT

POOL PORTION OF IT. IT'S IN

LOCAL COMMUNITY BANKS AND AND

NATIONAL BANKS, AND

APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE

PORTFOLIO, OR $851 MILLION, IS

IN CORPORATE SECURITIES. AGAIN,

THERE ARE CERTAIN PARAMETERS

AROUND THE SECURITIES THAT ARE

ALLOWED IN THE PORTFOLIO. AND

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS,

I'LL GET YOU A BETTER COPY OF

THIS FOR LATER IN THE

DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. AS I

MENTIONED, WE HAVE VERY SAFE

AND SECURE TYPES OF INVESTMENTS

THAT THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE

INVESTMENT POLICY. AND WHAT

YOU'LL SEE HERE ARE THE MAXIMUM

DISTRIBUTIONS OF THOSE. AGAIN,

VERY WE VERY HEAVILY WEIGHTED

IN TREASURIES AND AGENCIES. WE

DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE, OF

COURSE, INTEREST BEARING

DEPOSITS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT

INVESTMENT POOL, MUNICIPAL

BONDS OF OREGON, WASHINGTON,

IDAHO AND CALIFORNIA, AND THEN

OF COURSE, CORPORATE DEBT. AND

I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE

CORPORATE DEBT COMPONENT OF

THAT. THOSE ARE CORPORATE BONDS

AND NOT STOCKS. SO WE'RE NOT

TAKING AN OWNERSHIP POSITION IN

ANY OF THESE COMPANIES, IF YOU

WILL. THE INDUSTRIAL

CLASSIFICATIONS, THE CITY, AS

JONAS MENTIONED OVER SEVERAL

YEARS, HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY

TRYING TO IMPROVE THE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY ASPECTS OF OUR

PORTFOLIO. AND, YOU KNOW,

CERTAINLY FOCUSING ON HUMAN

RIGHTS AND VALUES THAT ARE

IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND

SO AS PART OF THAT PROCESS,

OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE

HAVE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS THAT

WE HAVE PROHIBITED IN THE

POLICY. SO HERE'S A LIST ON THE

SCREEN OF THOSE PROHIBITED.

BUSINESS CODES, CLASSIFICATION

CODES. AT THE END OF LAST YEAR

WE DID TAKE IT. WE ARE WE TAKE

THE INVESTMENT POLICY TO

COUNCIL ONCE A YEAR FOR AN

ANNUAL REVIEW. AT THE END OF

LAST YEAR, THERE WAS AN

AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY WHICH

ASKED US ESSENTIALLY THREE

THINGS. THE FIRST THING WAS TO

IT DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION

TO WORK WITH INTERESTED COUNCIL

OFFICES TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR

IMPROVING THE ETHICAL NESS OF

OUR POLICY AND TO FOCUS ON

CERTAIN PARAMETERS THERE. IT

ASKED US TO DO SOME COMMUNITY

OUTREACH. THOSE THINGS WERE

ACCOMPLISHED THROUGHOUT THE

PAST YEAR. IT ASKED US TO

DEVELOP A SCREENING FOR

POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS BASED ON

HUMAN RIGHTS, IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE UNITED NATIONS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS, AND TO COME BACK TO

COUNCIL AND PRESENT SOME

OPTIONS. AND THOSE OPTIONS WERE

PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN

SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. TAKING

THAT INPUT INTO ACCOUNT AND

LISTENING TO TESTIMONY,

CONDUCTING SOME RESEARCH ON

MODEL POLICIES AROUND THE

COUNTRY. WE ARE COMING BACK

TODAY WITH THE POLICY THAT IS

SET BEFORE YOU, AND THAT POLICY

IS INCORPORATING A NEW SECTION

THAT WILL FOCUS MORE ON SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIAL

GOVERNANCE. SO WITH THAT, LET

ME TURN IT BACK TO CFO BIERY TO

TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IN

THE POLICY AND HOW WE WANT TO

MOVE FORWARD.

>> GREAT. THANKS. THANKS,

BRIDGET. SO, YEAH, THERE'S TWO

KIND OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE

POLICY IN 2027. THE FIRST HERE

IS REALLY JUST KIND OF

HOUSEKEEPING ADMINISTRIVIA,

WHICH IS UPDATING TO REFERENCE

THE BUDGET AND FINANCE SERVICE

AREA, WHICH WAS REESTABLISHED

IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S

RECENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART.

AND THEN THE SECOND CHANGE IS,

IS MUCH MORE MATERIAL AND

IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S ADDING A

NEW SECTION THAT WE'VE TITLED

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND

GOVERNANCE OR ESG FOR SHORT.

THAT SECTION 16 OF THE POLICY

THAT'S POSTED AS I BELIEVE IT'S

APPENDIX A OR EXHIBIT A. AND SO

I JUST WANTED TO ALSO NOTE

WE'VE CHOSEN TO USE THE TERM

ESG AS THAT ALIGNS WITH THE

STANDARD KIND OF NOMENCLATURE

OF THE INVESTMENT INDUSTRY. BUT

THE INTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE IS

ALSO ALIGNED MORE BROADLY WITH

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE INVESTING, OR SRI,

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE

LANGUAGE RELATES TO THE ETHICAL

INVESTMENT PRIORITIES THAT

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE

OVER THE LAST 11 MONTHS. THE

CRUX OF THE ADDITION, AND YOU

CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE DETAIL IN

THE EXHIBIT ITSELF, BUT THE

CRUX OF THE LANGUAGE IS THAT

THE CITY WILL ACQUIRE A THIRD

PARTY PROVIDER TO PERFORM

ONGOING INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT

OF THE QUALIFYING SECURITIES

WITHIN THE PORTFOLIO, AND THEN

PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A WITH A

SCORE OR A MINIMUM THRESHOLD

BASED UPON THE VALUES THAT ARE

IDENTIFIED IN THE UNITED

NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION

OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WHICH WAS

CALLED OUT IN LAST YEAR'S

ORDINANCE AND IS A FAIRLY, I

THINK, ACCEPTED NEUTRAL

RESOURCE OF OF SORT OF VALUE

STATEMENT THAT ARE ALIGNED, I

BELIEVE, WITH THE INTENT OF, OF

LAST YEAR'S DIRECTIVE. AND IN

MAKING INVESTMENT DECISIONS,

THE CITY WILL ENSURE THAT IN

ADDITION TO CHECKING ALL OF THE

CRITERIA RELATED TO CREDIT

QUALITY, CURRENT RESTRICTIONS

AROUND THE INDUSTRY

CLASSIFICATIONS, ADDITIONALLY

WILL CONFIRM THAT AN

APPROPRIATE ESG THRESHOLD IS

MET IN ALIGNMENT WITH WITH

THOSE CRITERIA. AND THEN LAST

KEY UPDATE TO THE POLICY IS.

>> ADDITIONALLY, AND FOR FULL

TRANSPARENCY, WHEN WE PUBLISH

MONTHLY, THE INVESTMENT REPORT

WILL ADD AN INDICATOR THAT

INCLUDES THE THIRD PARTY ESG

INFORMATION RELATED TO ANY

SECURITIES THAT THE CITY HAS

HAS PURCHASED. NEXT SLIDE. AND

I THINK WE'RE ALMOST DONE HERE.

JUST KIND OF NEXT NEXT STEPS IN

THE PATHWAY TO GET THERE.

ASSUMING PASSAGE OF THE

RESOLUTION AT COUNCIL, WE WILL

PRIORITIZE PROCUREMENT OF THE

THIRD PARTY ESG PROVIDER TO

PREPARE AND MAINTAIN A LIST OF

THOSE INVESTMENTS THAT ALIGN

WITH THE DIRECTION. WE KNOW

THAT THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME,

BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY WORK WITH

PROCUREMENT TO PRIORITIZE THE

EFFORT AND GET THAT INDEPENDENT

PROVIDER ON BOARD AS RAPIDLY AS

POSSIBLE. AND THEN NEXT SLIDE,

I THINK IS THE LAST ONE HERE,

WHICH IS JUST ACKNOWLEDGING,

APPRECIATE THE THE DIALOG AND

CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD TO GET

TO THIS POINT ALONG WITH THE

CITY TREASURER AND INVESTMENT

OFFICER ONLINE. WE'RE HAPPY TO

TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR RECEIVE

ANY OTHER FEEDBACK. THANK YOU

CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU. CFO BIERY. SO,

COLLEAGUES, WE'RE GOING TO DO A

TECHNICAL Q&A ALONG WITH

FLOATING OF ANY AMENDMENTS. WE

DO HAVE TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE 23

PEOPLE ARE SIGNED UP, BUT

CLERK'S OFFICE CAN CAN CORRECT

ME ON THAT. SO WE'LL DO THAT

FIRST. THEN WE'LL TAKE

TESTIMONY AND THEN WE'LL COME

BACK. IF THERE ARE ANY

AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED. WE'LL

DISCUSS THOSE THEN AND HAVE A

BROADER CONVERSATION ON

POTENTIAL REFERRAL. I'VE JUST

BEEN UPDATED THAT IT IS 25

TESTIFIERS. SO ARE THERE ANY

TECHNICAL OR CLARIFYING

QUESTIONS FOR CFO BIERY OR

TREASURER CALLAHAN? COUNCILOR.

NOVICK.

>> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS

IS REALLY A TECHNICAL OR

CLARIFYING QUESTION, BUT WE

TALKED LAST YEAR ABOUT ADDING

SCREENS FOR LABOR AND

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION STANDARDS, WHICH

SEEMS TO HAVE DROPPED OUT. SO I

JUST WANT TO SERVE NOTICE,

PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO ARE

PLANNING TO TESTIFY THAT I AM

PLANNING TO INTRODUCE AN

AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT A SECTION

1516 TO TO SAY THAT AFTER THE

LANGUAGE, THE CITY WILL USE AN

ESG GREEN SCREEN TO CONSIDER

THE EFFECTS OF ITS INVESTMENTS

IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE UNITED

NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION

OF HUMAN RIGHTS. I WOULD ADD

THE CITY SHOULD ALSO USE AN ESG

SCREEN OR SCREENS THAT CONSIDER

COMPANIES RECORD OF COMPLIANCE

OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LABOR

LAWS OR STANDARDS,

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION LAWS.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR. NOVICK.

I HAVE A POINT AS WELL. SO

THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT SHOWED

THE THREE THINGS WE ADDED IN

THE IN THE RESOLUTION AMENDMENT

LAST YEAR. THAT TEXT WAS

PARTIALLY DESIGNED TO INITIATE

THE PROCESS THAT LED US TO THE

TEXT BEING ADDED IN THE IN THE

EXHIBIT THAT THAT WAS ADDED

THIS YEAR. BUT PART OF IT WAS

TO SORT OF CONTINUE TO TO

EMPHASIZE WHAT THE VALUES ARE.

AND SO I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT

THAT I HAVE PUT UP THAT WOULD

RESTORE THE SAME LANGUAGE AS

LAST YEAR FOR THE SECOND AND

THIRD OF THOSE CLAUSES. AND

I'LL JUST SHARE A SCREEN HERE.

>> I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD SHOW

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

YEAH.

>> SO THE ONLY REAL CHANGES ARE

IT REMOVES THE INITIATING A NEW

PROCESS CLAUSE AND IT RETAINS

THE THE REST OF IT WITH THE,

WITH THE ADDITION OF SORT OF

REMAINS COMMITTED TO, TO KIND

OF CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE OUR,

OUR VALUES HERE, BECAUSE I

THINK THAT'S HELPFUL TO

UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF

LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND WHAT

WE'RE DOING. SO I'LL MAKE SURE

THAT THIS IS CIRCULATED AS WELL.

BUT THAT IS THE REST OF THIS IS

EXACTLY THE SAME TEXT AS LAST.

>> YEAR.

>> I GUESS THE 2026 WENT TO

2027. SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT.

I'LL BE FLOATING NOW. AND YEAH,

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,

TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL OR

CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE

FOR THE STAFF? I'LL GUESS I'LL

ASK CFO BIERY CAN YOU CAN YOU

EXPLAIN SORT OF HOW WHEN A

SCORE IS GIVEN ON A POTENTIAL

INVESTMENT THROUGH THE NEW TEXT,

HOW THAT WILL BE USED TO THE

DEGREE THAT IT IS ABOVE OR

BELOW A THRESHOLD, AND THAT'S

YES OR NO TO THE DEGREE THAT

IT'S A SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIVE

COMPONENT. HOW WAS HOW WILL

THAT BE USED?

>> YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR

THE QUESTION. SO THE, THE, SO

JUST A REMINDER THAT, YOU KNOW,

ANY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE

TALKING CORPORATE BONDS, RIGHT?

AND SO THERE'S A SOMEWHAT

LIMITED UNIVERSE OF THAT. SO

JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THE

ORDER OF OPERATIONS, RIGHT.

WHICH I THINK WE'LL GET TO THE

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. WE OF

COURSE WANT TO SCREEN FIRST FOR

FOR CREDIT QUALITY, MAKE SURE

IT MEETS THOSE THRESHOLDS OF,

OF THE INVESTMENT PROPOSAL,

INVESTMENT POLICY. WE SCREEN

FOR INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION.

RIGHT? SO THAT NARROWS THAT

UNIVERSE. I THINK CURRENTLY

THERE'S AROUND 35 CORPORATE

CORPORATIONS THAT MEET THAT

THRESHOLD. SO JUST TO TEE UP,

THAT'S THE UNIVERSE OF

CORPORATIONS THAT WE'RE THAT

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THAT

FIRST CUT, EVEN BEFORE WE GET

TO ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING.

AND THEN WE, OF COURSE, NEED TO

MAKE SURE THAT THE INVESTMENT

ALIGNS FROM A, FROM A TERM AND

MATURITY PERSPECTIVE WITH OUR

CASH FLOW NEEDS, RIGHT? SO THAT

FURTHER NARROWS THE UNIVERSE.

SO WHAT I INTEND THIS

ADDITIONAL ESG SCREEN WOULD DO

IS WE'D HAVE TO WORK WITH A

PROVIDER. WE'LL HAVE TO ASK

SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. I

THINK IN THE, IN THE

PROCUREMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE

DIFFERENT PROVIDERS ARE GOING

TO HAVE DIFFERENT RUBRICS AND,

AND, YOU KNOW, EITHER YES, NO,

OR, YOU KNOW, ONE THROUGH 5 OR

1 THROUGH 100 OR A, THROUGH F,

WHATEVER THE SCALE MIGHT BE.

BUT WE WILL IDENTIFY A

THRESHOLD THAT MEETS THE INTENT

AND VALUES IDENTIFIED IN THE

RESOLUTION SHOULD IT PASS AND

THE POLICY. AND SO THAT'LL BE

AN ADDITIONAL CHECKPOINT ONCE

WE GET TO THOSE THROUGH THOSE

FIRST CHECKPOINTS, SORT OF THE

LAST CHECKPOINT WILL BE DOES

THAT INTENDED INVESTMENT ALSO

MEET SORT OF THE MINIMUM

THRESHOLD SCREEN? AND LIKE I

SAID, IT MIGHT BE A SCORE OF

THREE OR IT MIGHT BE A SCORE OF

90 IF IT'S ON A SCALE OF 100.

BUT WE'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE

THAT BASED UPON THE RESPONSES

WE GET DURING THE PROCUREMENT

PROCESS. AND THEN OF COURSE

WE'LL REPORT THAT SCORE OUT. SO

WE CAN BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT

ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN

FACT, DOING AS AS DIRECTED AND

INTENDED.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT

CLARIFICATION. AND I'LL SAY

THIS MORE LATER, BUT THANK YOU

FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE

TO BE RESPONSIVE TO TO COUNCIL

AS WELL AS BRIDGET AND MICHAEL

AS WELL, SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN

THE QUEUE. WE'LL MOVE TO PUBLIC

TESTIMONY. BECCA, CAN YOU

PLEASE CALL THE FIRST LIST OF

TESTIFIERS?

>> OUR FIRST TESTIFIERS, OUR

FIRST SLATE? I'M GOING TO GO

[name withheld], FOLLOWED BY

[name withheld]. [name withheld], YOU CAN

UNMUTE AND GO AHEAD.

>> AND ACTUALLY, I.

>> JUST WANT TO NOTE ONE THING

FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE DO

HAVE 24 FOLKS. AGAIN, YOU'RE

GOING TO GET YOUR THREE MINUTES

HERE. EVERYBODY FEEL FREE TO

USE AS MUCH OF IT AS YOU WANT.

DON'T FEEL OBLIGATED TO USE THE

FULL AMOUNT IF YOU DON'T NEED

IT ALL.

>> THANKS.

>> OKAY, [name withheld], YOU CAN UNMUTE.

GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> YEP. YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

>> OH, OKAY. SO I DON'T SHOW

HERE, BUT IS IT JUST VERBAL?

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO TURN YOUR

CAMERA ON IF YOU HAVE ONE.

OTHERWISE WE CAN HEAR YOU

CLEARLY.

>> HOW DO I DO THE CAMERA? OH

THE VIDEO.

>> YEP.

>> OKAY.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> THERE I AM. OKAY, SO MY NAME

IS [name withheld]. I LIVE IN

DISTRICT THREE. I'M A MEMBER OF

THE MULTNOMAH DEMOCRATS FOREIGN

POLICY STUDY GROUP. AND ETHICAL

INVESTING IS A TOPIC OF OUR

INTEREST. I BELIEVE THE

MAJORITY OF PORTLANDERS WOULD

AGREE WITH US THAT FINANCIAL

INVESTMENTS, BESIDES BRINGING

IN FUNDS FOR THE NEEDS OF OUR

CITY, SHOULD NOT SUPPORT

ENTITIES THAT ABUSE ANYONE'S

HUMAN RIGHTS. I THINK PEOPLE

UNDERSTAND THAT HUMAN RIGHTS

ABUSE CAN OCCUR IN A NUMBER OF

AREAS, INTENTIONALLY HARMING

PEOPLE THROUGH MILITARISM,

DETENTION, DEPORTATION,

GENOCIDE, RACIAL AND ETHNIC

DISCRIMINATION. THAT'S ONE

CATEGORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE.

OTHER ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CAN BE ECONOMIC. ENVIRONMENTAL

VIOLATIONS OF LABOR RIGHTS AND

TECHNOLOGY USED FOR HARM AND

INVASION OF PRIVACY. I BELIEVE

MOST PORTLANDERS DON'T WANT TO

PUT OUR MONEY INTO ENTITIES

THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH

ABUSES, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO

BE COMPLICIT IN THE UNETHICAL

BEHAVIORS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.

WE NEED A UNIVERSAL HUMAN

RIGHTS SCREEN WITH NO EXCEPTION,

MADE FOR OUR OWN COUNTRY OR ANY

OTHER COUNTRY. I HOPE THE

FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WILL

PASS THE PORTLAND INVESTMENT

POLICY BEING CONSIDERED TODAY,

AND I CALL ON YOU TO ADD SOME

AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION TO THE

UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS, TO OUTLINE WHAT

WHAT KIND OF HUMAN RIGHTS

ABUSES WOULD BE SCREENED OUT.

AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILOR

NOVICK'S ADDITIONS THAT HE HE

IS GOING TO GOING TO SUBMIT.

THERE SHOULD BE MORE U.S. AND

INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES OR

CONVENTIONS CITED AS SOURCES

FOR DEFINITIONS OF VARIOUS

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES THAT ARE

UNLAWFUL AND SHOULD BE SCREENED

OUT OF OUR CITIES INVESTMENTS.

OCCASIONALLY I HAVE HEARD

SOMEONE SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO

PORTLAND INSTALLING A UNIVERSAL

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN. IT SEEMS

THAT THEY WANT TO INVEST IN A

PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR A

BUSINESS THAT THEY LIKE, AND

THEY FEAR THAT A SCREEN WILL

PREVENT IT. I'M ALWAYS

SURPRISED THAT SUCH PERSONS

DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE THAT THEY

ARE BASICALLY PUBLICLY STATING

THAT A PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR

BUSINESS THAT THEY LIKE IS AN

ABUSER OF HUMAN RIGHTS. BUT THE

PROPOSAL BEING THE PROPOSAL

BEING PRESENTED FOR THE VOTE

TODAY IS FOR A UNIVERSAL SCREEN.

SO NO SPECIFIC COUNTRY OR

BUSINESS IS EXCLUDED BY THE

POLICY. ANY COUNTRY OR BUSINESS

THAT WANTS PORTLAND'S

INVESTMENT CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR

IT IF THEY ARE FINANCIALLY,

FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE AND DO

NOT COMMIT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES,

THEY SELECT OR REJECT

THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN

BEHAVIOR. THANK YOU.

>> CHERISE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILORS. MY

NAME IS [name withheld] AND I'M

REPRESENTING 350 PDX, WHICH IS

A LOCAL NONPROFIT WITH

THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS IN THE

PORTLAND AREA WORKING ON

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND

CLIMATE JUSTICE. AND WE'RE

SUPPORTIVE OF THIS

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND

GOVERNANCE GOVERNANCE FRAME FOR

WORKING TOWARD ETHICAL

INVESTING. COUNCILOR NOVICK

AMENDMENT ALSO SOUNDS GOOD. AS

I COMMENTED IN SEPTEMBER AND

MANY WRITTEN COMMENTS REFLECTED

AT THAT TIME. WHILE YOU'RE

WORKING ON THIS POLICY, WE

WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE AN

UPDATE RELATING TO FOSSIL FUELS.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, FOSSIL FUELS

CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH

EXACERBATES AND COMPOUNDS

INJUSTICE AND INEQUITY. ESG

SCREENS, UNFORTUNATELY, DO NOT

ALWAYS EXCLUDE FOSSIL FUEL

COMPANIES. CURRENTLY, APPENDIX

A, WHICH IS ON PAGE 11 OF THE

REDLINE DOCUMENT, LISTS SEVERAL

AREAS THAT WILL BE EXCLUDED

BASED ON THE BLOOMBERG INDUSTRY

CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS, OR

BICS. THE FIRST CATEGORY IS THE

BICS CODES RELATED TO OIL IN

2024. THOSE BICS CODES WERE

UPDATED TO INCLUDE GAS, SO

THINGS LIKE CRUDE OIL AND

NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION AND

PRODUCTION, OIL AND NATURAL GAS

MARKET AND TRADING AND SO FORTH.

SO GAS WAS ADDED INTO THOSE

BICS CODES. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO

SEE THE BICS CODES UPDATED IN

APPENDIX A TO REFLECT THE

CURRENT TITLES. ALSO WE'D LIKE

TO SEE COAL EXCLUDED EITHER BY

ADDING IN THE APPROPRIATE BICS

CODES OR BY USING A LIST SUCH

AS THE URGEWALD GLOBAL COAL

EXIT LIST, WHICH WAS INCLUDED

AS AN EVALUATING TOOL IN THE

STATE LEVEL COAL ACT IN

RELATION TO THE OREGON STATE

TREASURY. EVENTUALLY, WE'D LIKE

TO SEE AN EXPANSION OF THE

INVESTMENT POLICY TO ALSO

INCLUDE SCREENING THE FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS THAT HOLD OUR

FUNDS REGARDING THEIR

INVESTMENT IN FOSSIL FUEL

PROJECTS. BUT WE'RE CONTENT TO

TAKE THIS FIRST STEP OF

UPDATING APPENDIX A TO EXCLUDE

NOT ONLY OIL, BUT ALSO NATURAL

METHANE GAS AND COAL, AS WELL

AS THE ESG FRAME. ONE

ADDITIONAL NOTE IS THAT THE

CITY OF OLYMPIA PASSED A HUMAN

RIGHTS INVESTMENT POLICY THAT

SUGGESTS EXPLORATION OF

POSITIVE NEW INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES, WHICH SEEMS

IMPORTANT FOR US TO ALSO PURSUE.

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS ON

THIS AND APPRECIATE ALL THE

WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE

COUNCIL AND THE STAFF TO GET

THIS ESG POLICY, AND WE'RE

HAPPY TO SEE IT MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI. MY NAME IS [name withheld]. I LIVE IN DISTRICT

THREE AND I'M A VERY SICK, SO I

AM NOT GOING TO BE VERY

ELOQUENT AND I WILL KEEP IT

SHORT. BUT I WANT TO THANK THE

COUNCILORS WHO HAVE CHAMPIONED

THIS EFFORT, AND THE CFO AND

TREASURER AND CITY STAFF WHO

HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD ON

FINDING MEANINGFUL TOOLS AND

REALLY MEANINGFULLY ENGAGING

PEOPLE ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO DO

THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

THAT WORK. I HOPE THAT THE

COUNCIL WILL HONOR ALL OF THAT

WORK BY PASSING A POLICY THAT

HAS, YOU KNOW, THESE HAS

MEANINGFUL CHANGES AND TO KIND

OF BUILD ON WHAT THE PREVIOUS

TESTIFIER SAID. THAT MEANS

REALLY USING TOOLS THAT TAKE

INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRETY OF

OUR FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE

AND ALSO TOOLS THAT TALK ABOUT,

YOU KNOW, GENOCIDE AND ATROCITY

CRIMES. SO THAT REALLY LIKE ALL

THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO

AVOID INVESTMENTS IN ARE

REFLECTED IN THE TOOLS THAT ARE

USED. THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT

THING TO HAVE IN PLACE, TO

ALLOW A CITY TO KIND OF SPEAK

ABOUT HOW OUR CORPORATE

CULTURES ARE CONNECTED TO

HORRIBLE ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION

AND UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. AND

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL PASS A

STRONG POLICY. AND THANK YOU

AGAIN FOR WORKING ON THIS.

