The Police Policy Committee (PPC) reviews professional standards cases involving law enforcement officers, following a structured process where the department presents cases with staff reports, the officer provides a five-minute mitigation statement, committee members deliberate on aggravating and mitigating factors, and the committee votes on moral fitness violations (such as dishonesty and misconduct) and appropriate ineligibility periods (ranging from three years to lifetime for dishonesty, and three to ten years for misconduct). The committee considers factors like Brady determinations, polygraph results, letters of recommendation, cooperation with investigators, and the officer's history when determining dispositions.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Police Policy Committee Meeting 5-21-2026Added:
like, oh, >> it's just revision.
>> Same steps. I just want to make it easier to [laughter] fussy.
Unmute.
>> Good morning. It's 10:00 a.m. May 21st, 2026. We're at DPSSST conference room the time for the police policy committee. Before we get started, I'll read the police policy committee administrative announcement. This is a public meeting subject to public meeting law and it will be digitally recorded.
Deliberation of issues will only be conducted by the policy committee members unless permitted by the chair.
Remember to always state your name for the record. The cases dealing with denial or revocation. Only information contained in the staff report can be considered once the staff report is adopted. Assumptions, outside knowledge, or personal experiences should not be included in any discussion. Individuals who engage in disruptive behavior that impedes official business will be asked to stop being disruptive or leave the meeting. Additional measures may be taken to have disruptive individuals removed if their continued presence poses a safety risk to the other persons in the room or makes it impossible to continue the meeting. I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Scotty Downey.
>> And we're actually doing self introductions now if you'd like. And since you already introduced yourself, chair vice chair, would you like Casey Cotting, Oregon State Police?
>> Thank you. Member Daniel, >> Mark Daniel representing Oregon Association Chiefs of Police.
>> And then online, we have Member Duncan.
>> Michelle Duncan representing Oregon State Sheriff's Association.
>> Thank you. Member Hensman, >> Warren Hensman, Oregon Chiefs Association.
>> Member Livingston.
>> Uh Teresa Livingston, Oregon State Police.
>> Member Lren. Patricia Lovegrren, public member.
>> Thank you. Member Wood, >> Robert Wood, representing the public.
And member, >> Samuel, non-management law enforcement.
>> Now for staff introductions. Von Lopez, executive assistant, DPSST. And we'll start with our deputy director online.
>> Katherine Calpine, DPSST.
>> Thank you.
>> Victor Sanchez, DPSST.
>> Melissa Bacho, professional standards, DPSST.
Park, DPSST.
>> Maria with DPSST.
Jennifer Howell, DPSST. [clears throat] >> Sam Tang, DPSST.
>> Thank you. Uh, did everyone have a chance to review the meeting minutes from our February 19th, 2026 meeting?
We did. Is there any changes, modifications?
None. We'll look for a consensus uh show of hands, thumbs up to approve uh as they were posted in your materials. Any objections?
Seeing none, move the minutes.
Now move to administrative closures and I'll call professional center case manager to present.
>> Thank you, Chair Sling Basher. For the record, uh the department reviewed two cases and is recommending administrative administrative closure in those cases.
Uh they're on a consent agenda for the committee's consideration today. The department is seeking a vote from the committee to approve or return the cases for further review. Mr. Chair, >> thank you. Any questions or discussions regarding the proposed administrative closures?
Just have case for the record. Just one minor correction. Caleb with a B.
>> I saw that on the consent agenda that I spelled the Yes.
thought I was calling him all these years.
[clears throat] Thank you for pointing that out. There's no other questions or modifications.
We're looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or as modified. I guess with one small correction Daniel for the record move to approved.
>> I'll second voting on a motion to approve the administrative closures consent agenda as presented.
Notwithstanding any modifications. Chair N.
>> Hi.
>> Vice C.
>> Hi.
>> Daniel. Hi, >> Duncan.
>> I member >> Hensmith.
>> I me Livingston.
>> Hi, >> member Locker.
