This episode reflects a trait among some progressives: an impulse to substitute secrecy and exclusion for legitimacy. The effort to shroud the CBPA in blanket confidentiality is of a piece with the insistence that no current or former law-enforcement officers may sit on the board—both reflect a distrust of openness rather than a commitment to accountability. I say this as a Harris-voting centrist Democrat.
Portlanders, especially those whose careers may be affected by the actions of the CBPA, are entitled to know the who, what, when, why, and how of the rulemaking that produced this overreach—and by what legal authority such an NDA was enacted. Was it pursuant to a city ordinance? Who actually runs the CBPA? An agreement that silences board members about non-confidential training and operational material is not merely excessive; it raises serious rule-of-law and due-process concerns. Rules that exceed statutory confidentiality protections require a clear legal basis and a publicly articulated rationale. Neither is evident here.
Oversight bodies cannot claim legitimacy while operating behind a veil of secrecy that exceeds the law. When transparency is treated as a threat rather than a safeguard, accountability becomes performative. That is not reform; it is a regression—and it should alarm anyone who cares about due process, public trust, or the rule of law.
The "veil of secrecy" extends far, far beyond this case. Ever try getting a straight answer from a government-funded NGO about how the money is being spent?
I applaud you in taking this stance. Training in the civics environment used to be taken for granted as stemming from the core of the constitution and the operational imperatives of the trade. Now it has become clear that it is used to advance notions of ethics and political ambition that have not been scrutinized or debated in the public arena but which reflect the secretive and cultural aims of left wing activists. You are at the battlefront. Bon courage!
The piece goes off the rails with, "Portland’s Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA) was created to embody a straightforward civic promise: independent civilian oversight of policing, grounded in transparency and public trust." Sorry; it was instituted to, essentially, pay off massive pressure by "defund the police" actors, many financed by shadowy revolutionary creeps hiding inside nonprofits and--many have suspected--cartels. Aided by the usual useful idiots and the blinkered legacy pressniks.
It's part and parcel of the ongoing effort by radicals to destabilize institutions and prepare the way for "warm collectivism." Anything else is naive, which seems to be a speciality of Portland's polite moderates.
Every argument Weinstein makes is sensible and oh-so-sensitive. But it has nothing to do with the reality of politics in Portland (and the state).
This episode reflects a trait among some progressives: an impulse to substitute secrecy and exclusion for legitimacy. The effort to shroud the CBPA in blanket confidentiality is of a piece with the insistence that no current or former law-enforcement officers may sit on the board—both reflect a distrust of openness rather than a commitment to accountability. I say this as a Harris-voting centrist Democrat.
Portlanders, especially those whose careers may be affected by the actions of the CBPA, are entitled to know the who, what, when, why, and how of the rulemaking that produced this overreach—and by what legal authority such an NDA was enacted. Was it pursuant to a city ordinance? Who actually runs the CBPA? An agreement that silences board members about non-confidential training and operational material is not merely excessive; it raises serious rule-of-law and due-process concerns. Rules that exceed statutory confidentiality protections require a clear legal basis and a publicly articulated rationale. Neither is evident here.
Oversight bodies cannot claim legitimacy while operating behind a veil of secrecy that exceeds the law. When transparency is treated as a threat rather than a safeguard, accountability becomes performative. That is not reform; it is a regression—and it should alarm anyone who cares about due process, public trust, or the rule of law.
Thank you for going public with this.
The "veil of secrecy" extends far, far beyond this case. Ever try getting a straight answer from a government-funded NGO about how the money is being spent?
I applaud you in taking this stance. Training in the civics environment used to be taken for granted as stemming from the core of the constitution and the operational imperatives of the trade. Now it has become clear that it is used to advance notions of ethics and political ambition that have not been scrutinized or debated in the public arena but which reflect the secretive and cultural aims of left wing activists. You are at the battlefront. Bon courage!
Good for you Bob...
As the 300 pages of City Council emails published in the WW show ... more than Police oversight , we may need City Councilor oversight.
Beware the "do as I say not as I do " hypocrites
The piece goes off the rails with, "Portland’s Community Board for Police Accountability (CBPA) was created to embody a straightforward civic promise: independent civilian oversight of policing, grounded in transparency and public trust." Sorry; it was instituted to, essentially, pay off massive pressure by "defund the police" actors, many financed by shadowy revolutionary creeps hiding inside nonprofits and--many have suspected--cartels. Aided by the usual useful idiots and the blinkered legacy pressniks.
It's part and parcel of the ongoing effort by radicals to destabilize institutions and prepare the way for "warm collectivism." Anything else is naive, which seems to be a speciality of Portland's polite moderates.
Every argument Weinstein makes is sensible and oh-so-sensitive. But it has nothing to do with the reality of politics in Portland (and the state).