THAT'S IT.

>> [name withheld].

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN YOU

HEAR ME OKAY, AM I IN?

>> YOU ARE GREAT.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS [name withheld], AND I LIVE IN NORTHEAST

PORTLAND DISTRICT TWO, AND I'M

TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF THE

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN

AS AN IMPORTANT ETHICAL

INVESTMENT ADDITION TO OUR

CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY. IN

THE ELECTION THIS PAST TUESDAY,

WE SAW A REMARKABLE SEA CHANGE

IN THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF

OUR NATION. THERE WAS AN

EXCITEMENT AND ELECTRICITY THAT

WE ALL CRAVED FOR IN OUR

DEEPEST HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS,

WE SAW THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE

WINNING OVER THE COLD, DOLLARS

OF THE CORPORATIONS AND THOSE

UNWILLING TO CONDEMN EVEN THE

BOMBING OF CHILDREN. SO TODAY,

BY PASSING THIS HUMAN RIGHTS

RESOLUTION, WE CAN SEIZE THAT

OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS

ENERGY BY ALIGNING OUR CITY

WITH THIS INSPIRING PROGRESSIVE,

WITH THESE INSPIRING

PROGRESSIVE WINS. I AM HERE AS

A MEMBER OF OREGON FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS COALITION. I REPRESENT

TWO GROUPS, JEWISH VOICE FOR

PEACE AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS

FOR PALESTINE. AS PART OF THAT

COALITION, THERE ARE SEVERAL

CORE VALUES FROM MY JEWISH

FAITH JUSTICE, JUSTICE, THOU

SHALT PURSUE. AND TO SEE THAT

IN EVERY LIFE THERE IS A

UNIVERSE. AS A NURSE

PRACTITIONER, I TOOK THE OATH

DO NO HARM. THIS RESOLUTION

PUTS THESE FOUNDATIONAL VALUES

INTO ACTION. I ACTUALLY BELIEVE

THAT THESE ARE NOT JUST MY

VALUES, BUT OUR PILLARS IN OUR

CIVIC COMMITMENTS AND IN OUR

UNIVERSAL COVENANT TO ONE

ANOTHER. THIS SCREEN PROPOSES

ALIGNING OUR INVESTMENT

DECISIONS UTILIZING PARAMETERS

OF HUMAN RIGHTS. FROM THE

SEMINAL 1948 UN DECLARATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS. THE UNITED

NATIONS, IN THEIR OWN WORDS,

RECOGNIZES THE DECLARATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS AS, QUOTE, HAVING

INSPIRED AND PAVED THE WAY FOR

THE ADOPTION AND ADDITIONAL

HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES APPLIED

TODAY ON A PERMANENT BASIS AT

GLOBAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS,

UNQUOTE. THESE ADDITIONAL

ACCORDS ADD SPECIFICITY AND

UPDATE THE ORIGINAL UN

DECLARATION. THE OREGON FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS COALITION SUGGESTS,

INCLUDING A NUMBER OF THEM, TO

STRENGTHEN THE RESOLUTION, AND

I REFERENCE COUNCILOR KANAL

IMPORTANT AREAS THAT WERE

HIGHLIGHTED, AS WELL AS

COUNCILOR NOVICK AREAS. THESE

ADDITIONAL ACCORDS WOULD ADD

SPECIFICITY AND HELP US TO

ALIGN OUR OUR BUSINESSES, OUR

ETHICAL DECISIONS WITH THESE

PARAMETERS. AS WE SAW IN THE

PEOPLE POWERED WINS ON TUESDAY,

IT'S NOW UP TO US. THE HUMAN

RIGHTS SCREEN IS ONE INCREDIBLY

IMPORTANT THING PORTLAND CAN DO

TO DEMONSTRATE OUR COMMITMENT

TO HUMANITY AND THE PLANET.

LET'S STAND WITH OTHER

MUNICIPALITIES TAKING SIMILAR

ACTIONS, AND PASS THIS SCREEN

TO ASSURE THAT OUR VALUES AND

ALIGNMENTS ARE ALIGNED. THANK

YOU.

>> [name withheld] AND [name withheld].

>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE FULL

SIX MINUTES, IF THAT'S OKAY. I

KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THREE

MINUTES UP ON THE CLOCK, BUT WE

ARE GOING TO TESTIFY TOGETHER.

>> OKAY. HI, CITY COUNCIL, FOR

THE RECORD, MY NAME IS [name withheld] AND I'M HERE WITH [name withheld]. WE ARE GOING TO TALK

ABOUT CARE AND COMMUNITY. A

COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, WE HAD JUST

GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE, TWO MOMS

NAVIGATING THE SANDWICH OF

ELDERLY PARENTS AND GROWING

CHILDREN WHILE STRUGGLING TO

STAY AFLOAT. ONE OF US IS

CONSOLING THE OTHER WHILE

OFFERING ELDER CARE RESOURCES

TO SUPPORT THE OBSTACLES OF

AGING PARENTS. ONE OF US IS

MUSLIM AND ONE OF US IS JEWISH.

WE EXCHANGE STORIES AND

RESOURCES, AND WE GO ABOUT OUR

DAYS BALANCING THE MENTAL LOAD

OF MOTHERHOOD, WORKING FULL

TIME AND THE INTENSE PHASE OF

OUR LIVES AND ALL THAT'S

HAPPENING AROUND US. AND WHILE

OUR RELIGION IS AN ELEMENT OF

OUR IDENTITY, WE ARE ROOTED IN

CARE AND COMMUNITY FOR THE

PEOPLE WE LOVE. WE KNOW THAT

CARE AND CAREGIVING FOR EACH

OTHER GOES BEYOND RELIGION AND

CITY POLICY. CAN. TO.

>> ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, THE

PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL WAS

SUPPOSED TO REVIEW ITS

INVESTMENT POLICY AND IDEATE ON

WHAT ITS VALUE SHOULD BE.

INSTEAD, IT TURNED INTO A

HEATED DISCUSSION ABOUT

ANTI-SEMITISM. WE BOTH WATCHED

FROM OUR SEPARATE SPACES A

MUSLIM AND A JEWISH MOM,

WONDERING HOW OUR POLITICS HAD

BECOME SO DIVIDED. WE

UNDERSTAND THESE CONVERSATIONS

ARE NUANCED AND CAN EVEN CAUSE

DISCOMFORT. RISING

ANTI-SEMITISM AND ANTI-MUSLIM

HATE ARE VERY REAL. INCIDENTS

OF HATE HAVE RISEN ACROSS THE

COUNTRY, AND OUR COMMUNITIES

FEEL THAT. JUST RECENTLY, MY

DAUGHTER WENT ON A SCHOOL FIELD

TRIP AND THE PLAYGROUND SLIDE

SAID F ALL JEWS. THE GIRL WHO

DID A PRESENTATION AND THIRD

GRADE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE

JEWISH DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE TO

KNOW SHE IS JEWISH. NOW.

>> MEANWHILE, MY DAUGHTER'S

FRIENDS WORRY ABOUT WEARING A

HEADSCARF TO SCHOOL IN FEAR OF

HOW PEOPLE WILL TREAT HER. WHEN

DID THIS FEAR AND HATE BECOME

NORMALIZED? BUT THERE'S A

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGHTING

BIGOTRY AND SHUTTING DOWN

FINANCIAL INVESTMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY. MIXING THOSE UP

DOES NOT PROTECT JEWISH OR

MUSLIM RESIDENTS. IT JUST MAKES

IT HARDER TO BUILD THE CARE AND

SAFETY WE WANT FOR ALL

GENERATIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SAFETY FOR JEWISH ELDERS,

SAFETY FOR MUSLIM ELDERS,

SAFETY FOR JEWISH KIDS, SAFETY

FOR MUSLIM KIDS FROM

GRANDPARENTS AND GRANDKIDS

EVERYWHERE. THESE ARE NOT

COMPETING CLAIMS. THEY ARE THE

SAME CLAIM SAID FROM DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVES.

>> SO HERE'S WHERE WE LAND.

PLAINLY, WE SUPPORT TIGHTENING

THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY,

KEEP PUBLIC DOLLARS OUT OF WAR

AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. THIS

ISN'T A FOREIGN AFFAIR POLICY.

IT'S A FINANCIAL CARE POLICY.

THE STAFF PRESENTATION LAID OUT

WAYS TO SCREEN CITY INVESTMENTS

AGAINST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

STANDARDS, THE SAME KIND OF

STANDARDS THE CITY ALREADY USES

TO AVOID OIL, GAS AND PRIVATE

PRISONS, AMMUNITION, DRONES,

ARMORED TANKS, SURVEILLANCE

TECH. THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE

THESE PRODUCTS NEED WAR TO KEEP

HAPPENING SOMEWHERE, TO

SOMEONE'S GRANDMA, TO SOMEONE'S

SON, IN ORDER TO MAKE ENORMOUS

PROFIT.

>> FOR THE COMPANIES THAT

ENABLE AND PROFIT FROM IT ARE

THE OPPOSITE OF CARE. AND THIS

ISN'T ABOUT PICKING SIDES. IT'S

SIMPLER THAN THAT. WE WANT

COMMUNITIES AND CITIES THAT

CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, PEOPLE AT

EVERY STAGE AND EVERY AGE OF

LIFE WHO ARE LOVED AND VALUED

NEIGHBORS GROWING OLD TOGETHER.

CARE DOESN'T START OR END AT A

BORDER. IT'S THE PLACE WHERE

TWO BACKGROUNDS MEET WITHOUT

ANY FRICTION AT ALL. BECAUSE NO

SOCIETY SHOULD INVEST IN THE

IDEA THAT SOME PEOPLE'S LIVES

MATTER LESS THAN OTHERS.

PORTLAND'S PROPOSED HUMAN

RIGHTS STANDARD DOESN'T SINGLE

OUT A COUNTRY OR A WAR. IT ASKS

FOR SOMETHING BIGGER. SHOULD

THE CITY'S MONEY GO TO

INDUSTRIES AND COMPANIES THAT

PERPETUATE WAR TO KEEP MAKING

MILLIONS OR EVEN BILLIONS, NO

MATTER WHO IT HURTS?

>> IT'S A STATEMENT ABOUT OUR

VALUES OF CARE AND SAFETY FOR

ALL AND THE COMMUNITY WE WANT

TO BE. WE BELIEVE THE SAME

STANDARD SHOULD HOLD FOR

MULTNOMAH AND WASHINGTON COUNTY,

THE STATE, AND ACROSS THE

COUNTRY. IT SHOULDN'T TAKE AN

ACCUSATION OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO

END THE DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR

FINANCIAL INVESTMENT POLICY.

AND WE KNOW, AND WE SEE THE

INTERGENERATIONAL DIVIDE GROW

DEEPER AS WE STRIVE TO BUILD

CARE AND COMMUNITY. WE'VE HAD

HEATED DISCUSSIONS, AWKWARD

SILENCES, CRYING SESSIONS TO

MOURN THE MOMENTS WE ARE IN.

BUT WE CAN DO HARD THINGS. WE

CAN RESPECT THE PERSPECTIVES OF

OUR COMMUNITY UNDER THE BANNER

OF CARE AND CREATING SAFE

COMMUNITIES THROUGH BUILDING ON

OUR VALUES THAT BRIDGE THE

DIVIDE. THAT'S WHAT PORTLANDERS

CAN DO WITH THIS POLICY. SO TO

THE CITY COUNCILORS PUSHING

THIS HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARD

FORWARD, WE ARE WITH YOU.

FINISH THE VOTE ON THIS

ORDINANCE. DON'T LET THE MEDIA

SCARE YOU. AND TO THOSE WHO ARE

PUSHING THE LABEL OF

ANTI-SEMITISM IN THIS

DISCUSSION, WE SAY NOT IN OUR

NAME.

>> UNDERNEATH ALL THE NAME

CALLING AND DIVISIVE RHETORIC,

WE BELIEVE IN BUILDING THE SAME

CARE INTO PORTLAND'S FINANCES

THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BUILT IN

OUR OWN FAMILIES. CARE DOESN'T

STOP AT A BORDER, A RELIGION,

OR A HEADLINE. CARE STARTS HERE

WITH EACH OTHER, LOVING ONE

ANOTHER AND BUILDING POLICIES

THAT ARE ROOTED IN THAT

COMPASSION. THANK YOU. THANK

YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS

[name withheld]. I'M A JEWISH PORTLANDER

AND A DISTRICT FOUR CONSTITUENT.

I'M A MEMBER OF JEWISH VOICE

FOR PEACE PORTLAND CHAPTER AND

A MEMBER OF THE OREGON HUMAN

RIGHTS COALITION. AND I SUPPORT

THE CITY ADOPTING A UNIVERSAL

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN FOR ITS

INVESTMENTS. JUSTICE IS DEEPLY

ROOTED IN MY JEWISH TRADITIONS

AND MY OWN FAMILY HISTORY. MY

ANCESTORS CAME TO THIS COUNTRY

SEEKING SAFETY AND ACCEPTANCE.

OUR NAME WAS CHANGED FROM

SMILOWITZ TO SMOLAN AT ELLIS

ISLAND, WHICH WAS A SMALL

MARKER OF THIS PRESSURE TO

ASSIMILATE. BUT MY FAMILY'S

HISTORY IS ALSO ONE OF

RESILIENCE AND SOLIDARITY. OUR

TRADITIONS TEACH US THAT

JUSTICE CANNOT BE SELECTIVE,

AND THAT THE DIGNITY AND SAFETY

OF ONE PERSON CANNOT COME AT

THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER. THAT IS

WHY PORTLAND'S VALUES MUST BE

REFLECTED IN HOW IT INVESTS ITS

PUBLIC DOLLARS. A UNIVERSAL

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN MUST TRULY

BE UNIVERSAL. NO EXCEPTIONS.

OUR INVESTMENT POLICY SHOULD

NOT REWARD CORPORATIONS THAT

ENABLE A PROFIT FROM HUMAN

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING

GENOCIDE, APARTHEID, WAR

PROFITEERING, RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATIONS OF

IMMIGRANTS AND LABOR RIGHTS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL HARM BOTH HERE

AND ABROAD. WE CANNOT IGNORE

THE CORPORATE CORPORATIONS

PROFITING FROM ISIS ACTIONS AND

SURVEILLANCE IN OUR OWN

COMMUNITIES, NOR CORPORATE

COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE ABROAD.

THIS MUST INCLUDE ISRAEL AND

CORPORATIONS THAT PROFIT FROM

ITS WAR CRIMES. I KNOW THAT

THERE ARE SOME ON THE DAIS WHO

HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THIS POLICY

SPECIFICALLY TARGETS JEWS. I

VEHEMENTLY REJECT THIS IDEA

THAT OUR IDENTITY, OUR HISTORY

OF PERSECUTION, OR THE VERY

REAL THREAT OF ANTI-SEMITISM,

SHOULD BE USED TO SHIELD A

NATION STATE IN CORPORATIONS

THAT SUPPORT IT FROM

ACCOUNTABILITY. DOING SO

DISHONORS THE LESSONS OF OUR

HISTORY. TIKKUN OLAM REPAIR.

THE WORLD CALLS FOR US TO ACT.

JUSTICE. JUSTICE SHALL YOU

PURSUE DOES NOT STOP WHEN

JUSTICE BECOMES POLITICALLY

INCONVENIENT, BUT WHEN THE

PEOPLE SUFFERING ARE NOT OUR

OWN, WE MUST APPLY THE SAME

STANDARDS TO ISRAEL THAT WE

APPLY TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS

TO UNDERMINE THIS HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN ITSELF. JEWISH SAFETY IS

BOUND UP IN THE SAFETY AND

DIGNITY OF ALL PEOPLE. ALL OF

OUR LIBERATION IS

INTERCONNECTED. A HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN IS AN IMPORTANT FIRST

STEP. IT GIVES PORTLANDERS A

CLEAR FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE

INVESTMENTS IN THE BASIS TO ASK

THE CITY TO DIVEST. THANK YOU

FOR YOUR TIME.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI THERE. MY NAME IS [name withheld]. I'M A CONSTITUENT FROM

CITY DISTRICT THREE, AND I'M A

MEMBER OF PORTLAND'S A. AND I

ORGANIZED WITH OREGON FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS. I SUPPORT A YES VOTE ON

THE PROPOSED INVESTMENT POLICY,

AS WELL AS A YES VOTE ON THE

UPCOMING POTENTIAL FRIENDLY

AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILOR KANAL.

I URGE THE COUNCIL TO RECOMMIT

TO LAST YEAR'S DECEMBER 3RD

RESOLUTION, WHICH SAID THAT THE

INVESTMENT SCREEN WOULD HAVE,

QUOTE, THE INTENTION OF

ENSURING THE CITY DOESN'T

INVEST IN COMPANIES THAT ENABLE

OR FACILITATE WAR, ARMED

CONFLICT, ARMED CONFLICT OR

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GENOCIDE,

SLAVERY, TORTURE, INDEFINITE OR

ARBITRARY DETENTION, WAR CRIMES

AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AS

WELL AS LABOR, ENVIRONMENTAL

AND CONSUMER POLICIES AND

IMPACT. I THINK THAT THAT

SPECIFICITY SPECIFICITY IS

REALLY VALUABLE. AFTER LEARNING

ABOUT THE CITY'S INVESTMENT

POLICY AND OVERLAYS OVER THE

LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I BELIEVE

THAT OUTLINING CRITERIA FOR

MORE ETHICAL INVESTMENTS

OUTSIDE OF THE OVERLAY SYSTEM

WILL DO A LOT TO BRIDGE THE GAP.

THE GAP LEFT BEHIND BY THE

BROADER OVERLAY CATEGORIES

ALLOW US TO ADAPT TO COMPANIES

CHANGING BEHAVIOR AND ADAPTABLE

AND ADAPTABLE SCREEN BASED ON

BEHAVIOR AND IMPACT WILL GO A

LOT FURTHER THAN A NAMED LIST

OF COMPANIES. THE POINT ISN'T

TO CHECK A NAME OR OF A

CORPORATION OFF OF A LIST, AND

THEN SHRUG OUR SHOULDERS SHOULD

A SIMILAR SITUATION ARISE WITH

DIFFERENT CORPORATE INVESTMENT

IN THE FUTURE. DESPITE CLAIMS

THAT INTERNATIONAL GEOPOLITICS

ARE IRRELEVANT TO US HERE IN

PORTLAND, OUR MONEY TALKS. FOR

EXAMPLE, SOUTH AFRICAN

GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DECIDE TO END

APARTHEID OUT OF THE GOODNESS

OF THEIR HEARTS. IT TOOK

RESISTANCE AND ADVOCACY FROM

SOUTH AFRICANS LIVING UNDER

APARTHEID, AS WELL AS OUTSIDE

ECONOMIC PRESSURE FROM

INTERNATIONAL TRADING PARTNERS,

INCLUDING THE US. IF THERE ARE

CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC

COMPANIES OR COUNTRIES, THEN

LET'S LET'S BASE THAT UNIVERSAL

SCREEN IN BEHAVIOR RECOGNIZED

INTERNATIONALLY AS UNACCEPTABLE

VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THE

SAME KIND OF APPROACH IS NEEDED

NOW, SINCE THERE ARE COMPANIES

IN THE PORTFOLIO IMPLICATED IN

HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR ABUSES.

WE HAVE AMAZON, WHERE A WORKER

DROP DEAD AT THE TROUTDALE

DISTRIBUTION CENTER EARLIER

THIS YEAR, JUST A COUPLE MILES

AWAY FROM PORTLAND, AS WELL AS

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, WHICH

HOSTS PRODUCTS USED TO SURVEIL

PEOPLE INCARCERATED IN THE US.

THE CITY'S CURRENT INVESTMENT

POLICY PROHIBITS INVESTMENT IN

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, BUT

THE CURRENT CORPORATE BONDS

INCLUDES TENS OF THOUSANDS OF

DOLLARS LOANED TO AMAZON.

THAT'S AN INSTANCE OF THE

INDUSTRY OVERLAY CATEGORIES

NEEDING TO BE PATCHED WITH THIS

ADDITIONAL ESG SCREEN AND

ONGOING INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT.

WE ALSO HAVE GOOGLE, WHICH JUST

CLEAR CUT A QUARTER OF A

MILLION TREES IN FINLAND. IT'S

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF OUR

ENVIRONMENTAL OUR ENVIRONMENTAL

INVESTMENT OVERLAY NOT ADAPTING

TO BEHAVIOR. THEN WE HAVE

WALMART WIDELY CRITICIZED BY

LABOR UNIONS FOR RACIAL AND

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND

INSTANCES OF WAGE THEFT. IN THE

PAST, THE CITY COUNCIL AND

COUNCILOR NOVICK IN PARTICULAR,

PAVED THE WAY WITH THE 2014

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTING

POLICY. WE RESPONDED. WE

SUSPENDED OUR WALMART

INVESTMENT INVESTMENTS, AND

WE'RE THE FIRST CITY TO DO SO.

BUT NOW 34 MILLION OF OUR

PUBLIC DOLLARS ARE INVESTED IN

WALMART, SO WE HAVE A CHANCE TO

LEARN FROM THE PAST YEAR BY

PASSING AN ONGOING CHECK,

INCLUDING THE FRIENDLY

AMENDMENTS. SO I'M JUST HERE TO

SAY TO VOTE YES ON THE MODIFIED

INVESTMENT POLICY, INCLUDING

THE FRIENDLY INVESTMENTS. THANK

YOU.

>> DIANE ALBRIGHT, [name withheld]. [name withheld], YOU CAN GO

AHEAD.

>> HI, MY NAME IS [name withheld]. I'M A LONGTIME

PORTLAND RESIDENT IN DISTRICT

FOUR AND WITH THE OREGON FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS COALITION. IN THE

BLUE TSUNAMI WE WITNESSED THIS

WEEK, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WON

BECAUSE OF MESSAGES THAT

CHALLENGED THE BILLIONAIRE

CLASS AND ASSERTED THAT OUR TAX

DOLLARS SHOULD BE PUT INTO

SOCIALLY PRODUCTIVE USES,

RATHER THAN WASTED ON VIOLENCE

HERE AND ABROAD. ACROSS THE

COUNTRY, AMERICANS REJECTED THE

UNBELIEVABLE CRUELTY THEY'VE

WITNESSED ATTACKS ON OUR

IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORS AND ON

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SENSELESS

WARS AND GENOCIDE AROUND THE

WORLD. PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL

NEEDS TO READ THE ROOM AND

ADOPT THE HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN

ON CITY INVESTMENTS. THE CITY'S

PORTFOLIO IS CURRENTLY INVESTED

IN TECH GIANTS THAT HAVE BECOME

INCREASINGLY EMBEDDED IN THE

MILITARY ICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY AND HUMAN

RIGHTS VIOLATORS AROUND THE

WORLD. ALTHOUGH INVESTMENTS IN

THE TECH, MILITARY,

SURVEILLANCE, INCARCERATION

INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY

PROFITABLE IN RECENT YEARS DUE

TO ENORMOUS PUBLIC FINANCING,

THERE IS A GROWING MOVEMENT IN

CITIES, COUNTIES AND STATES

ACROSS THE U.S. TO DIVEST FROM

COMPANIES COMPLICIT IN HUMAN

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. AND JUST A

FEW DAYS AGO, 75% OF VOTERS IN

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND,

SUPPORTED A DIVESTMENT BALLOT

MEASURE. THE INVESTOR ALLIANCE

FOR HUMAN RIGHTS NOTES THAT

THIS IS HAVING A MATERIAL

IMPACT ON INVESTORS. STUDIES

INDICATE THAT PORTFOLIOS WITH

THE HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN

TYPICALLY PERFORM SIMILARLY TO

OR BETTER THAN TRADITIONAL

PORTFOLIOS. PLUS, THEY CAN

REDUCE RISK. PORTLANDERS DO NOT

WANT TO SUPPORT GENOCIDE,

SURVEILLANCE, WAR, RACIAL

PROFILING, AND INCARCERATION

THAT SUCK RESOURCES AWAY FROM

WHAT COULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE

INVESTMENTS THAT SUPPORT

WORKERS, A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS. I APPRECIATE

THE EFFORTS OF COUNCILORS AND

CITY STAFF FOR WORKING TO

UPDATE OUR INVESTMENT POLICY TO

REFLECT THE VALUES OF

PORTLANDERS. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW ME AS

[name withheld], BUT TODAY I'M

COMING TO YOU AS [name withheld] TO

VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.