>> I >> member Wood.
>> Hi.
>> And member Woods. Motion carried.
>> You'll move to the professional standards case review. [clears throat] >> Back to you.
>> Uh we have um three officers here today.
Which one would you like to review first?
>> Just going in. We can go in the agenda order. I'm fine with that.
>> Anderson.
>> Anderson first.
Good morning.
>> Morning.
>> I'm Scotty Downing. I'm the chair of the police policy committee. Before we get started, could you identify yourself and have the other folks in the room identify themselves?
>> Yeah. I'm Tyler Anderson, one of the champions attorney.
>> Kristen Chris.
>> Thank you.
You will have five minutes at this time to share any information uh you would like for the committee members to consider uh during our deliberation your case. Your your five minutes will be timed by o'clock that you'll have ability to see right here. Um I will I will stop you at the end. Um right at five minutes I'll stop you. At the end we won't be able to ask you any questions. You won't be able to ask us any questions.
And then when you're done you can either sit at the table or you can go sit back by your attorneys whichever you'd like.
understand that order.
Yeah, I just instructions. Yeah.
>> Uh [clears throat] mostly about for the record. Um chair and committee members, the department opened a professional standards case to review Tyler Anderson's termination from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.
Anderson grieved his termination which resulted in a settlement agreement.
Anderson's termination uh stem from findings that he was untruthful on his application with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, his contacts with a disreputable disreputable person, and his failure to disclose all of his prior drug use during the pre-employment process. District Attorney's offices in Jefferson County and Kirk counties reviewed the investigation from Jefferson County and conducted a joint Brady investigation, obtaining uh additional records. The Brady investigation concluded that Anderson engaged in a pattern of dishonesty and determined that he would not have utilized as a witness in either county.
Anderson is currently seeking employment as a sheriff in Jefferson County. Uh the department um identified moral fitness violations um in this case. Uh dishonesty.
Uh Anderson was intentionally dishonest by untruthfulness, omission, deception, or misrepresentation when he failed to report his Idaho residence and employment with the Perma, Idaho Police Department on his uh uh Jefferson County background application.
Anderson was intentionally dishonest when he omitted from his applications with the Oregon State Police and Madress Police Department his employment with the Perma Police Department. Anderson omitted his prior cocaine use from his application with the Oregon State Police. Anderson was intentionally dishonest about his communication um with a confidential informant, stating that he sent her one message on August 1st, 2024.
uh for misconduct. The department identified that Anderson's Brady determination created an inefficient operation in the Jefferson and Crook County District Attorney's offices and the uh Jefferson County Sheriff's Office by impacting the ability to prosecute criminal charges. Uh the department is seeking a disposition in the case from the committee and uh just for the record uh Mr. Anderson provided written mitigation materials which are included in the committee's review packet and he's here today to provide a mitigation statement for the committee. Uh I also wanted to note that on the department's memo uh I believe the wrong uh date. Sorry, I will scratch that um information. Uh Mr. Chair, back to you.
>> Thank you.
Whenever you're ready, whenever our timer's ready. I'm >> ready. Okay, you can go ahead and do your mitigation.
>> So, this is [clears throat] a lot of information to go over, but I'd like a lot of people in here have done investigations. I'd like you guys to look at that. This investigation was not complete. None of the witnesses, my background investigators or members of the public that we've asked to be interviewed were interviewed. The investigation led to the point where it seemed like I was being dishonest and stopped. So, I definitely made mistakes by leaving that stuff off my application. But when it came to the actual background and I and got interviewed by the background investigators, I recalled the Parma Police Department and told them. Madress police department background investigator went to Parma, saw where I lived and spoke to the police department. Um the Oregon State Police background investigator was also told by me that I left that off my application and spoke to the department of police department. Um they have no record of me at the Idaho Police Department. It was a volunteer position. there as a volunteer until you attend the reserve academy and then you can become a reserve. It was about a month and a half, two months into my volunteer that I was let go from apartment police department when I was 21. I think it was 2003, 2004. Um, if you look at all the I don't know how if you guys got the transcripts or not, but there's transcripts. I've never hid evidence from the informant. I that was interviewed on it and handed over my phone and gave all the text messages on the two dates that me and that who they call an informant had communication. Um I took a polygraph on my what they call deception of hiding my volunteer position off my applications and passed that showing I did not try to deceive them. Um I've never been a drug dealer or purchased any drugs as I say. I tried cocaine twice in college and it was a stupid decision. I've never hid that. I've been up in front and honest with everybody on that. It was an oversight on me leaving that off. I told the investigator that that was off when I was asked about my drug history.
