On Oct. 29, the Portland City Council voted 10–2 to approve a settlement resolving my lawsuit over the city’s confidentiality agreement for members of the Community Board for Police Accountability. The settlement put a substantially revised non-disclosure agreement in place, provided for public posting of CBPA training materials and provided for my reappointment as an alternate member of the board.
How the dispute began
I was appointed as an alternate member of the CBPA in June 2025. I was subsequently removed by the City Council last February after refusing to sign the City’s original NDA.
The original agreement was extraordinarily broad. It required members to treat essentially all information shared with them as confidential, and prohibited disclosure outside the city in any format, including verbally.
I never disputed the city’s need to protect legitimately confidential information, such as personnel matters, information about active investigations and privileged legal advice. However, I was not willing to sign an agreement that covered routine information—including all training materials—that should not automatically be shielded from public disclosure and discussion.
Voters had approved a charter amendment creating the CBPA in 2020 to provide independent oversight of the Portland Police Bureau, with a requirement to provide for “public transparency.” To me, that transparency required the public to know how CBPA members were trained.
So I sued the city. In March, my attorney—Ed Piper of Glenmorrie Law—filed a complaint in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Why Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution matters
Weinstein v. City of Portland argued that requiring CBPA members to sign the NDA violated my free-speech rights under Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution.
Article I, section 8 provides that “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever.” It is Oregon’s own free-expression guarantee, and in some respects it provides more protection of free speech than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
My complaint argued that the city’s original NDA went well beyond protecting legally confidential information, thereby unconstitutionally violated my rights of free speech.
A constructive resolution
Rather than litigate the matter, the City Attorney’s office sought a settlement. The result was a mutually acceptable resolution that addressed the concerns I had raised and provided for my reappointment.
The council’s 10-2 vote was particularly significant. Notably, five of the seven councilors who had voted for my removal in February— Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane, Novick, Green and Dunphy—changed their votes and supported the settlement and my reappointment.
Councilors Avalos and Morillo cast the two “no” votes. Neither offered a public explanation on a dispute involving free-speech rights of volunteers who serve on public oversight bodies—even one that voters specifically established with a commitment to public transparency. Would they have preferred the city keep litigating a constitutional claim at taxpayer expense?
I appreciate the willingness of the City Attorney’s Office to take another look at the issues I raised and to engage in good-faith discussions that produced a mutually acceptable resolution. The revised NDA is a significant improvement over the original document and provides much clearer guidance regarding what information is actually confidential.
I also want to thank the City Council for revisiting this issue, particularly the five councilors who reconsidered their earlier votes.
My objective from the beginning was not simply to challenge the old agreement, but to ensure that volunteers serving on an important public oversight body have clear, legally appropriate rules governing confidentiality.
Protecting confidential information and respecting constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive. Government can and should do both.
Well done!!! Thank you for pursuing the case to this conclusion.
Thank you, Bob! Yes, Avalos and Morillo seem to have no idea what they are doing, actually. They seem to enjoy keeping secrets and see it as some kind of power.