AS WRITTEN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

ME. I DO MEDICAL POLICY FOR A

GENETICS LAB AND HAVE SPENT THE

LAST DECADE EXPANDING ACCESS TO

PRENATAL GENETIC TESTING TO FOR

MEDICAID PATIENTS ACROSS THE

UNITED STATES, ESPECIALLY IN

PUERTO RICO. DONDE LOS DESAFIOS

PARA LOS PACIENTES CON MUCHO

MAS EL RESTO DEL PAIS. I ALSO

VOLUNTEER WITH PORTLAND'S

JEWISH COMMUNITY, ADVISE, THE

LOCAL JEWISH YOUTH GROUP, AND

I'M A STUDENT OF BOTH ARABIC

AND HEBREW, AND I'M A DRAG

QUEEN. ONE OF THE MOST

MEANINGFUL LESSONS THAT I'VE

LEARNED IS THAT A LAW IS UNJUST.

IF IT IS ENFORCED

DISPROPORTIONATELY AGAINST

MINORITIES, OR WRITTEN IN A WAY

THAT INVITES SUCH ENFORCEMENT.

WHILE I APPRECIATE MANY OF THE

GOALS OF THIS PROPOSAL, I

BELIEVE THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS

THRESHOLD FROM THE UN WILL

FUNCTION AS A WITCH HUNT

AGAINST JEWS AND JEWISH

BUSINESSES, WHO ALREADY FACE

ELEVATED LEVELS OF

DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT,

INTIMIDATION AND HATE CRIMES

AND BIAS INCIDENTS. I'VE

EXPERIENCED EACH OF THESE

MYSELF AND HAVE HEARD A DOZEN

STORIES FROM TEENS IN THE YOUTH

GROUP THAT I VOLUNTEER WITH

THAT ECHO MINE. THAT GROUP ONLY

HAS A FEW DOZEN KIDS, AND

HEARING THEIR STORIES IN SUCH

HIGH CONCENTRATION IS

HEARTBREAKING. MY FRIEND'S 12

YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS THROWN TO

THE GROUND BY A BOY IN HER

GRADE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT

SHE'S ISRAELI, AND HIS SISTER

TOLD HER THAT SHE DESERVED IT.

ANOTHER GIRL'S HOCKEY TEAM

ASSEMBLED THEIR STICKS IN THE

SHAPE OF A SWASTIKA TO

INTIMIDATE HER. JEWISH OWNED

BUSINESSES I REGULARLY VISIT

ENDURE A BARRAGE OF

DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

THAT FEW OTHER PORTLAND

BUSINESSES EXPERIENCE FOR THE

SOLE REASON THAT THEY ARE OWNED

BY ISRAELIS OR JEWS. THE PART

OF THIS BILL THAT CONCERNS ME

WERE WRITTEN AND SUPPORTED BY

PEOPLE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE

WORLD'S ONLY JEWISH STATE UNDER

THE GUISE OF MORALITY. THIS

BILL DOESN'T SINGLE OUT ISRAEL,

BUT THE UNITED NATIONS

FREQUENTLY DOES. MANY PEOPLE

SEE THE UNITED NATIONS AS AN

INDEPENDENT BODY, BUT IT HAS A

LONG RECORD OF ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS.

HOW ELSE WOULD YOU EXPLAIN

QATAR SITTING ON THE UN HUMAN

RIGHTS COUNCIL WHEN IT FUNDS

TERRORISTS AROUND THE WORLD,

AND WOULD PUT ME TO DEATH FOR

BEING GAY? EVERYONE IN THIS

ROOM IS FREE TO DECIDE HOW SHE

WANTS HER TO WEAR HER HAIR.

TODAY IN IRAN, WOMEN ARE BEATEN

TO DEATH OVER THAT CHOICE, AND

IRAN WAS ELECTED TO THE UN

COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF

WOMEN. THE US IS ONE OF THE

ONLY COUNTRIES ON EARTH WHERE

JEWS CAN SAFELY LIVE, PRACTICE

FREELY AND BUILD SUCCESSFUL

BUSINESSES, AND THAT IS ALREADY

CHANGING. DON'T MAKE IT WORSE

BY LEGALIZING A WITCH HUNT

AGAINST THOSE WHO DO BUSINESS

HERE. UNLESS YOUR GOAL IS TO

ERODE THE VITALITY OF THE

JEWISH COMMUNITY IN A CITY

WHERE THINGS ARE ALREADY

CHALLENGING, I HAD THE HONOR OF

PARTICIPATING IN PORTLAND'S YOU

BELONG CAMPAIGN AS THE JEWISH

PARTICIPANT. THE PROPOSAL, AS

WRITTEN, MAKES JEWISH

PORTLANDERS LIKE, MAKES JEWISH

PORTLANDERS LIKE ME, FEEL LIKE

WE DON'T BELONG. I ASK YOU TO

VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL AS

WRITTEN. I AM ONE, THE ONLY ONE.

THERE'S SO MUCH I CAN DO. THANK

YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI, MY NAME IS [name withheld]. I

LIVE IN DISTRICT THREE AND I'M

ACTIVE IN THE OREGON FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS COALITION. I'M HERE TO

TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE HUMAN

RIGHTS SCREEN FOR PORTLAND'S

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. I ALSO

SUPPORT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO

THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION

BY CLARIFYING THAT THE SCREEN

INCORPORATES NOT ONLY THE 1948

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS, BUT ALSO SUBSEQUENT

ADDITIONS TO INTERNATIONAL LAW,

SUCH AS THE UN CONVENTIONS ON

APARTHEID, GENOCIDE AND RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION, THE UN GUIDING

PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE

INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONVENTION.

BECAUSE RESPECT FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

HAS BEEN EVISCERATED UNDER THE

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, IT IS

IMPORTANT TO REAFFIRM THE WHOLE

BODY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. WHEN

I LAST TESTIFIED ON THIS

RESOLUTION IN SEPTEMBER, THREE

COUNCILORS SAID THEY OPPOSED A

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN BECAUSE IT

SINGLED OUT ISRAEL. PROPONENTS

WERE ACCUSED OF BEING

ANTI-SEMITES. IT WAS A

SLANDEROUS AND JUST PLAIN WEIRD

ACCUSATION. I NEVER UTTERED THE

WORD ISRAEL IN MY TESTIMONY. I

DID USE THE TERMS APARTHEID AND

GENOCIDE. SO THESE ACCUSERS

MUST HAVE JUST MADE THE

CONNECTION THEMSELVES. BUT THE

MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS

WEAPONIZATION OF ANTI-SEMITISM,

THE MORE PUZZLED I BECAME WERE

THE THREE COUNSELORS WHO MADE

THE SLANDER, UNAWARE THAT IN

APRIL THIS YEAR, OREGON'S TWO

U.S. SENATORS, JEFF MERKLEY AND

RON WYDEN, SUPPORTED A SENATE

RESOLUTION TO BLOCK THE SALE OF

BULLDOZERS AND 1,000 POUND

BOMBS TO ISRAEL. THE RESOLUTION

APPLIED ONLY TO ISRAEL, SO

THEIR VOTE DID, IN FACT, SINGLE

OUT ISRAEL. DID THAT MAKE THEM

ANTI-SEMITES? A MAJORITY OF

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ALSO

SUPPORTED THE RESOLUTION. ALL

ANTI-SEMITES APPARENTLY. THEN,

IN JULY 2026, OREGON

CONGRESSIONAL REPS. MAXINE

DEXTER, SUZANNE BONAMICI, VAL

HOYLE AND ANDREA SALINAS VOTED

TO CUT OFF MILITARY AID TO

ISRAEL. THEY SINGLED OUT ONLY

ISRAEL FOR THIS CUT OFF IN AID.

DID THAT MAKE THEM ANTI-SEMITES?

ALONG WITH MORE THAN 100 OTHER

CONGRESSIONAL REPS. FINALLY,

SIX CITY COUNCILORS IN THIS

CHAMBER SIGNED A PLEDGE TO TAKE

STEPS TOWARDS ENDING PORTLAND'S

COMPLICITY IN ISRAELI GENOCIDE

AND APARTHEID, A PLEDGE THAT

UPLIFTED THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS

OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE TO

LIVE FREE OF THESE CRIMES

AGAINST HUMANITY. WHAT BETTER

WAY TO DO IT THAN APPLYING A

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN WITH

UNIVERSAL STANDARDS? THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI, COUNCILORS. MY NAME IS

[name withheld]. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT THE

JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER

PORTLAND, THE CENTRAL

PHILANTHROPIC, CONVENING AND

PUBLIC AFFAIRS BODY FOR THE

LOCAL JEWISH COMMUNITY.

COMMUNITY CARES DEEPLY ABOUT

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HAS SOME

CONCERNS ABOUT THIS POLICY AND

WOULD THEREFORE LIKE CLARITY ON

A FEW POINTS, WOULD THE POLICY

PROHIBIT INVESTMENT EXCLUSIONS

BASED SOLELY ON A COMPANY'S

NATIONALITY, GEOGRAPHIC

PRESENCE OR LAWFUL COMMERCIAL

RELATIONSHIPS WITH A PARTICULAR

COUNTRY? WE WOULD WELCOME

LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THAT ANY

RESTRICTION RESTS ON DOCUMENTED

CONDUCT BY THE SPECIFIC COUNTRY,

WITH THE SAME STANDARDS APPLIED

CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL

COUNTRIES. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE

TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY

WOULD MAKE SURE ANY CRITERIA

APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO EVERY

WOULD BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY

TO EVERY COUNTRY AND COMPANY.

WE ASK BECAUSE MANY UNITED

NATIONS BODIES HAVE

CONSISTENTLY HELD ISRAEL TO A

DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN OTHER

NATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS

COUNCIL MAINTAINS A PERMANENT

STANDING AGENDA ITEM DEVOTED TO

ISRAEL, THE ONLY SUCH COUNTRY

IN THE WORLD ADDRESSED IN THIS

WAY. WE ARE CURIOUS WHETHER THE

CITY IS CONSIDERED HOW A SCREEN

DRAWING ON SUCH SOURCES WOULD

AVOID SINGLING OUT ANY ONE

COUNTRY IN PRACTICE, AND HOW

THE POLICY WOULD RELATE TO

ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES

FOREIGN POLICY. IN THIS REGARD,

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONCERNS

US, AND WE COULD SEE. WE COULD

SEE THE HOW HOW THIS LANGUAGE

HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED IN OTHER

MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES TO

SINGLE OUT ONE SPECIFIC COUNTRY.

OUR INTEREST IN THESE QUESTIONS

COMES FROM THE CARE FOR OUR

NEIGHBORS. WE WANT EVERY

PORTLANDER, INCLUDING JEWISH

RESIDENTS, TO FEEL INCLUDED AND

SECURE. WE KNOW THE COUNCIL

SHARES THAT GOAL. AN ETHICAL

INVESTMENT POLICY MUST

PRIORITIZE PROTECTION AGAINST

GEOGRAPHIC DISCRIMINATION,

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF

THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENTS,

PROTECTION OF TAXPAYER

FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND

OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPARENCY. WE

ARE NOT QUITE SURE THAT THE

CURRENT POLICY AS WRITTEN

ADDRESSES THOSE KIND OF KEY

POINTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

AND CONTINUED WORK TO BUILD A

PORTLAND WHERE EVERY COMMUNITY

FEELS SAFE AND WELCOME. WE ARE

HERE TO BE A PARTNER IN THIS

AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING

THE CONVERSATION ON THIS POLICY.

THANK YOU. COUNCILORS.

>> [name withheld].

>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILORS. MY

NAME IS [name withheld], AND I'M

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AND A

REGISTERED LOBBYIST FOR

PORTLAND JOBS WITH JUSTICE. WE

REPRESENT OVER 100 LABOR,

COMMUNITY, FAITH AND STUDENT

ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE ARE A

MEMBER OF THE OREGON FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS COALITION. WE URGE YOU

TO ADOPT A BROAD, UNIVERSAL

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN AS PART OF

THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY

AND INCLUDE LANGUAGE

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNCILOR,

NOVICK AND COUNCILOR KANAL.

THANK YOU BOTH, COUNCILORS, FOR

THOSE. EVERY PUBLIC DOLLAR

REFLECTS A CHOICE. WHEN THE

CITY INVESTS IN CORPORATE BONDS,

IT BECOMES A LENDER TO THOSE

COMPANIES AND IT SHARES IN WHAT

THEY DO. PORTLANDERS DO NOT

WANT THEIR TAX DOLLARS TIED TO

WAR CRIMES, TORTURE, MASS

SURVEILLANCE, ILLEGAL ICE

ACTIVITY, LABOR VIOLATIONS, OR

THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CLIMATE.

THAT IS A BASIC EXPECTATION OF

A HUMANE CITY. THIS IS NOT A

NEW IDEA FOR PORTLAND. THE

RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU SAYS THE

POLICY INCORPORATES SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT

PARAMETERS, INCLUDING THOSE

LISTED IN THE UNITED NATIONS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS. LAST DECEMBER, THIS

COUNCIL VOTED 10 TO 1 TO MOVE

THE CITY AWAY FROM COMPANIES

THAT ENABLE WAR, GENOCIDE,

TORTURE, ARBITRARY DETENTION,

LABOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL ABUSES.

THE POLICY ALREADY RESTRICTS

INVESTMENTS IN FOSSIL FUELS,

PRIVATE PRISONS, SMALL ARMS AND

CASINOS. A HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN

FINISHES THAT WORK. WHAT WE'RE

ASKING FOR IS CONSISTENCY. IF

WE SCREEN BY INDUSTRY, WE CAN

SCREEN BY CONDUCT. OUR MEMBERS

ARE THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD AND

MAINTAIN THE CITY. THEY KNOW A

PUBLIC DOLLAR IS NEVER NEUTRAL.

WHEN THE CITY BUYS CORPORATE

BONDS, IT BECOMES A LENDER TO

THOSE CORPORATIONS, A UNIVERSAL

STANDARD MEANS THE SAME RULES

FOR EVERY COMPANY AND EVERY

COUNTRY. THAT IS THE POINT. A

SCREEN THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE

CANNOT SINGLE OUT ANYONE.

NOTHING ABOUT THIS CONFLICTS

WITH THE CITY'S CORE DUTIES TO

PROTECT PUBLIC FUNDS, MAINTAIN

LIQUIDITY, AND EARN A MARKET

RETURN. PLENTY OF CITIES,

UNIVERSITIES AND PENSION FUNDS

HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU CAN APPLY

HUMAN RIGHTS CRITERIA AND STILL

INVEST PRUDENTLY. RESPONSIBLE

INVESTING IS, IN FACT ABOUT

MANAGING RISK, INCLUDING LEGAL,

REPUTATIONAL AND ETHICAL RISK.

SO WE ASK YOU TO DO THREE

THINGS ADOPT A HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN GROUNDED IN UNIVERSAL

STANDARDS. DIRECT THE TREASURER

TO APPLY A CONSISTENTLY ACROSS

ALL HOLDINGS AND REQUIRE

REGULAR PUBLIC REPORTING AND

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SO THAT

PORTLANDERS CAN SEE HOW OUR

MONEY IS BEING INVESTED. THIS

IS A CHANCE FOR PORTLAND TO

SHOW THAT OUR PUBLIC

INVESTMENTS REFLECT OUR HIGHEST

VALUES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

AND YOUR LEADERSHIP.

>> [name withheld].

>> MY NAME IS [name withheld].

I LIVE IN DISTRICT THREE. I AM

A RETIRED ATTORNEY WHO SPENT A

SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF MY LAST

YEARS PRACTICING ON HUMAN

RIGHTS ISSUES, INCLUDING IN

SOUTH AFRICA, TUNISIA, AND IN

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE. I AM

JEWISH AND A LONG TIME MEMBER

OF CONGREGATION SHALOM IN

PORTLAND. MY FAMILY, MY

DAUGHTER, MY GRANDDAUGHTER ARE

ALSO MEMBERS OF HAVURAH SHALOM.

ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED POLICY,

WHICH I TOTALLY SUPPORT AND

SUPPORT THE TESTIMONY, THE

BRILLIANT TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE

WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE ME.

ALTHOUGH THE POLICY DOES NOT

FOCUS ON ONE COUNTRY OR

CORPORATION, I DO BELIEVE THAT

THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS ONE OF

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS

OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THEIR

ACTIONS AGAINST PALESTINIANS

LIVING IN THE WEST BANK, AS

WELL AS IN GAZA AND ISRAEL.

PROPER, CALLING ISRAEL OUT DOES

NOT MAKE ME ANTI OR AN

ANTI-SEMITE, AS I WAS ACCUSED

OF BEING AT THE LAST COUNCIL

MEETING WE TESTIFIED AT. BUT IN

FACT, IT'S DEMANDED BY ALL OF

THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDAISM WITH

WHICH I WAS RAISED. THE MOST

RECENT REPORT OF THE

INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON THE

OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS, A

REPORT JUST ISSUED ON OCTOBER

14TH MAKES ISRAEL'S CONTINUED

VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. AGAIN, I

TOTALLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN IN THE

ORDINANCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL

AND THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS WHO

TESTIFIED BEFORE ME TODAY.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI. MY NAME IS [name withheld],

AND I'M AN ORGANIZER WITH

JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE AND THE

ORGAN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

COALITION. AND I'M HERE TODAY

TO TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF PASSING

THIS HUMAN RIGHTS SCREEN WITH

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY

COUNCILORS, NOVICK AND

COUNCILOR KANAL. I WANTED TO

START BY THANKING THE CITY

COUNCIL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO

UPDATE AND CONSIDER THE

COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING

THE NATURE OF OUR CITY'S

INVESTMENTS, AND FOR THEIR

DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR

INVESTMENTS ARE IN LINE WITH

THE CITY'S VALUES OF RESPECTING

AND UPHOLDING HUMAN RIGHTS,

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, AS WELL

AS LABOR CONCERNS AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION CONCERNS. THE LAST

TIME THAT WE HELD A HEARING ON

THIS, I TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF

AN AMENDMENT, AND I SPOKE ABOUT

HOW AMERICAN CORPORATIONS HAD

PROFITED OFF OF SLAVE LABOR

CREATED BY THE GENOCIDE THAT MY

FAMILY SURVIVED IN NAZI GERMANY.

CORPORATIONS LIKE FORD MOTORS

USED SLAVE LABOR FROM AUSCHWITZ

CONCENTRATION CAMP IN THE LABOR

CAMP, WHERE MANY OF MY FAMILIES

ULTIMATELY MET THEIR END.

PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IS IS

DEEPLY PERSONAL TO ME. AS A

DESCENDANT OF HOLOCAUST

SURVIVORS. WE'VE ALSO HEARD

TESTIMONY FROM SOME MEMBERS OF

THE COMMUNITY THAT SOMEHOW THIS

SCREEN UNFAIRLY TARGETS JEWS OR

JEWISH PEOPLE. AND I WANT TO

COMPLETELY REFUTE THAT

STATEMENT. IT IS NOT UNFAIR TO

APPLY A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN. WHAT WOULD BE UNFAIR

WOULD BE TO SINGLE OUT ONE

COUNTRY FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION

BASED ON THEIR IDENTITY. AND

THAT IS WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE.

SOME MEMBERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED

AGAINST THIS MEASURE ARE

PROPOSING THAT WE CREATE AN

EXCEPTION FOR ONE GROUP OF

PEOPLE, FOR ONE COUNTRY. I ALSO

WANT TO REFUTE THE IDEA THAT

THIS IS SOMEHOW A UNIVERSALLY

OR POPULARLY HELD BELIEF BY THE

MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT

COMMUNITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT

ANY PERSON OR INSTITUTION CAN

SPEAK FOR THE MEMBERS OF THAT

COMMUNITY. AND WE SAW RECENTLY

THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO

SAY THAT JEWISH VOTERS WOULD

NOT SUPPORT SENATOR ABDUL

EL-SAYED IN THE MICHIGAN SENATE.

BUT WE SAW FROM EXIT POLLS THAT

OVER 66% OF JEWS ACTUALLY VOTED

FOR ABDUL EL-SAYED, WHICH

REFUTES THIS IDEA THAT THIS IS

SOME UNIVERSALLY HELD, IDEAL

HELD VALUE BY JEWS. AND FRANKLY,

IT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME TO

PROPOSE OTHERWISE, I. I HOPE

THAT YOU WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF

THIS SCREEN WITH THE PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. MY

NAME IS [name withheld], LIVING IN ST.

JOHNS IN DISTRICT TWO. I WAS

BORN IN RAMAT GAN NEAR TEL AVIV

AND MOVED TO THE U.S. FROM

ISRAEL WITH MY PARENTS WHEN I

WAS YOUNG. SINCE MOVING TO

PORTLAND IN 2021, I'VE BEEN

ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE

COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ORGANIZING

WITH THE TECH WORKERS COALITION

AND WORKING WITH MY JEWISH

COMMUNITY THROUGH MY

GRANDPARENTS. AND MOST OF MY

RELATIVES STILL LIVE IN ISRAEL.

I'VE ALSO WORKED AT TECH

COMPANIES FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS

NOW, INCLUDING ISRAELI

COMPANIES. I KNOW THAT THERE

ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN ISRAEL AND

IN TECH, AND ALSO THE TECH

COMPANIES DO NOT ALWAYS OPERATE

AS THE GOOD OF THE BROADER

PUBLIC IN MIND. SO PLEASE

UNDERSTAND WHEN I SAY THAT

PORTLANDERS DESERVE TO CONSIDER

EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT COMPANIES

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE INVESTED IN,

AND TO BE HONEST ABOUT

EVERYTHING THOSE COMPANIES DO

FOR OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BE SPENT

ETHICALLY, WE NEED TO SCREEN

THE COMPANIES WE INVEST IN TO

CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE

BENEFITING FROM OR CONTRIBUTING

TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN

ANY PLACE. MY BIRTH COUNTRY,

ISRAEL, IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES.

IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT IT

IS THE ONE THAT HAS SPENT

MILLIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT ITS

GOAL LACKS PHILISTINE. I.

THAT'S HEBREW FOR TO EXTINGUISH

THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IS

CONSIDERED THE ONLY DEFINITION

OF JEWISH SAFETY. AS A JEW AND

AS ISRAELI, I DON'T AGREE. I

BELIEVE IN ISRAEL. THAT ISN'T A

ROGUE ETHNO STATE, ONE WHERE

REAL JUSTICE IS POSSIBLE.

APARTHEID CAN BE UNDONE IN A

REAL DEMOCRACY CAN BE FORGED,

AS IT WAS IN SOUTH AFRICA,

CREATING A SAFER WORLD FOR ALL

OF US. BUT FOR NOW, WE HAVE TO

RECKON WITH WHAT ISRAEL

ACTUALLY IS AND WHAT IT

ACTUALLY DOES, OR ELSE WE CAN

NEVER CHANGE IT. SAME AS ANY

OTHER NATION ON THIS PLANET.

MAKING SURE OUR ESG SCREENER IS

TRULY UNIVERSAL, AND USING THE

MOST UP TO DATE AND HONEST

DEFINITIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TO

MAKE SURE THAT OUR INVESTMENTS

AREN'T GOING TO CRIMES AGAINST

HUMANITY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD,

WOULD LET PORTLAND MAKE ITS OWN

SMALL STEP TOWARDS A BETTER

TOMORROW. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld] OR [name withheld]? [name withheld]. [name withheld].

YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

>> HELLO, COUNCIL COMMITTEE. MY

NAME IS [name withheld]. I'M A

DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENT AND A

MEMBER OF PORTLAND DSA, WHO

HAPPENS TO ALSO BE A VOLUNTEER

LOBBYIST FOR PORTLAND DSA. I'M

CALLING IN TODAY IN SUPPORT OF

THE CITY, ADOPTING A HUMAN

RIGHTS SCREEN FOR CITY

INVESTMENTS. I APPRECIATE THE

USE OF A CLEAR CRITERIA TO

DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO

INVEST IN SOMETHING, DON'T LIKE

IT, THEN MEET THE CRITERIA. I

ALSO WELCOME FRIENDLY

AMENDMENTS TO INCLUDE LABOR AND

ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS AS

CRITERIA TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN. IN ADDITION TO HUMAN

RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS. LIVING

IN THE IMPERIAL COURT, I'VE

BECOME ACUTELY AWARE OF HOW

COMPLICITY IS WEAPONIZED

AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WERE BORN

INTO EXPLOITATIVE POWER

STRUCTURES. WHEN PEOPLE FIND

OUT THEY ARE COMPLICIT IN

EXPLOITATION OR SOME OTHER EVIL

THEY NEVER CONSENTED TO, THEY

UNDERSTANDABLY BECOME INSECURE.