Wasn't anything I was hiding.
I understand how important it is to have a high level of integrity and how important it is to always be honest.
During arbitration investigator, we asked the investigator if he caught me in any lies and his answers were no. But the answers were confusing, so he assumed their lives. To me, that is not a fair and investigation. Um, I've dedicated 17 years and countless hours away from my family to serve the community. I was a respected member of the Central Oregon law enforcement community. I was a detective on the Tri County major crime team, an operator on the Central Oregon Emergency Response Team, and assisted with highly visible cases in all the agencies in Central Oregon. I would not risk my career over something so minor.
I've made plenty of mistakes during my time as a sheriff or as a deputy, but I've always admitted to them. Like I said here, I made a mistake by leaving that stuff off my application. But that's why we have a background process. And I've told all the background investigators about this.
They would have never known because there is no record of me in Idaho of being a volunteer there if I did not tell them. That's how they found out.
So, I've never hidden that.
Um, I'm just asking that you guys look at all the evidence that we've provided.
Um, the DA, the sheriff, everyone has gone off of the uh sheriff's office report.
The sheriff has admitted himself that he never even read the report. He said that at arbitration before they settled.
The the investigation to my in my mind is not a complete investigation. They tried to find me guilty and they stopped at the evidence that found me guilty instead of completing the investigation.
I'm just asking the board to not revoke my certifications. After 17 years, I've had a good record. I've never been accused of lying on the stand, lying in a report, or lying to any during any testimony.
Sorry, that's all I got. Thank you.
Now I'll look for a consensus to adopt the record as it was presented.
We could get the folks online to >> turn your camera on or give me a thumbs up or a high five or something [clears throat] so we can Okay, no objections.
there's a consensus to adopt the record.
We [clears throat] now discuss aggravating or mitigating factors.
Reminder that you need to state your name, the record and identify whether your point is aggravating or mitigating.
What's kind of aggravating is that district attorney's ready determination and conclusionary statement.
Scott, I'll kind of piggy back on that.
It was two actually two separate district attorneys as well that from two different counties for the record I'll add for mitigating the time served as inerson testimony and the the letters of recommendation.
Thank you. Wood for the record. In addition for mitigating the polygraph self uh self agreement to take such positive results of that.
I'd also like to mention that uh not only the written testimony the um video of the FBI interview I watched body language and it was extremely relaxed.
um not like anything was being hidden at that point. So I would offer that as mitigating as well.
>> Maybe this more of a a little bit of a concern on the polygraph. I saw the polygraph didn't address the drug use.
So it either wasn't it wasn't included or it wasn't included and wish it was um or it was the results weren't as favorable. I don't know. I can't speculate on that, but I wish that would have been included.
>> [clears throat] >> Are >> there aggravating?
>> Aggravating uh Livingston for the record. aggravating is um even though he mentioned that um you know he makes mistakes, there's multiple um opportunities and then he repeatedly left out information from background to background um at different points in time. So if you forget on one, think that you would remember to do it on the next one.
member of Wood for the record on on aggravating there seems to be a flavor or consistency of either forgetfulness or differing recollections. We have uh testimony that he quit pharma and then one of the records is he was terminated.
Um we have two separate interviews. Uh one was Jot Froth Barry Wilson who who had almost identical statements about um Mr. Anderson's helping package and weigh cocaine for sale. I find it concerning that they would each have that testimony and I don't see a motive for doing such other than telling the truth.
And while it's for the record, I'm going to just kind of jump off of member Livingston's comments. Um, in the OSP background, it seemed like there was a comment made about he left off Parma because he knew that it would have been a negative result. Um, but [clears throat] concerning as well Scott, adding for the record, it's I think it's aggravating leaving off relevant police experience when you're trying to get a full-time police job. Uh seen these type this board or this committee has seen these type of cases before and [clears throat] historically people leave stuff off that they don't want people to see, not things that make them look good. And then uh during the mitigation was saying there was no record of him being in Idaho but in the packet there's clearly a record of his notice of termination from department of police se of conduct that was signed and you know several documents PST was clearly able to get those records more Daniel for the record. um aggravating. Uh I keep coming back to the F5s and F7s and um when asked on in multiple occasions, have you ever uh been discharged for cause from a public safety agency?
It was marked no repeatedly.
uh member Hensman um aggravating when I thought about this um and leaving out the Parma Police Department that would have been the first thing I would have put on as experience for any job.
Uh I know that young people today try to get experience as a cadet, as a CSO, variety of different policing careers and that would have been on the top of my mind to put on any application.
I think for the record, I'll just add that in in a lot of the the areas of omission or fail to declare it's it's surrounding something would have a negative impact. So whether it's employment based moving on in the process that that struck me as aggravating >> Michelle Duncan for the record um under the misconduct I also found uh the inappropriateness of him telling uh this quasi informant uh the status of another person who was also possibly working as an informant.
That's I mean highly inappropriate in that setting.
[clears throat] >> Anyone else aggravating or mitigating?
>> Member Emberwood for the record. A minor aggravating thing that that I struggled with is the cell phone. Uh the 20 plus messages on one day that the reason given was there was a photo they kept trying to send and the answer was they he deleted the photo to stop that instead of just deleted the text which was a [snorts] it's it's minor but it's just one more instance of something just not making sense. Anyone else?
>> Okay. Would you like to review?
>> I missed uh vice >> statement if you could.
>> Yeah. What what I found aggravating is that when there's an omission or something not disclosed, it would result in a negative impact or or stopping the process in which Mr. Anderson was in whether it's disclosure of drug use or past employment.
Uh I have as uh reported as mitigating um that uh his time working uh in the profession, his verbal mitigation and written statements uh the polygraph and the video from uh his FBI interview um were mitigating and then as aggravating uh the Brady determination and conclusion.
There were two uh district attorney's offices and two counties that placed him on the Brady list. Uh the polygraph did not include questions about his uh drug use.
Um he uh mentioned in his uh verbal mitigation statement today uh that he made mistakes um and he had the opportunity to correct uh those mistakes but continued making them.
[clears throat] Uh there were consistent inconsistencies in his statement. Um, and there were two officers that had the same testimony about um his packaging of drugs while he was in college.
Uh, >> can I interrupt you one second? I think those were not those are witnesses, not officers.
>> Okay.
Uh, two witnesses had the same testimony about packaging drugs. um the Oregon in his application with the Oregon State Police, uh he left off um his employment with Parma because uh he knew the result would be negative for him.
Uh to leave off experience in the profession, um what in the profession that he was seeking a job was aggravating.
um DPSST was able to obtain records from his employment in Idaho. So there there is information that exists.
Um it was aggravating that he left off of his applications with DPSST that he was discharged and there was information that he should have included um when applying. um his omissions and information that were not disclosed would have stopped the employment process.
His contact with inform with an informant uh was inappropriate [snorts] and the cell phone um uh text messages where there were 20 plus messages that were sent. His explanation that he deleted a photo um doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chair, >> thank you.
Now we need to open discussion about uh the moral fitness violation categories identified in the staff report. In this case, it's dishonesty and misconduct.
Our options are to affirm, modify, or negate.