PEOPLE MIGHT EVEN BEGIN

DEFENDING BEHAVIOR THEY WOULD

HAVE OPPOSED IN A VACUUM. THE

AMERICAN EMPIRE MAKES GOOD USE

OF THIS FEATURE. AND YES, I SAY

IT'S A FEATURE AND NOT A BUG.

PERSONALLY, I DO NOT WANT TO

TRAFFIC IN SHAME OR GUILT OR

ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY. I WANT

JUSTICE, AND JUSTICE MEANS

THOUGHTFULLY REEVALUATING OUR

BEHAVIORS AND CHANGING THEM TO

BRING ABOUT BETTER OUTCOMES FOR

ALL. THROUGH THOUGHTFUL AND

CONSIDERED POLICY, LIKE THE

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREENING, WE CAN

NOT ONLY WORK TOWARDS

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, WE CAN

BREAK THE CYCLE OF COMPLICITY

AND SHAME, WHICH ALLOWS US TO

IMAGINE A BETTER WORLD. JUST

LIKE THE IMPERIAL COURT SEES,

COMPLICITY IS A FEATURE AND NOT

A BUG. SOCIALISTS SEE BREAKING

COMPLICITY AS A STEP TOWARDS

IMAGINING A BETTER FUTURE.

THANK YOU.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. [name withheld]. [name withheld].

[name withheld]. SORRY, WE'RE

HAVING SOME PROMOTION ISSUES.

WE HAVE [name withheld] ONLINE.

[name withheld], YOU CAN UNMUTE AND

GO AHEAD. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE

[name withheld], I WILL CALL [name withheld] AND [name withheld].

AND [name withheld] IS OUR. LAST

TESTIFIER FOR 396. IF WE CAN.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

>> [name withheld]. HI. WE CAN HEAR

YOU.

>> YES. SORRY, I LEFT ME OUT OF

THE MEETING REALLY QUICK.

>> OKAY. YOU CAN GO AHEADY. GOOD

MORNING. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS

[name withheld]. I'M FROM

DISTRICT ONE, AND I'M HERE IN

SUPPORT OF A YES VOTE ON THE

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREENING FOR PORTLAND'S

INVESTMENTS. ALONGSIDE THE

PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS

FROM COUNCILOR. NOVICK

TECHNOLOGY HAS THE POWER TO

CHANGE LIVES, AND WE AS

PORTLANDERS, HAVE THE POWER TO

DO SO AS WELL. WHEN WE CHOOSE

TO VALUE THE PEOPLE AT THE

HEART OF CREATING THIS

TECHNOLOGY, PEOPLE FROM THE

CONGO, INDIA, THE PHILIPPINES,

NEPAL JUST AS MUCH AS WE DO

IT'S CAPABILITIES, WE SAY NO

AND ASK FOR DIVESTMENT FROM

COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND

AMAZON, WHO'VE DONE BILLIONS OF

DOLLARS INTO GENERATIVE AI

INVESTMENTS THAT SERVE HUMAN

RIGHTS ABUSES, LIKE THE VERY

ONES OUR CITY WISHES TO AVOID

FROM HERE TO PALESTINE. WE NEED

NOT JUST THIS PROPOSAL ITSELF,

BUT MORE VIGILANCE IN OUR

STANDARDS AND METRICS,

COMMUNITY INPUT ON OUR CITY'S

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO ENSURES

THAT WHAT PORTLAND SPENDS IS

WHAT PORTLAND WANTS, THAT HUMAN

RIGHTS ARE UPHELD BY OUR

HOMETOWN. DIVESTMENT AND

REINVESTMENT INTO ETHICAL FUNDS

IS NO SIMPLE TASK, BUT I

SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS

NO WORLD THAT WE WISH TO LIVE

IN THAT WE CANNOT BUILD FOR

OURSELVES. THANK YOU SO MUCH

AND I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.

>> AND WE DO HAVE ONE MORE

TESTIFIER, [name withheld].

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS [name withheld] AND I AM A TENANT IN

DISTRICT FOUR AND A VOLUNTEER

LOBBYIST FOR THE PORTLAND DSA.

START BY SAYING WE SUPPORT

CANALS AMENDMENT, AND I IMPLORE

YOU TO UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS

AROUND THE WORLD AND PASS THIS

HUMAN RIGHTS SCREENING TODAY.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A PRIORITY FOR

DSA. DSA IS A MEMBER OF THE

PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL,

WHICH LAUNCHED IN MAY OF 2020

WITH THE MISSION TO UNITE,

ORGANIZE AND MOBILIZE THE

WORLD'S PROGRESSIVE FORCES.

SINCE THEN, IT HAS GROWN TO

INCLUDE OVER 100 ORGANIZATIONS

REPRESENTING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

ON ALL INHABITED CONTINENTS.

DSA RECENTLY SENT A DELEGATION

TO BRAZIL TO SERVE AS AN

ELECTION. AS ELECTION OBSERVERS

IN THEIR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,

INCLUDING CONGRESSMAN ELECT

CHRIS RABB. DSA MEMBERS SAW

FIRST HAND HOW US TECH

COMPANIES LIKE META INTERFERED

IN THE ELECTIONS BY SHUTTING

DOWN THE WHATSAPP CHANNELS OF

TRADE UNIONS AND RESTRICTING

LULA AND THE WORKERS PARTY

SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS.

BEAVERTON REPRESENTATIVE ELECT

TAMMY CARPENTER WAS JUST WEEKS

AGO DETAINED BY ISRAEL AND

REFUSED ENTRY INTO THE WEST

BANK, WHERE SHE AND

REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF

PARLIAMENT FROM AROUND THE

WORLD WERE LEARNING WERE GOING

TO LEARN ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS

ABUSES AND SYSTEM OF APARTHEID.

THAT SAME SYSTEM OF APARTHEID

IS POWERED BY U.S. TECH

COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE, AMAZON,

MICROSOFT, IBM AND PALANTIR.

PALANTIR, WHICH IS RIGHT NOW

UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY IN THE

UNITED KINGDOM BY SENDING

THREATENING LETTERS TO MEMBERS

OF PARLIAMENT LIKE JEREMY

CORBYN. SUAREZ LIVING IN THE

MOROCCAN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

OF WESTERN SAHARA. THIS VIOLENT

REPRESSION AS PART OF DAY TO

DAY LIFE IN REFUGEE CAMPS,

EXTREME POVERTY AND SOCIAL AND

ECONOMIC MARGINALIZATION, THE

UNITED STATES IS RIGHT NOW

ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING U.S.

COMPANIES TO INVEST IN THIS

OCCUPIED TERRITORY. THIS

INVESTMENT POLICY IS A

POLITICAL TOOL, AND WE MUST ASK

OURSELVES, WHAT SIDE ARE WE ON

THE SIDE OF EXPLOITATION, ABUSE,

CAPITAL IMPERIALISM, AND WAR OR

HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE, JUSTICE,

FREEDOM AND SOCIALISM? AS

WORKING PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL

UNITED IN THE STRUGGLE FOR

BETTER LIVES AND OUR FATES ARE

INHERENTLY INTERTWINED. THANK

YOU.

>> THAT CONCLUDES TESTIMONY.

>> REBECCA. THERE BEEN TRYING

TO SEE I, I THOUGHT I WE SAW

THAT [name withheld] WAS

ONLINE. SO I JUST WANTED TO

MAKE SURE.

>> SORRY.

>> ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT WE

WEREN'T ABLE TO.

>> GET CHECKING. [name withheld]. SORRY, I'M NOT

SEEING THEM. COUNCILOR.

>> AND I KNOW SOMEONE ALSO HAS

THEIR HAND UP IN THE.

>> YEAH.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IF

THERE'S A NAMING ISSUE

SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS WITH

WITH THE LINK BEING SENT TWICE.

SO OKAY.

>> YEAH, WE DO NOT HAVE [name withheld].

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THANK

YOU COLLEAGUES. WE ARE NOW BACK

INTO COUNCILOR DISCUSSION. YOU

CAN STILL ASK CLARIFYING

QUESTIONS. WE CAN ALSO CONSIDER

AMENDMENTS AND EVENTUALLY

EITHER CONTINUE THE ITEM OR

REFER IT ON TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

JUST OPEN UP THE QUEUE. COUNCIL

PRESIDENT DUNPHY, THANKS.

>> TESTIMONY AND THE

PRESENTATION PRIOR RAISED A

QUESTION FOR ME, FOR BRIDGET,

SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR TREASURER.

I WE HAVE A WE'VE HAD A A BAN

ON INVESTMENTS ON CASINOS FOR

AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN PAYING

ATTENTION TO THIS, WHICH IS AT

LEAST AT LEAST A DECADE NOW.

I'M WONDERING, DOES THAT

INHERENTLY PREVENT US FROM

INVESTING IN BONDS THAT ARE

ISSUED BY TRIBAL NATIONS? YOU

KNOW, IF THE WARM SPRINGS OR.

OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE OUR OUR,

YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT PARTNERS

ARE ISSUING BONDS, DOES THAT

MEAN WE CAN'T INVEST IN THEM?

>> GOOD QUESTION. I, I WANT TO

STEP BACK AND REMIND YOU THAT

WE DO HAVE A VERY DEFINED

UNIVERSE OF INVESTMENTS, RIGHT?

ROUGHLY 35 NAMES. AND THAT'S

PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY CREDIT

QUALITY AND A NUMBER OF OF

OTHER FACTORS. SO WE WOULDN'T

TODAY BE INVESTING IN, YOU KNOW,

TRIBAL CASINOS. NOT NECESSARILY

BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T THEY

WOULD BE FILTERED OUT ON THAT

LIST, BUT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER

QUALITIES, RIGHT? MAKING SURE

THAT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE

RIGHT CREDIT QUALITY THAT WE

WOULD NEED. SO AGAIN, IT'S,

IT'S, IT'S, THEY PERHAPS ARE

FILTERED OUT, BUT NOT FOR THAT

REASON.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU

VERY MUCH.

>> I AM NEXT IN THE QUEUE AND I

JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY YOU

SIMILAR, POTENTIALLY A SIMILAR

QUESTION IN TERMS OF

INVESTMENTS. EVERYTHING ON THAT

LIST IS A CORPORATION, RIGHT?

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY INVEST IN

ANY COUNTRY DIRECTLY.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. THAT IS

PROHIBITED IN OUR EXISTING

POLICY.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO

MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE

RECORD. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN

THE QUEUE, I'LL TAKE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO TO ASK COUNCILOR

NOVICK IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO

FIRST OR, OR NOT. IN TERMS OF

AMENDMENTS IN A MOMENT HERE.

>> YEAH, GO AHEAD AND THEN I'LL

ADD MINE.

>> OKAY. SO I WILL MOVE KANAL

ONE AGAIN. IT IS FILED ONLINE.

THIS ADDS TWO CLAUSES TO THE

RESOLUTION ITSELF. IT DOES NOT

CHANGE THE EXHIBIT. WE HAVE

ALREADY VOTED TO APPROVE EVERY

WORD IN THIS OTHER THAN THE

WORD REMAINS. AND I THINK THE

YEAR. SO BE. IT. FURTHER

RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL

REMAINS COMMITTED TO SCREENING

POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS BASED ON

HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING THOSE

LISTED IN THE UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

WITH THE INTENTION OF ENSURING

THE CITY DOES NOT INVEST IN

COMPANIES THAT ENABLE OR

FACILITATE WAR, ARMED CONFLICT

OR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES,

INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

GENOCIDE, SLAVERY, TORTURE,

INDEFINITE OR ARBITRARY

DETENTION, WAR CRIMES AND

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AS

WELL AS LABOR, ENVIRONMENTAL

AND CONSUMER POLICIES AND

IMPACT, AND TO EVALUATE OTHER

JURISDICTIONS POLICIES AS PART

OF THIS PROCESS AND BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE

COUNCIL ENCOURAGES THE

ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE

COMMUNITY OUTREACH IN ADVANCE

OF THE 2027 CITY OF PORTLAND

INVESTMENT POLICY, INCLUDING

THROUGH RELEVANT BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS, AND TO INCLUDE

INTERESTED COUNCIL OFFICES IN

THIS PROCESS. SO I'LL MOVE THAT

AND I'LL ASK FOR A SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>> MOVED BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY

COUNCILOR GREEN. IS THERE

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS

AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR NOVICK, I

BELIEVE YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE,

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON FOR

THIS OR FOR YOURS. OKAY, I'LL

MOVE ON TO COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY.

>> YEAH. I'M JUST WONDERING IF

YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE. I THINK

IT'S THE SECOND PIECE THERE

ABOUT CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT. AND

WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS THAT

WE HAVE ASKED OUR CFO AND

BUDGET TEAMS TO DO A

SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF

ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT COMPARED

TO WHAT THEY WERE DOING BEFORE

WE ALL TOOK OFFICE AROUND THE

BUDGET. AND I KNOW I PERSONALLY

HAVE HAD ASKS THAT WE HAVEN'T

BEEN ABLE TO GET TO AROUND

ENGAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE BUDGET.

I THINK OTHERS DO AS WELL, AND

IT MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME

FOR THERE TO BE ENGAGEMENT IN

THIS PROCESS AS A ONE TIME

PROCESS LEADING UP TO A POLICY

CHANGE, BUT YOU ARE PUTTING

LANGUAGE IN THAT WOULD

PRESUMABLY BECOME AN ONGOING

AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT AROUND OUR

INVESTMENT POLICY. THAT'S

DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY DO ON

ANY OTHER INTERNAL POLICY. SO

I'M WONDERING WHAT YOUR

THOUGHTS ARE THERE AND WHY YOU

ARE, WHY YOU'RE PRIORITIZING

THAT OVER POTENTIALLY OTHER

REALLY CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT WORK

THAT WE'RE ASKING THIS SAME

SMALL TEAM TO DO.

>> YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE

QUESTION. I'LL JUST NOTE TWO

THINGS. ONE, I, THAT I THINK

PROCESSES ARE GENERALLY

ITERATIVE. AND THIS IS JUST THE

IDEA THAT AS WE ITERATE ON A

POLICY THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES

US TO DO ANNUALLY, THAT

ENGAGEMENT SHOULD BE A PART OF

THAT PROCESS. HAVING SAID THAT,

I AGREE WITH YOUR GENERAL

PREMISE THAT THAT THE ONGOING

NEED WOULD NOT BE AS HIGH AS IT

WAS THIS YEAR, AND THAT'S WHY

IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT IT

WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME LEVEL

OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN

I'LL ALSO ADD THAT, ESPECIALLY

AS WE BEGIN TO ONBOARD A NEW

CITY WIDE ENGAGEMENT OFFICER,

THIS DOES NOT DIRECTLY

ENCOURAGE THE CFO'S OFFICE,

TREASURER OR INVESTMENT OFFICER

TO DO IT, BUT ENCOURAGE THE

ADMINISTRATION TO DO SO. SO I

THINK IT WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO

THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO

DETERMINE SORT OF WHERE THE

BEST PLACE TO TO OWN THAT WORK

WOULD BE. AND I GUESS I'LL ADD

ONE OTHER THING, WHICH IS I,

I'M HOPEFUL, GIVEN THAT THIS IS

GENERALLY ADOPTED BY THE END OF

THE WONDER YEAR, THAT THE THAT

THE SPECIFIC ZERO SUM ASPECT OF,

OF CAPACITY AS IT RELATES TO

BUDGET ENGAGEMENT IS A LITTLE

BIT LESSENED BY THE FACT THAT

ONE HAS TO GET VOTED ON BY JUNE

AND THE OTHER BY DECEMBER. I

CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT. BUT

THAT'S SORT OF MY MY

ANTICIPATION.

>> I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR IF ANY

OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ANYTHING

TO SAY. I'VE GOT SOME PRETTY

SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY CONCERNS

THERE. I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS

ABOUT THE DIRECTION FOR THE THE

ONGOING COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT ON

SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS

REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE BE AN

OBJECTIVE FINANCIAL POLICY,

JUST LIKE ALL OF OUR OTHER

FINANCIAL POLICIES, AGAIN, TO

DIRECT OUR INVESTMENT OFFICERS,

TO ENGAGE WITH COUNCIL ON ONE

POLICY. AND NOT ALL OF THE

POLICIES IS CURIOUS TO ME. SO

I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS THERE.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I'LL BE

CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM OUR

COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU COUNCILOR.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN, FOLLOWED BY

COUNCILOR SMITH.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT ARE THE

RELEVANT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS?

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW? THAT WOULD

INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, THE

INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE,

WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IN CODE.

BUT I THINK IF THERE'S OTHERS

THAT ARE RELEVANT IN THE FUTURE,

THAT'S A CONVERSATION I DON'T

KNOW OR IF ANYONE'S IDENTIFIED

ANYONE ELSE, BUT I IT'S IT'S

THE IDEA WAS TO NOT BE AN

EXHAUSTIVE LIST, BUT LAST YEAR

WAS THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS

THE SAME TEXT.

>> OKAY. I WAS GOING TO ASK

THIS QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT

RELATES TO THIS AMENDMENT AS

WELL. THEN TO THE CITY

TREASURER OF THE 35 GROUPS THAT

YOU SAID WERE ALLOWED TO INVEST

IN NOW. I'M TRYING TO THINK

ABOUT WITH THE UNDERLYING IF IT

PASSES, WHAT WILL CHANGE? WHO

WILL BE ELIMINATED? WILL ANY BE

ELIMINATED? AND THE REASON I'M

ASKING THAT IN THIS AMENDMENT

IS I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE

WHY THE COUNCILOR IS PUTTING IN

THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS SEEMS LIKE THERE MAY BE A

FOCUS COMING AT SOME POINT FOR

A BOARD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO

LIKE, ANTICIPATE. SO I'M JUST

TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF, OF

THE 35, WHERE WILL WE GO? HOW

LOW WILL WE GO IF THINGS ARE

PASSED?

>> COUNCILOR. SORRY, BRIDGET.

LET ME TAKE A CRACK AND THEN

YOU CAN SUPPLEMENT. I MEAN, I

THINK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION,

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY

KNOW, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE WANT

TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT PARTY

DO THE SCREEN SO THAT WE'RE

GETTING THAT. I THINK IT IS

FEASIBLE THAT COULD COULD BE

ZERO DEPENDING ON THE, YOU KNOW,

THE INDEPENDENT KIND OF

ASSESSMENT THAT'S PERFORMED. IT

COULD BE A HANDFUL OF OF

CORPORATIONS. SO WE'LL LEARN

MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT FEW

MONTHS. I THINK THE BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS QUESTION IS A

LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. AND THAT

THAT'S AROUND ENGAGEMENT AND

YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THAT THE,

YOU KNOW, DIRECTIVE IS TO THE

CITY ADMINISTRATOR. I WILL CALL

OUT THAT ULTIMATELY MYSELF AND

THE TREASURER'S OFFICE ARE

PROBABLY GOING TO PARTICIPATE

IN THAT AT THAT SAME THE SAME

VOLUME, WHETHER WE'RE IN THE

LEAD OR NOT, WOULD ALSO JUST

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I THINK.

APPRECIATE COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY YOUR QUESTION, I

HAVE SOMEWHAT. THE SAME

QUESTION IS IT'S I APPRECIATE

IN VALUE KIND OF ONGOING

ENGAGEMENT AND THE VALUE IN

THAT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT

FROM LAST YEAR, WHERE IT FELT

LIKE WE HAD REALLY CLEAR

DIRECTION ABOUT WHAT THE

ENGAGEMENT WAS AROUND AND WHAT

IT WAS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE. AND

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE

NEBULOUS. SO JUST WOULD CALL

OUT. IT'D BE HELPFUL IF, IF

THIS SHOULD PASS AROUND A

DIRECTIVE TO HAVE MORE OUTREACH

AND ENGAGEMENT, MORE CLARITY

ABOUT WHAT THAT'S THE INTENT OF

THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN RESPOND

APPROPRIATELY TO THAT WHEN WE

COME BACK NEXT YEAR. COUNCILOR

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> YEAH, IT'S IT'S HELPFUL.

WHAT I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND HERE TO JONAS AND TO,

TO COUNCILOR KANAL IS LIKE,

THERE'S, THERE'S AN ASPECT TO

THIS POLICY ABOUT THE

OBJECTIVENESS. AND I THINK THAT

THE SECOND CLAUSE OF YOUR

AMENDMENT, COUNCILOR, IS

IMMEDIATELY INTRODUCING A

SUBJECTIVENESS. AND SO THAT'S

GIVING ME GIVING ME SOME PAUSE

HERE. I THINK THAT I WOULD

WORRY IF, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE

START SEEING RANDOM BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS START, YOU KNOW,

BECAUSE WE'VE LIKE MEMBERS LIKE,

NOW THIS IS A THING. WE'VE GOT

TO HAVE A POLICY. WE'VE GOT TO

HAVE DISCUSSION ON WHEN YOU

KNOW, YOUR JOB IS THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, YOUR JOB IS, IS THE

ADVISORY BOARD FOR X, Y, OR Z.

SO, SO THIS SEEMS LIKE AN

INVITE OF, OF NOT ONLY AN

EXPANSION OF WHAT GROUPS THAT

WE'VE ASKED TO DO CERTAIN WORK

ON OUR BEHALF MAY, MAY START

LEADING INTO, BUT ALSO YOU HAVE

SOME STUFF IN THE UNDERLYING

THAT I'M TRYING TO HEAR FOR THE

OBJECTIVENESS THAT'S BEEN

REALLY TOUTED, BUT NOW WE'RE. I

BELIEVE THIS IS INTRODUCING A

SUBJECTIVENESS. AND SO I'M JUST

I THINK THAT YOUR AMENDMENT IS

STRONGER WITHOUT THE NUMBER TWO

PART THERE. AND THE NUMBER ONE

HOLDS. AND BUT THOSE ARE JUST

MY THOUGHTS. I'M TRYING TO

TRYING TO JUST UNDERSTAND HOW

THIS PLAYS OUT IN THE LONG TERM

FOR. BECAUSE IT'S A BE IT

RESOLVED AND NOT A. WHEREAS

THIS, THIS COMES WITH SOMETHING

TO IT. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S

WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND

HERE A LITTLE BIT.

>> THANKS FOR THAT. I'LL GO TO

COUNCILOR SMITH AND I'LL

RESPOND WHEN I'M ASKING THE

QUEUE. AFTER THAT.

>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER KIM

JEFFRIES SAID THIS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IF THE

FOLKS WHO WE INVEST IN IF THOSE

CHANGE DURING THE YEAR, DO WE

GET NOTIFIED THAT WE ADD FOLKS

OR THAT WE CHANGE INVESTMENTS?

>> YEAH, YEAH, COUNCILOR, I'LL

ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I MEAN,

WE DON'T PROVIDE, YOU KNOW,

NOTIFICATION OFTEN THOSE THOSE

HAPPEN IN REAL TIME. BUT WE DO

PUBLISH THE MONTHLY INVESTMENT

REPORT, WHICH IS A PUBLICLY

AVAILABLE DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS

EVERY MONTH WHAT CHANGED IN OUR

PORTFOLIO. SO IT IS

TRANSPARENTLY COMMUNICATED WHEN

THAT WHEN THOSE CHANGES DO

OCCUR. AND JUST ALSO NOTE THAT

THAT REPORT, IN ADDITION TO

ADDING IN THE ESG SCORE, ONCE

WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE, ALSO

SHOWS THINGS LIKE WHEN IT'S

MATURING. SO FOLKS CAN SEE, OH,

WE HAVE X, Y, Z THING THAT WE

OWN THAT MATURES, YOU KNOW, ON

DECEMBER 1ST, 2026. SO YOU CAN

SORT OF OBSERVE THAT'S AN

OPPORTUNITY WHEN THAT WILL

LEAVE OUR PORTFOLIO AND WE MAY

BE PURCHASING SOMETHING ELSE.

>> SO WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE,

IT'S NOT URGENT, URGENT. BUT I

WANT YOU TO WALK ME THROUGH

THAT SO THAT I CAN SEE HOW TO

LOOK AT THAT, BECAUSE I LOOK AT

THEM AND IT'S A LOT.

>> YEAH, YEAH. HAPPY TO HAPPY

TO MAKE SPACE TO DO THAT.

COUNCILOR. OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILOR SMITH. I'LL GO TO

COUNCILOR. KOYAMA LANE FIRST

AND THEN I'LL BE NEXT IN THE

QUEUE.

>> THANK YOU. CHAIR KANAL. AND

I ALSO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE

FOR COMING TO TESTIFY TODAY.

AND TO ALL THOSE WHO CAME TO

THE LAST COMMITTEE, THE WHOLE

MEETING, WHEN WE WERE

DISCUSSING THIS LAST FALL, I

SECONDED THE AMENDMENT FROM

COUNCILOR KANAL THAT PROMPTED

THIS PROCESS AND VOTED IN

SUPPORT OF THE ACTION FROM

COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO OUR

INVESTMENT POLICY, BECAUSE MANY

OF MY CONSTITUENTS SAY THAT,

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S OUR

RESPONSIBILITY AS A COUNCIL TO

ENSURE THAT OUR CITY

INVESTMENTS ARE ALIGNED WITH

OUR STATED VALUES TO THE

GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. I'VE

BEEN REALLY GRATEFUL THAT MY

OFFICE HAS BEEN PART OF THE

PROCESS OVER THE LAST YEAR OF

THE WORKING GROUP THAT'S BEEN

GETTING UPDATES ON THIS, AND I

ALSO REALLY WANT TO UNDERSCORE

THAT I'VE BEEN INCREDIBLY

IMPRESSED BY HOW THOROUGH AND

THOUGHTFUL CFO BIERY TREASURER

O'CALLAHAN AND OTHER CITY STAFF

HAVE BEEN WHO HAVE WORKED ON

THIS. I BELIEVE WHAT WE ARE

LOOKING AT TODAY IS IT REALLY

ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE OUTCOME

OF THIS, THE PROCESS, AND I

PLAN TO BE BOTH SUPPORTIVE OF

COUNCILOR KANAL AND COUNCILOR

NOVICK AMENDMENTS. I APPRECIATE

THEM BOTH BEING IN THE WORK

GROUP AND ENGAGING IN GOOD

FAITH. GENUINELY, I REALLY URGE

MY COLLEAGUES TO ALSO SUPPORT

THESE, AND I JUST THANK YOU.

CHAIR KANAL. I KNOW THIS IS I

APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP

THROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR AND

THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND I

APPRECIATE YOUR AMENDMENT THAT

GIVES SOME MORE CLARITY AND

GUIDANCE FOR THIS LEGISLATION.

I WELCOME IT AND I SUPPORT IT.

>> YOU COUNCILOR KOYAMA LANE. I

AM NEXT IN THE QUEUE,

COLLEAGUES. SO I JUST WANTED TO

CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS. I

APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THAT

WERE RAISED HERE. I DON'T THINK

THAT THE RELEVANCE OF A BORDER

COMMISSION TO A TOPIC IS

DETERMINED ON THE FLY BY THE

MEMBERS. I HAVEN'T WORKED ON

CITY ADVISORY BODIES FOR A

WHILE. I KNOW THAT THERE IS

OFTEN A RISK OF MISSION CREEP,

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S REALLY

IMPORTANT. AND WE'VE STARTED A

PROCESS AS A CITY TO CREATE THE

THE A, B, C PROGRAM IN A WAY

THAT THAT HAS CLEAR DIRECTION

TO THOSE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE

PLANNING COMMISSION WAS RAISED,

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A

VERY DEFINED SCOPE OF WORK THAT

DOES NOT INCLUDE HUMAN RIGHTS.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INVESTMENTS.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE, YOU KNOW,

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL

GOVERNANCE, INVESTMENT POLICIES.

SO THAT'S, I THINK, A BROAD

THING TO WORRY ABOUT. THE OTHER

THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS I

WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE IDEA

BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT, THE

SECOND PIECE OF IT, IS NOT TO

HAVE BODIES BE INVOLVED IN THE

APPLICATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN THAT IS, IN THIS YEAR'S

INVESTMENT POLICY. THE IDEA IS

THAT THE INVESTMENT POLICY

ITSELF WILL BE ADJUSTED OVER

TIME, NOT NECESSARILY EVERY

YEAR, BUT EVERY YEAR IT GETS

RESUBMITTED. STATE LAW REQUIRES

US TO APPROVE IT. AND SO THE

IDEA IS, IF THERE ARE TO BE

FUTURE ITERATIONS OR

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE POLICY, THAT

THAT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AS PART OF

THAT POLICY OR PART OF THAT

POLICY REVISION PROCESS. SO

AGAIN, THEY WOULDN'T BE

APPLYING THE INVESTMENT SCREEN

IN ANY WAY. SO THIS IS SEPARATE

FROM THE SORT OF OBJECTIVITY

CONVERSATION AROUND THAT THAT I

WOULD SAY THE IN TERMS OF

UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS

OBJECTIVE, THE TEXT IN THE

EXHIBIT ITSELF IS WHAT FOLKS

SHOULD BE ABLE TO FOLKS SHOULD

BE ABLE TO EVALUATE AND

HOPEFULLY FIND A SUFFICIENTLY

STRONG. IN THAT REGARD, I DO

ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT COUNCILOR.

PIRTLE-GUINEY IS SAYING AND.

CFO BIERY AS WELL ABOUT, YOU

KNOW, CAPACITY. AND AGAIN, I

THINK IF THERE'S A CONVERSATION

TO BE HAD AROUND HOW TO MAKE

SURE THAT THAT'S NOT AS HEAVY

OF A LIFT AND IT'S NOT EXPECTED

TO BE, I'M HOPING THAT I'M

ESTABLISHING INTENT HERE BY, BY

STATING THAT THAT THE IDEA HERE

IS JUST AS YOU MAKE POTENTIAL

REVISIONS, THAT THAT INCLUDES

ENGAGEMENT, NOT THAT THERE IS A

CLEAR END POINT IN PLACE FOR IT,

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IF

THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH ABSENT A

WORD CHOICE CHANGE. SO I WOULD

LOVE FOLKS TO TO COMMENT ON

THAT. IF SO, IT HASN'T COME UP

ANYTHING ON THE FIRST PART OF

IT. SO I'LL JUST NOTE MY

INTENTION IS TO, IS TO KIND OF

KEEP THAT, THAT CLARITY IN

THERE ABOUT WHAT VALUES ARE

BEHIND THIS. AND TO ENSURE IN

PARTICULAR, I DON'T KNOW IF

COUNCILOR NOVICK AMENDMENT IS

GOING TO PASS. I SUPPORT IT,

BUT I'M NOT SURE YET BECAUSE WE

HAVEN'T VOTED THAT. WE'RE ALSO

KEEPING THAT SPECIFIC PIECE IN

THERE ABOUT LABOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER

POLICIES. THAT'S PART OF THE

REASON BEHIND THAT FIRST PART.

SO THAT'S SORT OF MY INTENTION

THERE. AND I'LL GO TO COUNCILOR

KOYAMA LANE NEXT.

>> THANK YOU. JUST TO BE

CRYSTAL CLEAR, CHAIR. SO THE

ENGAGEMENT IS NOT AT ALL ABOUT

APPLYING THE HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREEN. IT'S ONLY ABOUT HOW TO

POTENTIALLY IMPROVE THE POLICY

IN THE FUTURE.

>> YES. OKAY.

>> OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE

JUST LOOKING AROUND MAKING SURE

I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING? I'LL GO

TO COUNCILOR ZIMMERMAN. YEAH.

>> I'D LIKE THE FIRST THING TO

PASS. I, I JUST I DON'T I THINK

THE SECOND THE SECOND PART OF

IT IS PROBLEMATIC. SO I'M, I'M

TOYING WITH THE IDEA OF, OF

JUST ADJUSTING IT, BUT I DON'T

KNOW THE RIGHT PATH HERE. I

WISH THAT THOSE WERE SEPARATE

CAUSES. I THINK TOGETHER, THE

AMENDMENT IS I, I JUST DON'T

ACCEPT THE NUMBER TWO PART. SO

I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY DIVIDE THE

QUESTION. AND IF I IF WHETHER

IT'S YOU OR ME. COUNCILOR KANAL.

BUT I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON THE

FIRST ONE FIRST AND THE SECOND

ONE SECOND, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> YEAH, I THAT'S THAT'S

PERFECTLY FINE. IF YOU COULD

JUST BEAR WITH ME A SECOND. I'M

SEEING THAT THERE WAS SOMEBODY

WITH. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'LL

DIVIDE THE QUESTION I, I ACCEPT

THE SUGGESTION. WE'LL VOTE ON

THE FIRST PART FIRST. THE

SECOND PART SECOND. I AM

HEARING FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE

THAT ONE OF OUR TESTIFIERS THAT

WAS UNABLE TO GET ON HAS GOTTEN

ON. SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION,

I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE THEM THEIR

TIME. SEEING NONE, WE'LL DO

THAT. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK

AND VOTE ON THESE TWO AND THEN

HEAR THE OTHER AMENDMENT AS

WELL. SO, REBECCA, IF YOU COULD

PLEASE PROMOTE. I'M NOT SURE

WHO IT IS, BUT YEAH.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK

YOU. COMMITTEE. TESTIFIER

[name withheld] IS ONLINE.

YOU CAN UNMUTE AND GO AHEAD.

>> AMAZING. THANK YOU SO MUCH

FOR HELPING ME GET THAT. OKAY.

GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. THANK YOU

FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK

TODAY IN SUPPORT OF

INCORPORATING A HUMAN RIGHTS

SCREENING INTO THE CITY'S

BUDGET. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME

IS [name withheld]. I'M A

HUSBAND, DAD, PUBLIC SERVANT,

AND A VETERAN OF THE NAVY. AND

I'M HERE AND I AM PART OF A

NUMBER OF GROUPS IN OUR AREA

DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN

RIGHTS AND OPPOSING WAR AND

GENOCIDE, INCLUDING CODEPINK,

JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, AND

MOST OFTEN, VETERANS FOR PEACE.

I'M HERE TODAY TO HELP PUSH

BACK AGAINST POINTS THAT WE'VE

HEARD FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THIS

COUNCIL, WHO MADE IT CLEAR AT

THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER THAT

THEY WERE NOT, THAT THEY ARE

NOT HERE OPERATING IN GOOD

FAITH ON THIS ISSUE, DESPITE

THIS POLICY GOING OUT OF ITS

WAY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS

IS NOT ABOUT ONE COUNTRY IN

PARTICULAR, BUT RATHER A BOLD

STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO

BRING HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE

SPENT IN LINE WITH OUR

PURPORTED VALUES. THERE WERE A

NUMBER OF NON-SUPPORTIVE

COUNCILORS THAT AFFIRMATIVELY

BROUGHT IT BACK TO ISRAEL,

GOING SO FAR AS TO CALL THEIR

PEERS ANTI-SEMITES AND

INSINUATING THAT THEIR DESIRE

TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS

EVERYWHERE WAS SIMPLY A DOG

WHISTLE FOR HATING JEWS. THIS

WAS DISGUSTING. KNOWINGLY

DISHONEST. YOUR CONSTITUENTS

ARE NOT THAT STUPID, SO PLEASE

AVOID DOING THAT AGAIN. BUT

SINCE IT'S COME UP TODAY ANYWAY,

I WANTED TO LEVEL SET. IT IS NO

ONE'S OPINION THAT ISRAEL HAS

BEEN COMMITTING GENOCIDE. THAT

IS THE FINDING OF EVERY MAJOR

HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS

ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET,

INCLUDING B'TSELEM AND ISRAEL.

ACCORDING TO POLLING, 80 TO 90%

OF DEMOCRATS, 50 TO 60% OF

REPUBLICANS, 30% OF ISRAELI

SOCIETY, ISRAELI GENOCIDE AND

HOLOCAUST SCHOLARS, SEVERAL UN

RIGHTS COMMISSIONS, HUNDREDS OF

COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND

A GROWING NUMBER OF

CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES,

INCLUDING D3'S REPRESENTATIVE

DEXTER HERE IN PORTLAND, HAVE

ALL CONCLUDED THAT ISRAEL IS

GUILTY OF GENOCIDE OF THE

PALESTINIANS. WE SEE THE TERROR

ATTACKS ON ITS SURROUNDING

NEIGHBORS. WE SEE THE ILLEGAL

WARS AGAINST IRAN AND LEBANON.

WE SEE THE ETHNIC CLEANSING

TAKING PLACE IN GAZA, THE WEST

BANK, EAST JERUSALEM, SOUTHERN

LEBANON AND LAND GRABS IN SYRIA.

THIS IS NOT A QUOTE UNQUOTE

CONFLICT. THIS IS A GENOCIDE WE

HERE IN THE U.S. ARE HELPING TO

PAY FOR. SO IF THIS COUNCIL

MEDIA SEES ALL OF THIS AND YOUR

RESPONSE IS, WELL, WHY AREN'T

WE TALKING ABOUT BANGLADESH?

YOU REVEAL HOW DISHONEST AND

BAD FAITH YOU ARE. THE REASON

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT

BANGLADESH IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT

ACTIVELY FUNDING THEIR GENOCIDE

AND WAR CRIMES. SO NOW THAT

THAT TACTIC ISN'T WORKING,

ISN'T WORKING, WE'RE GOING TO

TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE WORRIED

ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY

COMMISSIONS AND RESOURCE

CONSTRAINTS AND THESE NEBULOUS

QUESTIONS THAT WERE NEVER

BROUGHT UP BEFORE. THEY'LL

CONTINUE TO MOVE THE GOALPOSTS

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT A HUMAN

RIGHTS SCREENING FOR ALL WILL

INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS AND

COUNTRIES THAT THEY DON'T WANT

IT TO. BUT AGAIN, THIS ISN'T

JUST ABOUT ISRAEL. THIS IS

ABOUT ANY AND ALL NATIONS,

ORGANIZATIONS, CORPORATIONS,

AND INDIVIDUALS PROFITING OFF

OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

THIS INCLUDES THOSE ENTITIES

HERE IN THE U.S. HELPING TO

SUPPORT THINGS LIKE THE

STARVATION OF CUBA, THE BOMBING

OF FISHERMEN OFF THE COAST OF

SOUTH AMERICA, THE ETHNIC

CLEANSING OCCURRING HERE IN OUR

IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES, RUSSIAN

BOMBINGS OF CIVILIANS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WELL AS ANY

TIES TO ONGOING GENOCIDES IN

SUDAN AND THE CONGO, JUST TO

NAME A FEW. IT'S THIS SIMPLE.

WE DON'T WANT OUR TAX DOLLARS

GOING TO FUND GOVERNMENTS AND

ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GUILTY

OF KILLING KIDS. IF YOU WANT TO

PRETEND THAT ALL OF THIS, YOU

KNOW, SUPPORTING THIS POLICY,

INCLUDING CONSTITUENTS AND

JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, ARE

DOING IT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL A

BUNCH OF ANTI-SEMITES, OR

BECAUSE YOU'RE SUDDENLY

CONCERNED AROUND RESOURCE

CONSTRAINTS AND HAVING TOO MANY

COMMISSIONS. PLEASE KNOW THAT

ONLY THE DUMBEST AND MOST

HEAVILY PROPAGANDIZED OF YOUR

CONSTITUENTS CONSTITUENTS WILL

BELIEVE THAT. THANK YOU, THANK

YOU.

>> THAT WAS OUR FINAL TESTIMONY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO

WE'RE WE'RE STILL IN THE QUEUE

TO DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT. IT'S

NOW DIVIDED. I'LL ASK IF WE CAN

JUST DO ALL THE DISCUSSION

TOGETHER AND THEN TAKE TWO

VOTES SEPARATELY. COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN, IS THAT A LEGACY

HAND SEEING A NOD, ANYONE ELSE

IN THE QUEUE TO DISCUSS

AMENDMENT, LET'S SAY KANAL ONE

A AND KANAL ONE B? WE VOTING ON

THESE IN ORDER WITH THE FIRST

PARAGRAPH FIRST AND THE SECOND

PARAGRAPH SECOND. SO, REBECCA,

COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL

ON KANAL ONE A.

>> SO KANAL ONE A THIS WAS TO

VOTE ON THE. ADDING THE FIRST

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED CLAUSE,

CORRECT?

>> YEAH. THE ONE THAT BEGINS

THAT THE COUNCIL REMAINS

COMMITTED.

>> COUNCIL REMAINS COMMITTED.

MOVED BY KANAL, SECONDED BY

GREEN. CLARK ABSENT GREEN.

>> AND A YES VOTE IS AN

AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FOR THAT FIRST

PIECE, RIGHT? YES.

>> I ZIMMERMAN. I AVALOS. I

DUNPHY. I SMITH. I

PIRTLE-GUINEY. I RYAN. I KOYAMA

LANE. I MORILLO. I NOVICK. I

KANAL. I AND KANAL ONE AYE. THE

AMENDMENT IS APPROVED WITH 11 I

ONE ABSENT.

>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION ON KANAL ONE B?

BECCA, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL

THE ROLL KANAL ONE B THIS IS

THE PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS THAT

THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGES THE

ADMINISTRATION.

>> KANAL ONE. B TO ADD THE

SECOND FOR BE IT FURTHER

RESOLVED. ALSO MOVED BY KANAL,

SECONDED BY GREEN. CLARK ALSO

ABSENT.

>> GREEN BY ZIMMERMAN.

>> NO.

>> AVALOS I WHAT YOU WANT.

>> TO DO.

>> DUNPHY I.

>> SMITH I.

>> PIRTLE-GUINEY NO.

>> RYAN.

>> NO.

>> I'M SORRY. COUNCIL. RYAN

THAT WAS A NO. YEAH NO THANK

YOU THANK YOU. KOYAMA LANE. I

MORILLO. I NOVICK. I KANAL. I

AND THE AMENDMENT KANAL ONE B

IS APPROVED WITH EIGHT I THREE

NAY ONE ABSENT.

>> THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. I'M

GOING TO PASS IT TO COUNCILOR

NOVICK BUT WITH YOUR PERMISSION,

COUNCILOR NOVICK I'D LOVE TO

TAKE A BREAK FIRST. OKAY. WE'LL

BE BACK IN TEN MINUTES. SEE YOU

BACK AT 1130. LET'S DO 111131.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR.

>> NOVICK THANK YOU, MR.

CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN

FILED. ACTUALLY MIGHT HAVE

NEGLECTED TO SEND THIS TO

EVERYBODY, BUT IT'S PRETTY

SIMPLE. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO

EXHIBIT A SECTION 16

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND

GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE. AND

AFTER THE WORDS, THE CITY WILL

USE AN ESG SCREEN TO CONSIDER

THE EFFECTS OF ITS INVESTMENTS

IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE UNITED

STATES UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

ADDING THIS SENTENCE THE CITY

SHALL ALSO USE AN ESG SCREEN OR

SCREENS THAT CONSIDER COMPANIES

RECORDS OF COMPLIANCE OR

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LAWS

OR STANDARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL

LAWS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

LAWS.

>> THAT HAS BEEN FORMALLY MOVED

BY COUNCILOR NOVICK. IS THERE A

SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY. WE'LL NOW GO

INTO DISCUSSION OF THIS

AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR AVALOS.

>> ARE WE GOING TO RECEIVE IT

IN WRITING?

>> YOU SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY

JUST NOW, SPENCER SENT IT OUT.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GETTING IT

TO YOU BEFORE.

>> OKAY.

>> I HAVE RECEIVED IT AS OF A

MINUTE OR TWO AGO, SO HOPEFULLY

YOU ALL WILL TOO. OKAY.

COUNCILOR AVALOS ANYTHING

FURTHER OR IS THAT?

>> I NEED A MINUTE TO READ IT

SO I'LL GET BACK IN THE QUEUE.

THANKS, GREAT.

>> COUNCILOR PIRTLE-GUINEY.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND FIRST

OF ALL, THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

NOVICK, FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE

DID NOT LOSE THESE PIECES OF

THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE AN

EQUALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THE

DISCUSSION LAST YEAR. I AM

WONDERING IF I CAN HEAR FROM

STAFF WHETHER WE CAN DO THIS

THROUGH THE SAME CONTRACT AND

THROUGH THE SAME ESG SCREEN, OR

WHETHER WE WILL NEED TO PAY FOR

TWO SCREENS IN ORDER TO MAKE

THIS HAPPEN, OR HAVE EVEN I

THINK WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD

BE TWO CONTRACTS, BUT THAT'S

POSSIBLE AS WELL. DO WE CAN

EITHER BRIDGET JONES SPEAK TO

THAT?

>> YES, I JONAS HAD TO STEP

AWAY. BRIDGET O'CALLAGHAN CITY

TREASURER YES, WE SHOULD BE

ABLE TO DO IT UNDER THE SAME

CONTRACT.

>> OKAY. SO WE SHOULDN'T SEE AN

INCREASE IN TIMING COMPLICATION,

MAYBE A SLIGHT INCREASE IN

PRICE, BUT IF SO, PRETTY MINOR.

OR DO YOU THINK THAT THIS COULD

DOUBLE OUR COST?

>> I WOULD NOT SAY DOUBLE OUR

COSTS. IT WOULD ADD SOME

ADDITIONAL TIME. AND WE DO NEED

TO UNDERSTAND THE CLARIFICATION

RIGHT AROUND WHAT SOME OF THE

TERMINOLOGY MEANS. SO THAT'S

ALL PART OF WHAT WOULD BE

INVOLVED IN ENGAGING IN THE

SCOPE OF WORK WITH A VENDOR FOR

THAT. BUT ONCE WE GET ALL RIGHT,

THEN IT SHOULD BE UNDER THAT

SAME CONTRACT.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY. I WANT TO GIVE

FOLKS A MOMENT TO GET IN THE

QUEUE JUST IN CASE.

>> OKAY.

>> SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE

QUEUE, WE ARE IN DISCUSSION OF

AN AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR NOVICK

PROPOSED NOVICK ONE, SECONDED

BY COUNCILOR PIRTLE-GUINEY.

REBECCA, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL

THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT NOVICK

ONE.

>> ON NOVICK ONE MOVED BY NOVAK,

SECONDED BY PIRTLE-GUINEY CLARK.

ABSENT. GREEN.

>> HI.

>> ZIMMERMAN.

>> HI.

>> AVALOS I.

>> DUNPHY I.

>> SMITH I.

>> PIRTLE-GUINEY I.

>> RYAN I.

>> KOYAMA LANE I.

>> MORILLO I.

>> NOVICK I.

>> NO I.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS APPROVED

WITH 11 I ONE ABSENT.

>> THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. WE'RE

NOW BACK IN THE QUEUE ON THE

UNDERLYING. I BELIEVE WE DO NOT

NEED A MOTION OR WE DO NEED A

MOTION TO REFER THIS ON TO THE

FULL COUNCIL WITH A DUE PASS

RECOMMENDATION. COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN.

>> I THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE

HOW THIS HAS GONE AND SOME

ADJUSTMENTS HERE. AND, JONAS,

WHAT I'M REALLY WONDERING ABOUT

IS I WAS HOPING IN YOUR INITIAL

PRESENTATION THAT WE GET SOME

SENSE OF AN IDEA FOR WHAT THE

IMPACT IS OF YOUR, OF YOUR

PROPOSED CHANGES FROM THE

CURRENT INVESTMENT POLICY. WE

DIDN'T REALLY GET ANY IMPACT.

WE GOT HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

SO IN ORDER TO MAKE A CHANGE, I

WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A, YOU KNOW,

OF THE 35, WE THINK THIS WILL

GO DOWN BY THREE OR WE THINK NO

CHANGE OR SOMETHING TO THAT

EFFECT. BUT WE GOT NOTHING FROM

THAT. SO I'M TRYING TO GET A

SENSE FOR WHAT WHAT IS IT THAT

WE INVEST IN TODAY THAT WE

WON'T INVEST IN TOMORROW IF

THIS IS ADOPTED?

>> COUNCILOR ZIMMERMAN, I

BELIEVE THAT CFO BIERY HAD TO

STEP AWAY. SO I WILL TRY AND

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS BEST I

CAN. THE CHALLENGE AT THIS

JUNCTURE IS THAT WE HONESTLY

DON'T KNOW. WE'VE JUST ADDED

SOME NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE

POLICY, SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED

TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE MEAN

IN TERMS OF HOW THEY MIGHT BE

INTERPRETED, DEFINED, ETC. AND

HOW THEY WOULD ROLL OUT TO THE

PLAN. SO THE HONEST ANSWER IS

THAT WE DON'T KNOW. IN TERMS OF

THE COMPANIES THAT ARE

PRESENTLY ON OUR OUR LIST, WE

CALL IT THE INVESTABLE UNIVERSE,

ROUGHLY 35 NAMES OF THOSE 35

NAMES, THOSE COMPANIES ARE

GENERALLY VERY HIGHLY RATED AND

HISTORICALLY HAVE ALSO HAD VERY

HIGH ESG RATINGS. SO BASED UPON

THAT PRESUMPTION, ONE WOULD

ASSUME THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A

WHOLE LOT OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF

THE INVESTABLE UNIVERSE. THERE

WERE SOME NAMES THAT WERE

MENTIONED, THOUGH, IN TESTIMONY

TODAY THAT ARE STILL ON THE

LIST AND WOULD STILL BE

AVAILABLE TO INVEST IN. SO IT

ALL DEPENDS ON ON HOW WE DEFINE

THE TERMS THAT WERE JUST ADDED

TODAY. AND OF COURSE, THAT

WOULD BE OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE

OF WORK FOR, YOU KNOW, THE ESG

VENDOR THAT WE WOULD SELECT. SO

UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT ABLE TO

REALLY PROVIDE YOU WITH MUCH OF

AN ESTIMATE OF THAT. I WILL

TELL YOU THAT THERE IS SOME

ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY IN

TERMS OF STAFF TIME. OF COURSE,

THIS NEW CONTRACT. AND YOU KNOW,

WHEN YOU'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL

SCREENS, IT JUST SIMPLY

REQUIRES MORE WORK TO DO THAT.

SO THEY ASKED FOR COST ESTIMATE

IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION WAS

BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE IT

WAS 200,000 AND 500,000. SO IT

WAS A PRETTY BIG, YOU KNOW,

RANGE IN TERMS OF THAT. WITH

THE AMENDMENTS TODAY, IT'S

GOING TO ADD SOME TO THAT.

THERE WILL BE SOME DECISIONS

THAT WILL BE MAKING ON THE

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO THAT WILL

ADJUST THE RETURN AS WELL. SO

THE RETURN WILL LIKELY BE LOWER

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INVESTING IN

CERTAIN THINGS AS WELL. SO ALL

OF THOSE IMPACTS ARE HARD FOR

ME TO PUT A NUMBER ON NOW, BUT

I'M HOPING THAT GIVES YOU AT

LEAST A FLAVOR OF WHAT WE'RE

LOOKING AT.

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND, I GUESS, IS

SPECIFICALLY, WHO ARE WE

INVESTING IN THAT HAS A NOTABLE

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION? BECAUSE

BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, YOU

WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS GOING

TO BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. AND

THEN YOU JUST NOTED THAT THERE

WILL BE A LOWER RETURN. SO I'D

LIKE TO KNOW, WHO IS IT THAT

WE'RE INVESTING IN THAT WE

WON'T GIVEN THIS NEW POLICY.

AND THAT'S THE KIND OF

SPECIFICITY. IF WE'RE GOING TO

ADD A CLAUSE, I'D LIKE TO

UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS.

BECAUSE WHAT WAS CONVEYED

PREVIOUSLY AND WHAT MY

UNDERSTANDING WAS, IS THAT THIS

WAS LARGELY NO CHANGE. SO IT

CAN'T BE BOTH.

>> RIGHT?

>> SO I UNDERSTAND.

>> THAT TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER,

I JUST, I, I, THERE'S AN ASPECT

OF WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE

HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE

ASSESSMENT THAT I DO UNDERSTAND

THAT I WANT TO GIVE GRACE THERE.

BUT I ALSO, THERE'S GOT TO BE

AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT THAT LED

THE TEAM TO DECIDE TO PUT IT IN

THIS YEAR'S POLICY INSTEAD OF

JUST ADOPTING LAST YEAR'S.

AGAIN. RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE OF

THE MORE ROBUST SOCIAL

INVESTMENT POLICIES, I THINK,

FRANKLY, ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO

WE'RE GOING TO GO ANOTHER STEP.

AND I THOUGHT THERE MUST BE A

REASON WHY THE CFO'S TEAM HAS

DONE THIS. AND I'M NOT HEARING

THE REASON WHY. AND THEN I'M

NOT HEARING ALSO WHAT WE EXPECT

THE IMPACT TO BE, BUT WE EXPECT

WILL BE LOSSES. SO I'M I'M

STRUGGLING HERE A LITTLE BIT.

AND I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE,

MAYBE IT WILL BE BETTER IF I

PAUSE IF THERE'S NO COMPLETE

ANSWER NOW AND OTHER QUESTIONS

MIGHT FLUSH IT OUT A LITTLE BIT,

BUT I'LL GIVE THAT BACK TO YOU,

MISS O'CALLAHAN.

>> YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

COUNCILOR. I'M NOT TRYING TO,

YOU KNOW, BE VAGUE. IT'S JUST

THAT WITH THE LATEST AMENDMENTS,

THAT'S UNCLEAR. WHEN WE BROUGHT

THE THIS PARTICULAR.

>> CAN I.

>> CAN I JUST YES.

>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY. NOT

WITH THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENTS.

THE WHAT NOVICK AND KANAL, WHAT

THOSE JUST PASSED. I JUST MEAN

WHAT YOU ALL BROUGHT FORWARD AS

THE STAFF DOCUMENT. AND I, I

RECOGNIZE THE THE UNCLEAR, THE

UNCLEAR NATURE OF AN AMENDMENT

IN THE MOMENT, BUT JUST FOR THE

STAFF DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL

HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IS I'LL

KEEP IT LIMITED TO THAT.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING THAT

WE'RE HAVING AN AUDIO ISSUE. DO

YOU WANT TO TRY AGAIN, BRIDGET?

>> SURE. MY APOLOGIES. I SEEM

TO BE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL

DIFFICULTIES TODAY. MY

APOLOGIES. JUST ANSWER THE

QUESTION VERY CLEARLY. THE

PROPOSED THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED

INVESTMENT POLICY BEFORE THE

REVISIONS WAS ANTICIPATING VERY

MINOR CHANGES TO THE FIRMS THAT

THE CITY COULD CHOOSE TO INVEST

IN. SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT

THAT. I IT'S UNCLEAR WITH THE

NEW AMENDMENTS WHAT THAT MIGHT

LOOK LIKE, BUT AS OF WHAT WE

BROUGHT FORWARD, FORTH, THAT

WAS THE CASE. NOW, THE REASON

FOR PROPOSING THE CHANGES WE

PROPOSED TO THE INVESTMENT

POLICY WAS REALLY BECAUSE OF

THAT WORK GROUP, RIGHT. THERE

WAS A WORK GROUP OF INTERESTED

COUNCIL OFFICES AND COMMUNITY

THAT PUT FORTH THE CONCERNS

THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT NEW

ESG SECTION. AND SO THAT'S THE

REASON IT WAS ADDED. DID THAT

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN?

>> IT DID IN PARTIAL ARE THE OF

THE 35 GIVEN THE ORIGINAL

POLICY, NOT THE NEW AMENDMENTS

OF THE 35, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING

THAT CITY OF PORTLAND IS

CURRENTLY INVESTING IN ANY ONE

THAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR

AND THUS, WITH. THIS NEW POLICY

WOULD NOT BE INVESTED IN IN THE

NEW YEAR. I'M NOT HEARING YOU.

>> KNOW, WE'RE NOT.

>> INVESTING IN ANY KNOWN HUMAN

RIGHTS VIOLATORS THAT, YOU KNOW,

WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

>> OKAY.

>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE,

THE HELP HERE. THANK YOU. THANK

YOU CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN, COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY FOLLOWED BY GREEN.

>> THANK YOU. CHAIR, I'VE GOT A

COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF,

STARTING WITH A QUESTION OR TWO

ABOUT THE PRESENTATION. BRIDGET,

THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION IN

THE PRESENTATION ABOUT OUR

RETURNS YEAR OVER YEAR ON OUR

INVESTMENTS, AND THERE WAS A

PRETTY SHARP INCREASE SINCE

2022. AND JUST AS WE'RE AS

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES TO

OUR INVESTMENT POLICY, I WANT

TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING

WITH OUR INVESTMENTS TO KNOW

HOW THAT MIGHT CHANGE WITH

CHANGES IN THE POLICY. WAS THAT

SHARP INCREASE SINCE JUST A FEW

YEARS AGO BECAUSE THE MARKET

GOT BETTER, AND IT HAS NOTHING

TO DO WITH US BECAUSE WE MADE

CHANGES IN OUR INVESTMENTS AND

HOW WE INVEST. AND WE HAVE A

MORE PROFITABLE PORTFOLIO RIGHT

NOW. AND WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND

THAT AS WE TAKE PART IN THIS

DISCUSSION. OR ARE WE JUST

INVESTING MORE NOW THAN WE DID

BEFORE? SO THE RETURNS ARE

HIGHER? HOW HOW DO I UNDERSTAND

THAT NUMBER?

>> GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS.

SO IN THE IN THAT HORIZON THAT

YOU SAW THERE A VARIETY OF

DIFFERENT THINGS THAT AFFECT

THE RETURN ON THE PORTFOLIO.

ONE IS THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE

UNDERLYING PORTFOLIO ITSELF.

AND THAT IS GOING TO FLUCTUATE

FROM TIME TO TIME BASED UPON A

VARIETY OF FACTORS, INCLUDING

WHEN THE CITY ISSUES DEBT. SO,

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE ISSUE DEBT,

WE HAVE FUNDS TO INVEST FOR A

SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WHILE A

PROJECT MAY BE UNDERWAY, THAT

SORT OF THING. RIGHT? SO THAT'S

GOING TO AFFECT OUR RETURN

BECAUSE THE BALANCES THEMSELVES

ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT YOU MIGHT

HAVE ALSO SEEN IN THAT WAS AT

SEVERAL YEARS AGO AT COUNCIL

DIRECTION. WE DISCONTINUED

INVESTING IN CORPORATE

SECURITIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

SO THAT MIGHT HAVE ALSO BEEN

INFLUENCED BY THIS. WE ADDED

THEM BACK, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN

2021 WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE

BLOOMBERG INDUSTRY

CLASSIFICATION PROHIBITIONS. SO

THAT ALLOWED US TO ADD THEM

BACK IN 2021. SO WHAT YOU WOULD

HAVE SEEN IN 22 AND THEREAFTER

WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THIS SELECT

GROUP OF CORPORATE SECURITIES.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THE MARKET,

RIGHT? THE MARKET HAS CERTAINLY

IS CERTAINLY GOING TO FLUCTUATE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S ANOTHER

COMPONENT OF THAT.

>> I'M SEEING SHARP INCREASES

BETWEEN 22 AND 23 AND 23 AND 24,

AND THEN A LEVELING OFF. SO IT

SOUNDS LIKE BETWEEN 22 AND 23

THAT COULD BE OUR MARKET

INVESTMENTS COMING BACK INTO

THE PORTFOLIO. WHAT ABOUT 23 TO

24? AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND IF, IF OUR CURRENT

INVESTMENTS ARE PARTICULARLY

STRONG FOR THE CITY, CHANGES TO

OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, WAY

DIFFERENT FOR ME THAN IF OUR

CURRENT INVESTMENTS ARE KIND OF

HUMMING ALONG IN A STABLE WAY,

BUT WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY CHANGES

THAT HAVE MADE THEM

PARTICULARLY STRONG. AND I, I,

I'LL PAUSE FOR A MINUTE BEFORE

I HAVE YOU ANSWER, JUST TO SAY

I'M REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT

YOU ALL BROUGHT BACK. I WANT TO

MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SOMETHING I

CAN FEEL FULLY COMFORTABLE

VOTING FOR IN GOOD FAITH, WHILE

KEEPING. KEEPING OUR

INVESTMENTS STRONG. WHICH IS

WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION. I

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN

MOVE FORWARD RESPONSIBLY ON THE

LEGISLATION BEFORE US TODAY. SO

I WHATEVER YOU CAN TELL ME WITH

SPECIFICS ABOUT THOSE TWO YEARS

IS REALLY HELPFUL.

>> SURE. I FOR MORE SPECIFICS,

I WILL CERTAINLY INVITE THE

CITY'S INVESTMENT OFFICER TO

SHARE SPECIFICS ABOUT THAT

PERIOD OF TIME. BUT AT A HIGH

LEVEL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO

LOOK AT THE THE MARKET ITSELF

IN THOSE YEARS WAS

SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED. THOSE

OF YOU WHO MIGHT HAVE PENSION

PLANS OR YOUR OWN 401 WILL

NOTICE THAT BACK IN 22 AND 23,

THAT WAS A REALLY DIFFICULT

TIME. IT'S ALSO COMING OFF OF

THE WHOLE COVID PANDEMIC TIME,

RIGHT? SO THAT NATURALLY WAS

GOING TO AFFECT THE MARKET.

MICHAEL, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT

YOU WOULD WANT TO ADD IN TERMS

OF SPECIFICS ON THE DIFFERENCES,

YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 21 AND 22, 23,

THAT PERIOD OF TIME? PLEASE

FEEL FREE TO SHARE THAT.

>> SURE. THANK YOU. BRIDGET.

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, INVESTMENT

OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF

PORTLAND. HOPEFULLY YOU CAN ALL

HEAR ME WELL, YEAH. SO TO

EXPAND UPON WHAT BRIDGET HAD

MENTIONED, A LOT OF FACTORS GO

INTO THE SORT OF RETURN THAT

THE CITY'S EARNING ON OUR ON

OUR ASSETS, CASH FLOW. IS ONE

OF THEM. HOW MUCH ASSETS WE

HAVE TO MANAGE, HOW MUCH DEBT

IS BEING ISSUED. AND ON THE

OTHER SIDE, HOW MUCH IS BEING

SPENT TO TO BALANCE OUT WHERE

OUR INVESTABLE BOOK IS COMING

OUT OF COVID AND, YOU KNOW, HAD

TO GO BACK TO THAT ERA. BUT

THAT WAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON OUR

RETURNS GOING FORWARD AS WE

INVEST MONEY AS CERTAIN

SECURITIES, THAT MATURE AND NEW

MONEY COMES IN, WE'RE WE'RE

THEN, YOU KNOW, BUYING NEW

ASSETS AND COMING OUT OF COVID,

WE HAD, YOU.

>> KNOW.

>> FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR A ROUGH

ESTIMATE, THE TWO YEAR TREASURY,

WHICH IS SORT OF A SORT OF A

BENCHMARK ON KIND OF THE

DURATION AT WHICH WE'RE BUYING

ASSETS AND WAS, YOU KNOW,

AROUND 50 BASIS POINTS DURING

COVID. AND, AND TODAY, YOU KNOW,

IT TOOK UNTIL JANUARY OF 2022

FOR THAT TO EVEN GO ABOVE 1%.

AND SINCE THEN, THE ECONOMY HAS

COME BACK IN TODAY'S TERMS, A

TWO YEAR TREASURY, WE COULD

EARN 4.5% ROUGHLY. RIGHT. SO

WE'VE COME OFF VERY, VERY

HISTORICAL LOWS IN TERMS OF

INTEREST RATES AND RETURN. YOU

KNOW, THE RATE OF RETURN WE'RE

GETTING ON OUR ASSETS TO MORE

OF A TRADITIONAL POINT WHERE

THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS RAISED

RATES QUITE A BIT. OVERALL,

YIELDS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN

THEY WERE BACK THEN. SO ASSETS

SINCE 2122 HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW,

AND NEW MONEY THAT'S COMING IN

HAS BEEN REINVESTED IN HIGHER

AND HIGHER RETURNS. AND THAT

HAPPENS PRETTY QUICKLY. BUT,

YOU KNOW, I KIND OF SAY

SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, DRIVING

THE PORTFOLIO IS LIKE DRIVING A

LARGE SHIP. IT, IT SHIFTS, BUT

IT TAKES TIME BECAUSE WE'RE,

WE'RE CONSIDERED A

TRADITIONALLY A BUY AND HOLD

PORTFOLIO. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR,

OUR, OUR APPROACH TO ASSET

MANAGEMENT IS TO, ONE, ENSURE

THE PRINCIPLE IS RETURNED TO US

AND ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF

THINGS. AND SO IT TAKES TIME

FOR OUR RETURNS TO SORT OF

RESET IN, IN TODAY'S RATE OF

RETURN. SO IT'S BEEN GOING UP.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP WHERE

THINGS HAVE SORT OF STABILIZED

OVER THE LAST YEAR. I MEAN,

THERE'S A LOT OF MARKET

TURBULENCE, ESPECIALLY TODAY,

BUT IT'S GENERALLY GENERALLY

KIND OF A SLOW MOVING CURVE.

AND AS RATES GO UP, THE RETURNS

GO UP AND AS THEY GO DOWN

CONVERSELY.

>> THANK YOU. SO I I'M LOOKING

SPECIFICALLY AT A TRIPLING IN

OUR RETURN BETWEEN 22 AND 23.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT IS BECAUSE

WE WENT BACK TO HAVING MARKET

INVESTMENTS. I'M GOING TO TAKE

THAT TO MEAN THAT PULLING OUT

OF MARKET INVESTMENTS

ALTOGETHER COULD HAVE

SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES TO OUR

PORTFOLIO, THAT WE WOULD WANT

TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT,

BUT SOME TINKERING AROUND THE

EDGES OF OUR PORTFOLIO IS

PROBABLY NOT GOING TO IMPACT

OUR RETURN. I'M ALSO SEEING A

DOUBLING BETWEEN 23 AND 24 VERY

SPECIFICALLY, AND IT SOUNDS

LIKE THAT MAY JUST BE CHALKED

UP TO MARKET GAINS COMING OUT

OF COVID ITSELF, AND THAT I

SHOULDN'T READ ANYTHING MORE

INTO THAT. IS THAT A FAIR

STATEMENT?

>> I THINK THAT'S YEAH, I THINK

THAT'S FAIR.

>> OKAY, GREAT.

>> IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE THE

AMENDMENTS AND SO FORTH ARE

DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE

CORPORATE INVESTING. AND WE CAN

GET INTO A, YOU KNOW, DETAILED

DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT SPREAD OR

ADDITIONAL INCOME IS EARNED OFF

THAT PORTION OF THE PORTFOLIO.

THE, THE REAL DRIVER IN THAT

LONG DISCUSSION IS REALLY HOW

IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

LIMITS AND, AND THE CATEGORIES

AT WHI FROM AN ESG STANDPOINT? .

WHAT'S ALLOWABLE, WHAT'S NOT

ALLOWABLE, AND HOW WE DEVELOP

THAT PROCESS IN, IN LAYERING

THAT OVERLAY INTO THE PORTFOLIO.

SO THAT PART OF IT IS SORT OF,

IN MY VIEW, THE SECOND PART OF

THIS, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPING

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HOW WE

LOOK AT ESG SCORES AND HOW

THOSE ARE THEN DECIDED LIKE,

WHAT IS AN INVESTABLE ISSUER

AND WHAT ISN'T. AND SO OUR

ENGAGEMENT AFTER ISSUING AN RFP

IS TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, WHAT

ARE THE GRADING CRITERIA THAT

THEY'RE USING? WHICH ONES DO DO

WE WANT TO USE? AND WHAT

METRICS DO WE WANT TO SET A

THRESHOLD AND DETERMINING

WHAT'S ALLOWABLE AND WHAT'S NOT

ALLOWABLE. YOU KNOW, BRIDGET

HAD MENTIONED CURRENTLY WE'RE

AT ABOUT 30% OF THE PORTFOLIOS

AND AND VERY HIGH GRADE

CORPORATE BONDS. WE'VE SHARED A

LOT OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT, YOU

KNOW, WHO THOSE ARE AND WHERE

THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD SORT

OF IS LIKE, OKAY, WELL, WHERE'S

THAT CRITERIA DROP OFF? AND,

AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S GOING TO BE

THEN OVERLAID ON THE PORTFOLIO?

IT'S HARD TO SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW,

MANY OF THESE CORPORATIONS ARE,

ARE HIGHLY RATED FOR A LOT OF

REASONS. AND THEY MEET

GENERALLY OPERATING IN THE, IN

THE UNITED STATES OR MEETING A

LOT OF REGULATORY GUIDELINES

NOW. SO SOME, SOME NAMES THAT

MIGHT BE MENTIONED MAY HAVE

REALLY HIGH SCORES. AND SO THEY

MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY,

DEPENDING ON WHAT OUR CRITERIA

LEVEL IS, GET BOOTED OFF OR

BECOME AN UNINVESTABLE SECURITY.

BUT THAT'S REALLY THE

DEVELOPMENT OF HOW THE

IMPLEMENTATION GOES.

>> GREAT.

>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE.

>> 2 OR 3 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS,

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT

TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME.

>> YOU'RE AT ABOUT 11 MINUTES

IF YOU CAN PRIORITIZE.

>> I'M SORRY. THAT WAS ONE

QUESTION, CHAIR.

>> SO FOR THE.

>> THE FOLKS WHO ARE RESPONDING

TO BE AS BRIEF AS AS YOU CAN BE.

>> SO VERY, VERY JUST YES OR NO

ANSWER WITH THIS CHANGE, ARE WE

KEEPING OUR LIST, OUR CURRENT

LIST OF PROHIBITED INDUSTRIES?

I WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THAT

THAT STAYS A PART OF HOW WE ARE

OPERATING OUR INVESTMENT

PORTFOLIO.

>> YES, YES.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK THE

NEXT TWO QUESTIONS. WELL NO,

I'M GOING TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE.

I'M SORRY. I'LL ASK WHAT I HOPE

IS THE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE.

FIRST, DURING THE PRESENTATION

YOU TALKED ABOUT. PUBLISHED THE

RESULTS OF THE THIRD PARTY

REVIEW. CAN YOU EXPLAIN SO THAT

WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT? WHAT

THAT WILL INCLUDE? IS THAT HOW

EACH COMPANY RANKED. IS THAT

JUST IF ANYBODY WAS REMOVED

FROM OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO,

WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL SHOULD WE

EXPECT IN THAT FOLLOW UP

INFORMATION?

>> WHAT WE'RE ENVISIONING IS

THAT IF WE ARE USING AN ESG

RATING IN THE CHOICE, IN THE

SELECTION OF THAT INVESTMENT,

IT WILL BE NOTED IN THE REPORTS

THAT WE PUBLISH MONTHLY.

>> SO IF WE ARE USING IT IN THE

CHOICE TO INVEST, IT WILL BE

NOTED. AND PRESUMABLY BECAUSE

ALL OF OUR CORPORATE

INVESTMENTS WILL BE RUN THROUGH

THIS, THAT WOULD BE NOTED FOR

ALL OF OUR CORPORATE

INVESTMENTS MOVING FORWARD. IS

THAT ACCURATE?

>> ACCURATE. BUT I WANT TO

RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE AN

EXISTING PORTFOLIO THAT FOR A

PERIOD OF TIME, RIGHT? THOSE

THOSE WILL BE RUNNING OFF,

RIGHT? SO THEY WILL NOT APPLY

TO THE EXISTING PORTFOLIO. BUT

IF WE USE IT GOING FORWARD,

THEN YES.

>> OKAY.

>> SO THERE WILL BE A

TRANSITION TIME WHERE THAT

PUBLICATION IS VERY SIGNIFICANT,

AND THAT WILL HELP PEOPLE

UNDERSTAND WHY WE MAY HAVE

INVESTMENTS THAT THEY ASSUMED

WOULDN'T QUALIFY UNDER THIS

POLICY. WE WILL REACH A POINT

IN TIME IN THE FUTURE WHERE

IT'S LABELED FOR ALL OF OUR

CORPORATE INVESTMENTS.

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY, GREAT. FINAL QUESTION,

WHICH MAY TAKE A LITTLE BIT

MORE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND. YOUR

FIRST SLIDE, TALKED ABOUT AN

OBJECTIVE COURSE OF ACTION. AND

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

WHEN WE MET IN SEPTEMBER, I HAD

SAID THAT I WAS REALLY LOOKING

FORWARD TO GETTING A

RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU ALL AND

HAD APPRECIATED THE WORK YOU

PUT IN, BECAUSE I DO THINK WE

NEED TO ADOPT AN ESG SCREEN FOR

OUR INVESTMENTS, BUT THAT I

WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE

WERE OBJECTIVE AND THAT, IF

POSSIBLE, WE WERE USING A

SCREEN THAT ALREADY EXISTED. SO

WE DIDN'T EVEN GET INTO THE

SUBJECTIVITY OF PICKING.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME, YOU ALL

BROUGHT BACK SOMETHING WHERE WE

DO HAVE TO PICK. SO HOW ARE WE

KEEPING THAT WORK OBJECTIVE?

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF DOING THAT?

HOW IS THAT INFLUENCED? WE HAVE

PUT LANGUAGE IN OR WILL PUT

LANGUAGE IN OUR POLICY. IF WE

ADOPT THIS SPECIFICALLY

POINTING TO THE TYPES OF OF

HUMAN RIGHTS LISTED IN THE UN

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

WHICH IS A GREAT WAY TO BASE

THIS WORK. WE'VE NOW ADDED SOME

LANGUAGE AROUND LABOR AND THE

ENVIRONMENT AND A FEW OTHER

PIECES. SO WHO IS TAKING THAT

DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND

BOILING IT DOWN TO SOMETHING

THAT WE ARE THEN GIVING TO

COMPANIES? ARE YOU DOING THAT?

IS STAFF DOING THAT? ARE WE

PUTTING JUST THE COUNCIL

LANGUAGE OUT AND GETTING RFPS

BACK, AND WHO'S MAKING THE

CHOICE ABOUT WHETHER IT

QUALIFIES OR NOT? WHERE DOES

THE OBJECTIVE COME IN?

>> GREAT QUESTION AND A LOT OF

PIECES TO THAT. SO COUNCILOR,

BEAR IN MIND THAT WE'RE

TREADING SOME NEW GROUND HERE

BECAUSE IN MANY CASES, POLICIES

WILL EITHER HAVE A LIST OF

PROHIBITIONS OR IT'LL HAVE SOME

ESG PARAMETERS. SO WHAT I WOULD

FORESEE IS THAT ONCE THIS

RESOLUTION IS PASSED, THE

TREASURY DIVISION, MICHAEL, OF

COURSE, AS THE CHIEF INVESTMENT

OFFICER FOR THE CITY, WILL PULL

THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER AND

WE WILL DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK

FOR AN RFP, A REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL THAT WILL INCORPORATE

ALL OF THESE THINGS. I WILL

ADMIT THAT I'M A LITTLE

CONCERNED WITH SOME OF THE

LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO

IN THE AMENDMENTS. IT'S NOT

INSURMOUNTABLE. WE CAN

CERTAINLY WORK WITH IT, BUT

IT'S NOT AS DEFINED AS WE WOULD

LIKE IT TO BE. AGAIN, BACK TO

YOUR POINT ABOUT OBJECTIVITY.

WHEN YOU'RE INVESTING THE

CITY'S FUNDS, IT'S REALLY

IMPORTANT TO BE VERY OBJECTIVE

SO THAT WE HAVE PARAMETERS OF

WHAT WE CAN DO WHEN WE CAN'T,

AND WE CARRY THAT OUT. AND SO

MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE

SURE THAT MICHAEL HAS THAT AT

THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN HE'S

INVESTING THE CITY'S MONEY,

IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT HE CAN AND

CAN'T DO. SO THERE WILL BE AN

EFFORT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY

LAST SLIDE THAT HAD SORT OF THE

PATHWAY GRAPHIC IN IT, THAT

YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE A

NUMBER OF STEPS ALONG THE WAY.

SO THERE WILL BE STEPS WHERE WE

WILL ENGAGE THE CITY'S

INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

WE WILL BE DRAFTING SOME

INFORMATION THERE. WE WILL WILL

BE SEEKING INPUT FROM COUNSEL

IN CERTAINLY ANY WAY THAT

COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US TO. BUT

THE THOUGHT WOULD BE BACK TO

WORKING WITH THAT THAT WORK

GROUP, A SIMILAR WORK GROUP TO

WHAT WE WORKED WITH THIS PAST

YEAR WITH INTERESTED COUNCIL

OFFICES, HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY

TO PROVIDE INPUT. AND THEN ONCE

WE'VE DRAFTED THAT SCOPE OF

WORK AND, AND HAVE NARROWED IT

DOWN TO THE PARAMETERS THAT WE

WISH TO USE WITH THE VENDOR,

WE'LL ISSUE THE RFP. WE WILL

ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO

HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, PERHAPS

JOIN US ON THE EVALUATION

COMMITTEE FOR THAT RFP. SO THAT

WOULD BE THE OTHER THOUGHT IN

TERMS OF GETTING SOME INPUT AND

MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE

BALANCING THAT.

>> I WOULD JUST.

>> LIKE TO. REQUEST THAT THAT

OBJECTIVITY REMAIN A CORE VALUE

AS YOU ALL GO THROUGH THIS.

THAT, TO ME, WAS THE PRIMARY

THING I WAS LOOKING FOR IN A

POLICY RECOMMENDATION,

SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS US TO

FEEL LIKE WE ARE INVESTING THE

CITY'S MONEY AS MORALLY AS AN

INVESTMENT IN A CORPORATION CAN

BE MADE, BUT THAT WE ARE DOING

SO OBJECTIVELY SO THAT THERE IS

STABILITY, RIGHT? SO THAT THE

SPECIFIC INTERESTS OF ANY GIVEN

COUNCILOR COMING ON OR OFF OF

COUNCIL DOESN'T CREATE DRASTIC

CHANGES IN THE WORK THAT WE DO

WITH OUR FUNDS AT THE CITY. AND

WE CAN HAVE A CLEARER POLICY

MOVING FORWARD THAT PORTLANDERS

CAN UNDERSTAND, THAT WE ALL CAN

UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS STABLE,

BETTER THAN WE HAVE NOW, MORE

MORAL THAN WE HAVE NOW, AND

STABLE. SO I WOULD SINCERELY

ASK THAT IF WE MOVE THIS

FORWARD, THAT REMAIN A

FUNDAMENTAL PART OF HOW YOU ALL

SET UP THE WORK MOVING FORWARD.

CHAIR, I WILL HOLD MY OTHER

QUESTIONS FOR WHEN, PRESUMABLY

THIS COMES TO FULL COUNCIL SO

THAT OTHER FOLKS CAN SPEAK.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY, COUNCILOR GREEN.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL KEEP MY

COMMENTS BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW

WE'VE GOT AN AGENDA ITEM THAT

FOLLOWS THIS. SO FIRSTLY, A

GOOD DISCUSSION, I THINK ON THE

YIELD PIECE, EXCUSE ME, $117

MILLION OF OF, OF THE TOTAL

BALANCES IS IS PRETTY IN LINE

WITH WHAT WE GET ON OUR

TREASURY YIELDS ANYWAY. SO IT'S

I DON'T THINK IT'S A

PARTICULARLY HIGH OR, OR LOW OR

REMARKABLE RATE OF RETURN FOR,

FOR A

>> RELATIVELY CONSERVATIVE

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. I THINK

THE THE PIECE THAT'S IMPORTANT

IS IN THIS KIND OF RECENT

HISTORICAL PIECE, YOU KNOW,

2021 WAS A BANNER YEAR FOR

CAPITAL GAINS INCOME IN

CORPORATE, LIKE JUST CORPORATE

INCOME BROADLY. AND SO WHILE WE

DON'T INVEST IN CORPORATE

SECURITIES, WE DO INVEST IN OUR

OUR INVESTMENT YIELDS ARE A

FUNCTION OF FUND BALANCES AND

THE CF REVENUE THAT WE ACCRUE

DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT WAS

SUBSTANTIALLY DRIVEN BY THAT

CAPITAL GAINS INCOME. AND SO

THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE DRIVING

THAT SORT OF THING. SO I DON'T

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING

TO SEE A BIG JUMP LIKE THAT

AGAIN IN ANY TIME SOON. I COULD

WAX I COULD PONTIFICATE ON THIS

FOR LONGER, BUT I WON'T. BUT

BUT I WANT TO THANK THE TEAM SO

MUCH FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE

DONE. YOU'VE YOU'VE GRAPPLED

WITH SOME REALLY COMPLICATED

AND TRICKY ISSUES HERE. THANKS,

EVERYONE FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AT

THIS POINT, I WOULD MOVE TO

REFER THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL

WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND MOVE BY COUNCILOR

GREEN. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR

AVALOS. COLLEAGUES, I AM GOING

TO. I'M ONLY IN THE QUEUE JUST

TO CLOSE THE QUEUE ON THIS ITEM,

SO I WILL DO THAT. I KNOW WE

HAVE 14 PEOPLE WAITING TO

TESTIFY IN THE NEXT ITEM, SO

THAT'S THE THE INTEREST I HAVE

HERE ON THAT AND I'LL PASS IT

OVER TO COUNCILOR AVALOS, THEN

RYAN, THEN ZIMMERMAN.

>> THANK YOU. YES, I'LL BE

BRIEF AS WELL. I JUST WANT TO

APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO BETTER

ALIGN THE CITY'S INVESTMENT

PRACTICES WITH OUR VALUES WHILE

CONTINUING TO PRIORITIZE

RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT, INVESTING IN DEATH,

DESTRUCTION AND DETENTION IS

NOT ALIGNED WITH OUR VALUES AS

PORTLANDERS. AS PUBLIC

TESTIMONY TODAY CLEARLY

DEMONSTRATES, THIS IS NOT ABOUT

SINGLING OUT ANY PARTICULAR

COMMUNITY OR COUNTRY. THIS IS

ABOUT MAKING SURE OUR

INVESTMENT DOLLARS DO NO HARM

AND PROTECT DIGNITY AND HUMAN

RIGHTS EVERYWHERE. MOVING

FORWARD, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT

COUNCIL HAS CLEAR REPORTING ON

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS AND

OUTCOMES, SO WE CAN EVALUATE

HOW THE POLICY IS WORKING IN

PRACTICE. THANK YOU TO ALL OF

THE COUNCILORS WHO HAVE WORKED

TO MAKE THIS POLICY RESPONSIVE

TO PORTLANDERS, AND I LOOK

FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR AVALOS,

COUNCILOR RYAN, FOLLOWED BY

ZIMMERMAN.

>> YES, THANK YOU. CHAIR. I

JUST WANT TO SAY COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY, YOUR DIALOG THAT

YOU HAD WITH BRIDGET WAS REALLY

COMPELLING, AND I WENT FROM

FEELING THE MOMENTUM TO PASS

THIS TO THEN HAVING MORE

CONCERNS. I THINK THAT WE HAVE

TO KEEP IT OBJECTIVE. AND THE

ESG SCREEN AND HOW THAT'S

IMPLEMENTED, IT'S CLEAR IT'S

GOING TO TAKE A WHILE TO REALLY

KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT IS. AND I

JUST THINK WE'RE PUTTING OUT

MORE MYSTERY HERE AT THE VERY

END OF BEFORE WE VOTE. SO I

JUST REALLY APPRECIATED THAT

DIALOG. THANK YOU FOR LIFTING

THAT. THOSE WERE QUESTIONS THAT

I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE

BOTTOM OF, AND I THINK I WILL

RESERVE MY RIGHT TO BE

CONCERNED UNTIL WE TAKE THIS

ALL THE WAY TO THE COUNCIL. BUT

TODAY, I'M IN A MORE CAUTIONARY

PLACE AFTER HEARING THAT THAT

DIALOG. I REALLY APPRECIATE,

BRIDGET, THAT YOU WERE VERY

CLEAR AND CANDID, AND MICHAEL

IS GREAT TO HAVE YOU JOIN THE

CONVERSATION. HE BROUGHT A LOT

MORE DEPTH TO THE DIALOG. THANK

YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR RYAN,

COUNCILOR ZIMMERMAN.

>> THANKS SO. I APPRECIATE THE

CFO'S TEAM. JUST BEING CLEAR

EYED THAT THAT THEY EXPECT THAT

NO ORGANIZATION THAT WE INVEST

IN TODAY WILL NOT BE INVESTED

IN TOMORROW BASED ON WHAT THEY

BROUGHT FORWARD. AND I, I SAY

THAT FOR, FOR REALLY A REASON

OF. THIS ITEM, AT LEAST IN ITS

INFANCY, GOT FAIRLY HURTFUL.

AND THEN YOU GO FOR FOR WHAT

IMPACT? AND I THINK THAT THAT'S

IMPORTANT TO THINK THROUGH IN

TERMS OF SOME OF THE TARGETING

THAT THAT WE IDENTIFIED. AND I

KNOW NOT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH

THAT, AND THAT'S OKAY. BUT

THERE ARE WAYS TO ACHIEVE THE

VALUES STATEMENTS THAT I THINK

ARE BEING ACHIEVED IN SOME OF

WHAT THE CFO'S TEAM BROUGHT

FORWARD HERE. THAT I THINK IS A,

A BETTER WAY THAN MAYBE IT WAS

COMING SOME MONTHS AND A YEAR

AGO. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND

SO MUCH. THIS ALSO GOES TO THE

HEART OF THINGS THAT GO ON AT

THE CITY OF PORTLAND. WE. WE

OFTEN WILL PASS SOMETHING. AND

THE PUBLIC HAS AN EXPECTATION

THAT IT MAKES SIGNIFICANT

CHANGE UPON PASSING. AND I

THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS

ABOUT LEADING THE PUBLIC TO

THINK THAT AN ACTION THE CITY

IS TAKING IS DOING SOMETHING

THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT. AND WE'VE

SEEN A FEW OF THOSE CASES OVER

THE TIME. AND AND THERE'S A WAY

IN WHICH WE DISCUSS VALUES, AND

THEN THERE'S WHERE WE TAKE

ACTION. AND THOSE ARE DIFFERENT

THINGS. AND IN THIS CASE, WHAT

WE SEE IS VALUE STATEMENT THAT

I THINK IS WORKABLE. BUT BUT I

CAUTION PORTLANDERS WHO CAME IN

AND CONTINUED TO SAY, THIS

ISN'T ABOUT ONE THING, ONE

PLACE, ONE GROUP, BUT THEN

CONTINUE TO CITE ONE PLACE, ONE

THING, ONE GROUP AND THAT KIND

OF STUFF. I THINK IT REALLY IT

SET THIS UP POORLY FROM THE

BEGINNING IN A WAY THAT I HOPE

THAT WE CAN AVOID IN THE FUTURE.

COUNCILOR KANAL IN THIS SESSION,

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU

FOR JUST HOW YOU'VE HELPED WITH

THE CONVERSATION ON THIS ONE.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME

FOLKS IN MY, WELL, MANY FOLKS

IN MY DISTRICT WHO ARE VERY

CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS CAME

ABOUT. I'M GOING TO VOTE TO

PASS THIS TODAY TO THE FULL

COUNCIL. IF THERE ARE PARTS IN

THIS TO MY CONSTITUENTS THAT

YOU SEE, ARE YOU SEE A HOLE

THAT I'M NOT IDENTIFYING OR

SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, I

HOPE YOU'LL LET ME KNOW AND

WE'LL COME. AND I ALSO SHARE

SOME SOME CONCERNS THAT WE'RE

HEARING FROM THE TREASURER

ABOUT SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS

THAT GOT BROUGHT FORWARD. BUT I

DO THINK KEEPING THOSE LABOR

STANDARDS IN THERE, THE WAR

STANDARDS, HUMAN RIGHTS

STANDARDS, THOSE ARE IMPORTANT

THINGS. AND THAT'S WHY I'LL

VOTE TO TO PASS IT ON TO FULL

COUNCIL. BUT A CHALLENGING

TOPIC, GIVEN SOME OF THIS

COUNCIL'S OTHER HISTORIES. AND

GENERALLY, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN

REALLY PROUD OF PORTLAND'S

INVESTMENT POLICY. WE HAVE ONE

OF THE MORE RESTRICTIVE,

SOCIALLY AWARE INVESTMENT

POLICIES THAT I'VE SEEN ACROSS

THE COUNTRY. WE SHOULD BE PROUD

OF THAT. INSTEAD OF FINDING THE

DIVISIVENESS OF LIKE, WHAT'S

THE NEXT STEP, RIGHT? 35

STRUCTURES TO INVEST IN. ONLY

OUT OF ALL THE OPTIONS THAT

EXIST, WE CAN ONLY INVEST IN 35.

SO I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE SET A

SET OF STANDARDS THAT THAT

PORTLAND CAN BE PROUD OF THAT,

THAT, THAT I AM. SO I

APPRECIATE COUNCILOR

PIRTLE-GUINEY COMMENTS, NOT

JUST LAST TIME, BUT ALSO THIS

TIME. THEY ARE HELPFUL IN

FRAMING QUESTIONS AND WHERE THE

OBJECTIVITY EXISTS THAT I THINK

WILL BE IMPORTANT. A LOT OF

STUFF IN GOVERNMENT AND THIS

TYPE OF STUFF IS ACTUALLY, I

THINK, GOOD WHEN IT'S BORING

AND WHEN IT'S KIND OF JUST THE

THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF IT.

AND, AND THAT SHOULD BE OKAY.

NOT EVERYTHING ALWAYS HAS TO BE

A POLITICAL TAKE OF A, OF A NEW

DECISION. AND THIS IS ONE OF

THOSE AREAS WHERE THE CITY HAS

A FUND. WE INVEST THAT FUND. WE

TRY TO HAVE GOOD RETURNS FOR

FOLKS. WE SET SOME VALUES WITH

IT, AND WE COME BACK AND WE

JUST WE KIND OF DO THAT EACH

YEAR. AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A

GOOD HISTORY OF THAT. SO AGAIN,

COUNCILOR KANAL, THANK YOU FOR

THIS SESSION AND AND I'LL WRAP

IT UP THERE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR

ZIMMERMAN. COLLEAGUES, I DO SEE

TWO PEOPLE ADDED THEMSELVES TO

THE QUEUE. WE I DID CLOSE THE

QUEUE EARLIER. SO IF I CAN KEEP

TO THAT, I WOULD LOVE TO. I

APPRECIATE IT, COLLEAGUES.

THERE IS A MOTION TO REFER THIS

ITEM, AS AMENDED, TO THE FULL

COUNCIL WITH A DUE PASS

RECOMMENDATION. REBECCA, CAN

YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CALLING THE ROLL ON 2026-396.

MOVED BY GREEN. SECONDED BY

AVALOS. CLERK ABSENT.

>> GREEN I.

>> ZIMMERMAN I.

>> AVALOS I.

>> DUNPHY I.

>> SMITH SAYS HE'S HOPING I OF

COURSE CORRECTION I.

PIRTLE-GUINEY TYPICALLY WITH

YOUR POINT.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> SORRY.

>> I SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN BACK IN

THE QUEUE TO SAY THIS EARLIER.

I NEED TO. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE

OF CAUTION, JUST DECLARE A

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

BECAUSE OF MY WIFE'S EMPLOYMENT,

I.

>> RYAN.

>> YEAH, I LOOK FORWARD TO

GETTING MORE INFORMATION WHEN

THIS COMES TO THE FULL COUNCIL

ON THE OBJECTIVITY THAT WAS

DISCUSSED, AND WITH HOPES THAT

IT WILL BE REVEALED TO US THAT

THIS IS A GREEN LIGHT AND WON'T

HAVE THE IMPACT THAT WE'RE

CONCERNED ABOUT. FOR TODAY,

I'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON.

>> KOYAMA LANE. I MORILLO.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN TO

THE FOLKS THAT CAME AND

TESTIFIED THAT THE ARGUMENTS

THAT COUNCILORS CAN HAVE

AGAINST EACH OTHER IS FINE, BUT

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE

CHASTISING THE PUBLIC,

ESPECIALLY A LOT OF THE JEWISH

ELDERS THAT HAVE COME TO SHARE

A PERSPECTIVE THAT OTHER PEOPLE

MAY NOT AGREE WITH. I DON'T

THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. SO

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY

AND SAYING SOMETHING THAT MAY

HAVE BEEN HARD FOR YOU.

>> I NOVICK. I KANAL. I THE

MOTION TO REFER IS APPROVED

WITH 11 I ONE ABSENT.

>> THANK YOU. I WON'T SPEAK FOR

COUNCIL PRESIDENT DUNPHY, BUT I

DO KNOW THIS NEEDS TO COME BACK

SOMETIME BEFORE THE END OF THE

YEAR, SO I'LL LET HIM UPDATE ON

WHEN. APPRECIATE THAT

COLLEAGUES. I WILL CONTINUE THE.

THE LAST ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA,

WHICH IS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT,

COUNCIL LEADERSHIP ELECTION

PROCESS DISCUSSION TO A FUTURE

MEETING. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS LEFT

ON THE AGENDA, AND I'D LOVE TO

HAVE THOSE BOTH CALLED TOGETHER,

IF YOU COULD PLEASE, REBECCA.

>> ITEM FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS

USAGE DOCUMENT NUMBER 2026-389.

ITEM FIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON

ITEMS BEFORE COMMITTEE OF THE

WHOLE DOCUMENT NUMBER 2026-391.

>> THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. WE HAD

A DISCUSSION WITH TWO PARTS

THAT WAS CONTINUED FORWARD.

THOSE ARE WHAT'S COMING BACK

TODAY. I WANT TO START BY

APOLOGIZING TO THOSE WHO

TESTIFIED AND HAD TO WAIT IN OR

SIGNED UP TO TESTIFY, AND HAD

TO WAIT AN ADDITIONAL WEEK. BUT

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE

HAVE THAT TIME FOR YOU TODAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH

THAT TESTIMONY, AND THEN WE'RE

GOING TO CONTINUE WITH ANY

REMAINING TIME, WHICH WILL

PROBABLY NOT BE MUCH FOR

COUNCILORS TO GET IN THE QUEUE

AND BEGIN DISCUSSION. WE HAVE

14 PEOPLE WHO ARE SIGNED UP

THAT WERE UNABLE TO TESTIFY

LAST TIME. I DON'T KNOW HOW

MANY OF THEM ARE ABLE TO BE

HERE TODAY, BUT I WANT TO HEAR

FROM AS MANY AS ARE. AND AGAIN,

THANK YOU ALL TO IN ADVANCE FOR

YOUR PATIENCE ON THAT. REBECCA,

COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE FIRST

GROUP OF TESTIFIERS?

>> THE FIRST UP WE HAVE [name withheld], FOLLOWED BY [name withheld].

[name withheld], YOU CAN UNMUTE. GO

AHEAD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILORS

AND EVERYONE. MY NAME IS

[name withheld], A MEMBER OF

PORTLAND COP WATCH AND A

PORTLAND RESIDENT WITH ASTHMA.

I'M OUTSIDE TODAY BECAUSE MY

APARTMENT HAD FIRE TESTING, SO

HOPEFULLY THE SOUND IS OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO THANK COUNCILOR

CONNELL'S OFFICE FOR BRINGING

FORTH THIS ORDINANCE TO BAN

TEARGAS IN PORTLAND. WE HEARD

LOUD AND CLEAR ON ELECTION DAY

THAT AMERICANS EVERYWHERE,

INCLUDING PORTLAND RESIDENTS,

DON'T WANT TO LIVE UNDER AN

AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT. ONE

OF THE TENETS OF

AUTHORITARIANISM IS SUPPRESSION

OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND

RESTRICTING PROTEST. LET'S BE

CLEAR EYED. HERE IN THE U.S. WE

SPEND ASTRONOMICALLY MORE ON

POLICING THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY

OTHER THAN CHINA, THAT SPEND ON

MILITARY SPENDING. SO THE FIRST

IN MILITARY SPENDING IS THE

U.S. MILITARY. THEN IT GOES

MILITARY, CHINA'S MILITARY. AND

THE THIRD IS U.S. POLICE.

POLICE SPEND THIS BUDGET ON

MILITARY WEAPONS AND TOYS LIKE

TEAR GAS. YET WE CAN BARELY

AFFORD TO PAY RENT AND BUY

GROCERIES FROM CIVIL RIGHTS

ACTIVIST ATTORNEYS. I WANT TO

EMPHASIZE THAT WE ALL LONG FOR

A WORLD WHERE OUR FIRST

CONSTITUTION, OUR FIRST

AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROTEST, IS

PROTECTED, AND A FUTURE WHERE

IN THIS CITY AND ACROSS THE

WORLD, WE ARE FREE OF TEAR GAS

AND FREE OF POLICE VIOLENCE.

LET'S ALSO BE CLEAR PPB HAS NOT

HAD A HISTORY TO MY

RECOLLECTION OF TEAR GASSING OR

USING CROWD CONTROL MUNITIONS

AND USES OF FORCE AGAINST WHITE

NATIONALIST GROUPS, BUT HAS A

LONG HISTORY OF RESERVING TEAR

GAS AND USES OF FORCE ON RACIAL

JUSTICE AND CIVIL RIGHTS

PROTESTERS AND THE LIKE.

OFTENTIMES, WE SAW PROTESTS

ABOUT ENDING POLICE BRUTALITY,

MET WITH MORE POLICE BRUTALITY.

LAST WEEK, A PPB OFFICER STATED

THAT CHEMICAL WEAPONS CAN

PREVENT THE NEED FOR A PHYSICAL

OR LETHAL CONFRONTATION, AND IS

A TOOL FOR DE-ESCALATION. I

WOULD ARGUE THAT TEAR GAS IS

ESCALATORY AND CAN LEAD TO

PHYSICAL BODILY DAMAGE. FOR

EXAMPLE, A VOLUNTEER EMT STREET

MEDIC WAS HIT IN THE HEAD WITH

A TEAR GAS CANISTER, HAD

SYMPTOMS OF CONCUSSION FALLING

FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, LEADING

TO MEMORY LOSS. THE DANGER IS

NOT JUST ITSELF, BUT ALSO THE

THE CANISTERS USED TO DEPLOY IT

AND AIMED AT PEOPLE'S HEADS.

AND LET'S ALSO NOT FOCUS ON CS

GAS USED BY JUST FEDERAL AGENTS

OR ICE. JOHN RUDOLPH, A

PHOTOGRAPHER ON PROTEST, SHARED,

I SHOT THE SYRIAN REFUGEE

CRISIS, I SHOT PARIS PROTESTS,

I SHOT HONG KONG. AND IT WAS

PORTLAND POLICE WHO BEAT THE

EXPLICIT OUT OF ME. WHILE MANY.

IN 2020 AND AT THE PROTESTS

AGAINST ICE AT THE DETENTION

FACILITY EXPERIENCED BEING TEAR

GASSED BY THE ALPHABET SOUP OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT. FROM FEDERAL

AGENTS TO PPB, LOCALLY SOURCED

TEAR GAS IS NOT ANY BETTER OF

AN EXPERIENCE. WHEN YOU'RE IN A

CLOUD OF TEAR GAS, IT DOESN'T

MATTER WHO IS TEAR GASSING YOU,

IT IS ALL HARMFUL. THANK YOU

FOR YOUR TIME, [name withheld].

>> YOU CAN GO AHEAD. [name withheld].

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, I FEEL

LIKE WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT

ALL OF YOU THIS WEEK SINCE

EVERYBODY'S ZOOMING IN. SO I

SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT AGAIN, MY

NAME IS [name withheld]. I'M THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AND A

REGISTERED LOBBYIST FOR

PORTLAND'S OFFICE OF JUSTICE.

AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE

RIGHT TO BREATHE ACT. I OWN

FOUR GAS MASKS. I BOUGHT THIS 1

IN 2017, WHEN PPB WAS TEAR

GASSING CROWDS OF PORTLANDERS

DURING TRUMP'S FIRST ELECTION.

I BOUGHT THIS 1 IN 2020, WHEN

DOWNTOWN PORTLAND WAS SHROUDED

IN GAS. THIS ONE I BOUGHT LAST

YEAR WHEN THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT WAS THREATENING TO

DEPLOY THE NATIONAL GUARD. AND

THEN THIS ONE I HAD TO BUY

EARLIER THIS YEAR, AFTER

FEDERAL AGENTS INDISCRIMINATELY

TEAR GASSED THOUSANDS OF

PORTLANDERS IN JANUARY, I

DIDN'T BUY THEM TO DO ANYTHING

MORE THAN PRACTICE CIVIL

DISOBEDIENCE. DESPITE PBS'S

COMMENTS LAST TIME ABOUT ONLY

USING CHEMICAL MUNITIONS ON

INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITY, TEAR GAS DOES NOT

CARE WHO YOU ARE. THE TOXIC

CLOUD TRAVELS. SO LET ME ASK

YOU ALL IS IT NORMAL TO NEED A

GAS MASK TO TAKE PART IN A

PROTEST, A TRADITION AS OLD AS

CIVIL SOCIETY? IS IT NORMAL FOR

A SCHOOL TO RELOCATE BECAUSE

CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION HAS

FILLED ITS YARD? IS IT NORMAL

FOR RESIDENTS OF AN APARTMENT

BUILDING TO BE SICKENED BY GAS

SEEPING IN, OR FOR THOSE

CHEMICALS TO WASH TOWARDS THE

WILLAMETTE RIVER, WHERE

THOUSANDS OF PORTLANDERS SWIM

DURING THE SUMMER? IN JANUARY,

THOUSANDS OF PORTLANDERS

MARCHED IN A NONVIOLENT LABOR

RALLY. CHILDREN AND ELDERS

AMONG THEM. THEY WERE MET WITH

TEAR GAS FROM ARMED, TRAINED

AND WELL FORTIFIED FEDERAL

AGENTS, AND OUR MAYOR JUSTIFIED

IT BY BLAMING A HANDFUL OF

UNARMED, UNARMED DEMONSTRATORS

WHO CROSSED A BLUE LINE ON A

SIDEWALK WHILE THOUSANDS OF

OTHERS MARCHED PAST. PERSONALLY,

I FIND THAT JUSTIFICATION

INDEFENSIBLE. AS LONG AS THESE

CHEMICALS ARE ALLOWED, SOMEONE

WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO

JUSTIFY USING THEM ON YOUR

CONSTITUENTS. THIS ORDINANCE

ENDS THAT IT FINDS UNLAWFUL USE

UP TO $15,000, AND IT LETS

INJURED PEOPLE SUE. THE CITY

HAS ALREADY PAID NEARLY 1.2

MILLION IN SETTLEMENTS OVER

TEAR GAS JUST SINCE 2020.

SOLDIERS IN WARTIME ARE

PROHIBITED FROM USING THESE

CHEMICALS ON ENEMY COMBATANTS.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE ALLOW

THEM AGAINST UNARMED NEIGHBORS?

IN PBS'S OWN TESTIMONY, THEY

SAID THAT THE USE OF THESE

CHEMICALS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS

NOT BANNED BY THE GENEVA

CONVENTION AND THE CHEMICAL

WEAPONS CONVENTION. THAT MAY BE

TRUE, BUT THE CITY OF PORTLAND

AND THE STATE OF OREGON HAVE

ALREADY TAKEN MEASURES TO REIN

IN THE USE OF THESE WEAPONS.

THE FACT THAT CARVE OUTS FOR

DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT

PURPOSES EXIST HAS NOT DETERRED

LEGISLATORS FROM GOING FURTHER.

IT IS UP TO YOU, AS THE

LEGISLATIVE BODY REPRESENTING

PORTLAND, TO RECOGNIZE THAT

WEAPONS NOT FIT FOR WARFARE

HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING USED ON

OUR CITY STREETS. PLEASE VOTE

YES. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> OKAY [name withheld] I'M A RESIDENT

IN DISTRICT THREE. I'M 29 YEARS

OLD AND I HAVE BEEN IN PERI

MENOPAUSE FOR OVER HALF A

DECADE. IN 2020, LIKE MANY

PORTLANDERS, I TOOK TO THE

STREETS TO PROTEST POLICE

BRUTALITY AFTER GEORGE FLOYD

WAS MURDERED. I ALSO GRADUATED

FROM LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE

THAT MAY. SO TO PAY FOR MY

UNDERGRAD DEGREE, I DONATED MY

EGGS FIVE SEPARATE TIMES

BETWEEN 2017 AND 2021. THE LAST

TWO ROUNDS WERE THE FALL OF

2019 AND THE SPRING OF 2021.

BETWEEN THOSE ROUNDS OF EGG

DONATION, I WAS TEAR GASSED

WELL OVER 100 TIMES, SOMETIMES

MULTIPLE TIMES IN ONE EVENING.

PBB DIDN'T USE GAS EVERY NIGHT,

AND SOMETIMES IT WAS THE FEDS.

I WAS UNABLE TO PURCHASE A GAS

MASK UNTIL MIDWAY THROUGH 2020.

JULY 2020, TO BE SPECIFIC,

BEFORE I HAD THAT MASK, I

NOTICED THAT EVERY NIGHT I WAS

IN THE GAS, IT BECAME A LITTLE

BIT EASIER TO KEEP MY EYES OPEN

AND BREATHE NORMALLY AS I BUILT

A TOLERANCE TO IT, WEARING ONLY

A KN95 AND A BANDANA, I STILL

KNEW IT WAS TAKING ITS TOLL ON

ME AS MY PERIOD LASTED FOR OVER

FOUR STRAIGHT MONTHS WHEN I

DONATED, WHEN I WENT BACK TO

DONATE MY EGGS AND EARLY 2021

TO PAY OFF MY NOW RECURRING

STUDENT LOANS, I WAS INFORMED

THAT I WAS ENTERING

PERIMENOPAUSE. THE MEDICATION

WASN'T STIMULATING MY OVARIES

AS IT USUALLY DID, AND

ULTRASOUND SHOWED MY EGG COUNT

WAS SEVERELY DEPLETED. MULTIPLE

DOCTORS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT

THIS DIAGNOSIS AND I BECAME.

OLD. I DID NOT SUE THIS CITY,

THE STATE, OR THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I WORK IN

LAW AND I KNOW WHAT WOULD

HAPPEN IF I TRIED. I COULD

VIVIDLY SEE MY FACE ON FOX NEWS,

A WOMAN WITH SHORT HAIR LABELED

ANTIFA WHO WAS WHINING OVER

FICTIONAL SYMPTOMS. THEY WOULD

TEAR APART EVERY ASPECT OF MY

LIFE, INCLUDING MY SEXUAL

HISTORY, DESPERATE TO PIN MY

INFERTILITY ON ANYTHING ELSE,

AND FRANKLY, JUST TELLING YOU

IT WAS THE TEAR GAS. I HAD TO

TELL MY PARENTS THAT THEY WILL

NOT HAVE GRANDCHILDREN. I HAD

TO TELL MY LONG TERM PARTNER

THAT WE COULD NEVER CONCEIVE. I

WOULD NOT WISH THIS ON ANYONE.

THE HOT FLASHES, THE LOSS OF

BONE DENSITY, THE INCREASED

CANCER RISK, AND THE SHORTER

LIFE EXPECTANCY. I FRANKLY

WOULD NOT CHANGE MY ACTIONS IN

2020. BUT IF I CAN SAVE ANYONE

ELSE FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, I

WILL TRY. FOR ANY POLICE WHO

CONSIDER YOURSELVES TO BE

PRO-CHOICE. YOU TOOK AWAY MY

CHOICE. I. I KNOW I'M NOT THE

ONLY PERSON THAT THIS HAPPENED

TO, SO I URGE YOU TO PLEASE BAN

THE USE OF TEAR GAS IN THIS

CITY. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS

[name withheld]. I'M A LOCAL

JOURNALIST WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED

TO CHEMICAL WEAPONS MORE TIMES

THAN I CAN COUNT. WHILE

COVERING PROTESTS AND EVENTS.

I'VE WITNESSED PB'S

INDISCRIMINATE CHEMICAL ATTACKS

REACH BABIES SLEEPING IN THEIR

CRIBS. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE LOSE

CONSCIOUSNESS, VOMIT, AND

CHILDREN SCREAM IN PAIN AND

FEAR. THE LIST IS HONESTLY

REALLY LONG. BUT AFTER

LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY

PRESENTED BY PB LAST WEEK, I

FELT A LITTLE BIT COMPELLED TO

ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE IN MORE

PERSONAL. THE DISGUSTING

MINIMIZATION OF THESE WEAPONS

IS HARMS, AND ALSO THE

SUGGESTION THAT WITHOUT THE

ABILITY TO DEPLOY CHEMICAL

WEAPONS, POLICE WOULD HAVE NO

CHOICE BUT TO USE LIVE

AMMUNITION AND LETHAL FORCE ON

COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THIS ERASES

ALTERNATIVES LIKE DE-ESCALATION,

DISENGAGEMENT, AS THOUGH THE

ONLY OPTIONS ARE CHEMICAL

WEAPONS OR MURDERING.

PORTLANDERS. ALSO, THE OFFICERS

REPEATED MINIMIZATION OF

REPRODUCTIVE HARM WAS

PARTICULARLY SICKENING AFTER

PB'S HEAVY USE OF TEAR GAS IN

2020. MY MENSTRUAL CYCLE HAS

STILL NEVER RETURNED TO NORMAL.

TO THIS VERY DAY, I CONTINUE TO

SUFFER FROM OVARIAN CYSTS

ALMOST MONTHLY, ACCOMPANIED BY

DEBILITATING PAIN. I KNOW

MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN

UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN SINCE

2020, AND WE'RE ALL STILL

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE

WEAPONS HAVE EVEN DONE TO OUR

BODIES. AND RATHER THAN

ACKNOWLEDGE THESE HARMS, THE

OFFICER DISCUSSED PROLONGED

EXPOSURE IN A WAY THAT SHIFTED

RESPONSIBILITY ONTO THE PEOPLE

WHO WERE EXPOSED. LET'S BE

CLEAR ABOUT ONE THING WE DID

NOT CHOOSE TO BE EXPOSED. WE

DID NOT CHOOSE WHERE THESE

WEAPONS WERE DEPLOYED. THE

RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO THE

PEOPLE WHO AUTHORIZED AND

CARRIED OUT THOSE DEPLOYMENTS.

IN EARLY JUNE OF 2025, I WAS

EXPOSED TO TEAR GAS MULTIPLE

TIMES WHILE COVERING PROTESTS,

AND ON JUNE 11TH, I HAD A

MISCARRIAGE. MY MOST RECENT

EXPOSURE HAD BEEN THE VERY

NIGHT BEFORE WHEN I WAS EXPOSED

TO CS GAS. THAT DAY, I WAS

REMINDED OF THE STATE

SANCTIONED VIOLENCE IMPOSED ON

ALL OF OUR BODIES, AND I HAD TO

SIT IN THAT VIOLENCE ALL OVER

AGAIN. ANY CHOICE THAT I HAD

WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. THAT

DECISION WAS FORCED ON MY BODY

BY THE STATE. WHEN AN OFFICER

MINIMIZES REPRODUCTIVE HARM AND

SUGGESTS THAT CHEMICAL WEAPONS

ARE THE ALTERNATIVE TO LETHAL

FORCE, I HOPE PEOPLE REALLY

UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT SOUNDS

LIKE TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE

LIVED THROUGH IT. IT SOUNDS

LIKE OUR SUFFERING DOESN'T

MATTER. IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR

BODIES ARE AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE

TO PAY FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S

PREFERRED METHODS OF CROWD

CONTROL. I BEG YOU TO TAKE

THESE HARMS SERIOUSLY. OUR

BODIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE

COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> MY NAME IS [name withheld], AND

I'M A TENANT IN DISTRICT FOUR

AND A VOLUNTARY LAW VOLUNTEER

LOBBYIST FOR THE PORTLAND

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF

AMERICA. AROUND THE WORLD, TEAR

GAS IS BEING USED TO CRUSH AND

REPRESS DISSENT. HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS IN FRANCE ARE

REJECTING THE STATUS QUO OF

AUSTERITY AND ARE MET WITH TEAR

GAS. IF OUR STUDENTS TAKE TO

THE STREETS TO FIGHT AGAINST

SCHOOL CLOSURES, WILL THEY.

WILL THEY BE MET WITH TEAR GAS?

TENANTS IN SPAIN, RESISTING THE

VIOLENCE OF EVICTION AND THE

HOUSING CRISIS ARE MET WITH

TEAR GAS? IF OUR NEIGHBORS

STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET,

CRUSHED BY RISING RENTS AND

WAGES THAT FAIL TO RISE WITH

PRODUCTIVITY, TAKE TO THE

STREETS TO DEMAND THEIR RIGHT

TO HOUSING, WILL THEY BE MET

WITH TEAR GAS? WERE THE PEOPLE

RISE UP WHEN THE WORKERS,

STUDENTS AND TENANTS FIGHT BACK

AGAINST AUSTERITY, OPPRESSION

AND INJUSTICE, THEY'RE MET WITH

CLOUDS OF REPRESSION. THAT'S

WHAT TEAR GAS IS. THE PORTLAND

POLICE HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY

AREN'T USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS

TO TO REPRESS THE PEOPLE. WHEN

WE TAKE TO THE STREETS AND

PROTEST. BUT THIS HASN'T ALWAYS

BEEN THE CASE, AS WE ALL KNOW.

AND AS LONG AS THEY ARE

PURCHASING THESE WEAPONS, WE

CANNOT BE SURE THAT SOMETIME IN

THE FUTURE, WHEN THE PEOPLE

RISE UP ONCE AGAIN TO RESIST

INJUSTICE AND THEIR VOICES ARE

STRONGER THAN EVER, THEY WILL

USE THEM AGAIN. THE PORTLAND

POLICE HAVE TOLD YOU THAT THEY

DON'T USE TEAR GAS TO REPRESS

DEMONSTRATIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT

THEY TOLD US ALL THAT THEY

THINK THE FED'S USE OF TEAR GAS

WAS OUT OF LINE. AT THE SAME

TIME, THEY SAY THAT THEY WANT

TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT

IN THE FUTURE. AT THE SAME TIME,

THEY THINK IT'S OKAY TO USE

THESE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST

US, AGAINST US WHEN WE'RE ALONE,

EVEN IN OUR OWN HOMES. THEY'RE

SPECIAL. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

REACTION TEAM USES IT AGAINST

PORTLANDERS. IN FEBRUARY, SERT

SHOT OC VAPOR AND TEAR GAS INTO

A MAN'S APARTMENT BUILDING AS A

LESS LETHAL OR DE-ESCALATION

TACTIC. THIS CLEARLY DIDN'T

WORK BECAUSE SHORTLY AFTER THEY

SHOT HIM BECAUSE SHORTLY AFTER

THEY SHOT AND KILLED HIM. IT IS

UNACCEPTABLE TO USE TEAR GAS

OUTSIDE AGAINST A CROWD. HOW

COULD IT BE JUSTIFIABLE TO BE

USED AGAINST PORTLANDERS, WHO

MAY BE EXPERIENCING MENTAL

HEALTH CRISES IN ENCLOSED

SPACES? POLICE SHOULD NOT USE

CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND POLICE

SHOULD NOT BE KILLING PEOPLE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> [name withheld].

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU

FOR YOUR TIME. AND JUST TO HEAR

ME, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS

[name withheld], FORMER PORTLAND

RESIDENT, MILWAUKEE, CURRENTLY

PORTLAND. ENOUGH IF I SAY SO.

JUST WANT TO RUN EVERYONE

THROUGH MY PERSONAL INTERACTION

AND TAKE YOU ALL BACK TO THE

DATE OF FEBRUARY 1ST, 2026,

WHERE A RED LINE WAS SEVERELY

CROSSED IN MY PERSONAL BELIEF.

AND THAT IS TEAR GAS BEING USED

UPON CHILDREN AND ANYONE UNDER

THE AGE OF 18. THAT WAS MY RED

LINE TO COME OUT AND PEACEFULLY

PROTEST, ALONG WITH COUNTLESS

OTHER FOLKS. WE MARCHED DOWN

FROM CITY HALL TO THE ICE

FACILITY TO ALSO LET THE AGENTS

OF DHS KNOW OUR FRUSTRATIONS

WITH JUST GASSING ANYONE AND

EVERYONE. AND HONESTLY, IT WAS

MY FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH GAS. I

THINK THAT JUST SIMPLY PUT IT,

IT'S HORRIFYING. I WISH THAT

PAIN AND SUFFERING UPON NO ONE.

AND THEY MAY SAY THAT WE HAD

SAFETY EXITS. WE DID NOT. WE

ONLY HAD BOND STREET TO GET OUT.

AND THE MUNITIONS THAT WERE

DISPERSED BY THE FEDERAL AGENTS

WAS BEYOND WHAT NEEDED IN THE

FIRST PLACE. AND GAS IS IN

DISCRIMINATORY. IT DOES NOT

JUST STAY IN ONE PLACE. SURE,

IT WAS A NICE WEATHER NIGHT,

BUT THERE WAS A BREEZE. AND

BECAUSE OF THAT SLIGHT BREEZE

THAT CAME FROM THE SOUTH MOVING

NORTH, THAT GIANT FOG OF

CHEMICAL MUNITIONS PUSHED ALL

THE WAY UP TO OSU'S SOUTH

CAMPUS. EVEN AS COUNTLESS

DROVES OF US WERE TRYING TO

SAFELY DISPERSE AND GET AWAY

FROM THE AREA, WE STILL COULD

NOT ESCAPE THE GAS. MY HEART

AND SYMPATHY ESPECIALLY, GOES

OUT TO ANY AND ALL RESIDENTS IN

THE AREAS OF SOUTH PORTLAND WHO

HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER

WHETHER THEY GET GASSED OR NOT.

FOR THE FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY,

THAT HOUSING IS WHAT IT IS

LIMITED AND AT LEAST THE

OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HOUSING

JUST. IT'S A HORRIBLE THING TO

THINK ABOUT, HONESTLY. SO JUST

IT'S PERSONAL TESTIMONY. I

REALLY, HONESTLY DO NOT SEE

PORTLAND MOVING FORWARD. BEING

PRO GAS SHOULD NOT BE

CONSIDERING GAS AT ALL IN CROWD

CONTROL. POLICING IS SLIGHTLY

GETTING BETTER, BUT I THINK AS

A WHOLE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, IF WE

ALL COME TO THE TABLE, WE CAN

WORK AND REDEFINE WHAT POLICING

MEANS, WHAT CROWD CONTROL MEANS,

AND JUST SET A BETTER EXAMPLE.

GOING FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE FOR

YOU ALL TO CONSIDER THE BAN ON

MUNITIONS OF CHEMICAL AGENTS

UPON PORTLANDERS. THANK YOU FOR

YOUR TIME.

>> WE HAVE TWO MORE FOLKS

ONLINE. [name withheld]. EXCUSE

ME, [name withheld].

>> ALL RIGHT. HELLO. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS [name withheld]. I'M

A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT THREE

HERE IN PORTLAND. DO YOU WANT

TO THANK MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

FOR LISTENING TO TESTIMONY

ABOUT THE BAN ON THE USE OF

CHEMICALS BY PORTLAND POLICE

BUREAU. I'M IN SUPPORT OF A BAN

AGAINST USING OF CROWD CONTROL

CHEMICALS. I EXPERIENCED THEM

BOTH IN 2020 AND 2026, ONE USED

BY FEDERAL AGENTS AT THE ICE

FACILITY, THE OTHER DOWN AT THE

JUSTICE CENTER. WHEN PROTESTS

WERE AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY.

I THINK IT'S AMUSING THAT THE

PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU DID

MENTION THAT THEY DON'T THINK

THAT THE FEDERAL ONE WAS

JUSTIFIED, BUT THEIRS WAS.

PERSONALLY, I THINK IT IS NOT A

GOOD IDEA TO USE THESE GASES AT

ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, BUT

THE USE OF CHEMICALS, AGAIN, IS

NOT PARTICULARLY BANNED BY THE

GENEVA CONVENTION, EVEN THOUGH,

YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE WE

WOULDN'T HAVE A SOLDIER USE IT

AGAINST PEOPLE IN WARTIME. ARE

YOU HAVING IT USE ON CIVILIANS?

A GREAT POINT, BUT DO YOU WANT

TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE

THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED

ENVIRONMENTALLY? THEY DID

MENTION A LOT OF HEAVY METALS

BEING AN INCREASED DOSE. HEAVY

METALS, FROM A HEALTH CARE

PERSPECTIVE ON THE NURSE ARE

CUMULATIVE. SO IT'S ONE OF

THESE THINGS WHERE IF THERE IS

SOME LEAD IN THE AIR AND YOU'RE

EXPOSED TO THAT CONTINUOUSLY

OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT'S GOING

TO BUILD UP IN A PERSON'S

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. THIS IS

ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU

CONSIDER DEVELOPING BRAINS LIKE

CHILDREN AND DEVELOPING PEOPLE

WHO HAVE UTERUSES. IT'S GOING

TO BE EVEN MORE PROMINENT HOW

BADLY IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE

HUMAN BODY. HAVING THESE HEAVY

METALS ENTER THE BODY,

ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE LUNGS.

BUT YEAH, IT'S IT'S ONE OF

THESE THINGS WHERE I DO

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME

CONSIDERING A BAN ON ALL USE OF

CHEMICAL WEAPONS. AND AGAIN, I

STRONGLY SUPPORT BANNING THE

USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY

PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU AND

ENTIRELY IN THE CITY OF

PORTLAND WOULD BE NICE TOO. BUT

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT DAY.

>> [name withheld].

>> HI THERE. I WILL BE PRETTY

BRIEF. SO I JUST WANTED TO

COMMENT ON A PARTICULAR SLIDE

FROM LAST WEEK'S PRESENTATION.

THERE WAS THIS SECTION WITH A

BAR GRAPH TALKING ABOUT HOW

LITTLE PORTLAND HAS PAID OUT IN

SETTLEMENT FEES COMPARED TO

OTHER CITIES. AND I JUST WANTED

TO SPEAK FROM MY EXPERIENCE

WITH THE LEGAL SIDE OF TORT

CLAIMS, AS WELL AS OTHER

PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES. THE

IMPLICATION THAT POLICE WERE

CLEARLY GIVING THERE WAS THAT

CHEMICAL MUNITIONS CAUSED LESS

INJURY. HOWEVER, I THINK I'M

FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE REAL

REASON WHY THE TORT CLAIMS ARE

SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER IS BECAUSE

THERE'S SO MUCH HARDER TO WIN

WHEN THERE ISN'T A PHOTO OF A

BRUISE OR AN X-RAY, OR WHEN

IT'S SOME LIKE TEN YEAR,

SLIGHTLY NEBULOUS POSSIBILITY

OF CANCER. SO I JUST SAY, IF

YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH FURTHER

SHIFTING THE COST OF COST OF

POLICE BRUTALITY ONTO VICTIMS,

THEN TEAR GAS IS A TOOL YOU

SHOULD ABSOLUTELY KEEP. BUT IF

YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF

HOW DIFFICULT THE PROCESS IS

FOR RECTIFYING HARM DONE BY

STATE ACTORS, YOU'LL SEE

THROUGH THIS ARGUMENT FROM PPB.

SO THANK YOU.

>> AND JUST ONE LAST CALL.

[name withheld], [name withheld],

[name withheld], [name withheld],

[name withheld], [name withheld]. THAT

CONCLUDES TESTIMONY.

>> THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. WE'RE

NOW AT 1233. I APPRECIATE

EVERYONE STAYING A COUPLE

MINUTES OVER. WE'RE GOING TO

CONTINUE THIS ITEM ON. THANK

YOU TO EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED

ON EITHER ITEM. THANKS TO

COLLEAGUES, AND I BELIEVE WE

HAVE COUNCIL AT 2:00 TODAY. SO

WE'LL SEE YOU THERE. AND THIS

MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

>> GASTROENTEROLOGIST.

>> ABOUT.