And we'll have discussion if we need it or we'll be looking for a motion to affirm in a second. Motion in a second.
>> Well, let's just for the record for to go back to the the summary. I think we missed the letters of recommendation for mitigating.
>> I just want to make sure we have it all.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. I do have the written mitigation and the letters. Okay. Thank you.
So discussion or motion I will make a motion to affirm the dishonesty and misconduct.
>> Daniel, for the record, I'll second.
We're voting on a motion to affirm the moral fitness violations as presented.
Chair Iran.
Hi, >> Duncan.
>> I Heman.
>> Hi, >> Livingston.
>> I locker.
>> I member >> Wood.
>> Hi.
>> And member Williams.
>> Hi.
>> Motion car.
We >> a motion and a second to take action or take no action. Please remember to state your name and report the supporting reasons to take action or no action.
This is just to take action, not the actual period of time if action is taken.
>> Wood for the record. I'll make a motion to take action.
>> For a second for the record, I'll second.
Opening on a motion to take action.
>> Hi, Mr. Cott.
>> Member Daniel.
>> I Duncan.
>> I Heman.
>> Hi.
>> Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Member Lit.
>> Hi. Member Wood and member will question.
>> We need to discuss the inelig in ineligibility period. In this case, it involves dishonesty which is three years to a lifetime and misconduct is three to 10 years. So see the dishonesty would cover up to a lifetime. Make sure you state your name and have discussion about why you're recommending the amount of time you are recommending.
Michelle Duncan, for the record, I would vote for lifetime on the dishonesty and misconduct since it'd be a combined. I think there were multiple offenses uh and he did not um take ownership of of any of it.
Let me stand for the record. I >> voting on a motion to impose an ineligibility period of a lifetime.
Chair Ni, >> I Daniel, >> I Duncan, >> hi >> Hensman.
>> Hi >> Livingston.
>> Hi >> L. I >> would nermber Will car.
Thank you. [clears throat] Mr. >> We're just going in. That's how it looks on agenda.
[clears throat] It was easier.
The instructions confused on that monkey.
>> You give him the instructions. You're like, "But I don't see anything."
>> Thank you for seconding that. Thank you, [laughter] Juan. Can we get a motion and a second? This is wonky.
>> That's the type of person I got.
>> It just >> Well, like I said, we'll just put these in different.
[clears throat] >> Good morning. My name is Scotty Downey.
I'm the chair of the police policy committee. If you could identify yourself and whoever is with you.
>> Uh I am Derek Lazot. I'm a police officer for the Lrand Police Department.
And with me today is Daniel Maguire. He is in support. He's with Tribal Police.
Thank you.
Let's uh review the case first.
>> Okay.
>> Uh Melissa Lingbot, for the record, uh the department opened a professional standards case to review a criminal charge that was self-reported by Derek Lazot. Uh reporting from the incident indicates that Lazot shot a deer and used his stepson's hunting tag. Um, Lozot was convicted of a misdemeanor wildlife uh violation and was sentenced to bench probation, community service, and a hunting license suspension for three years. He was granted an early termination of his probation. Uh, in the department's review of the incident, a moral fitness violation was identified as misconduct. Uh, Lazot violated criminal law and has a misdemeanor conviction for a wildlife uh violation.
Uh Mr. Liz provided written mitigation which was included in the committee's packet and he's here today to provide a statement to the committee. Mr. Chair, >> thank you. So when after I give you the instructions, you'll have five minutes to provide the committee with mitigating information. At the end of that five minutes, we won't be able to ask you any questions and you won't be able to ask us any either. You and I'll stop you right at five minutes as well. We'll have a timer that you can see. So make sure you plan your mitigation accordingly. Uh after you're done, you can either sit at the table or you can build situ sit in the back of the room.
It's it's fine either way.
>> Understand that?
>> Understand?
>> Okay. Whenever you're ready, start the timer.
>> Go ahead.
Uh before coming here, I I read the same mitigation letter that I sent to you guys over and over and try to get under five minutes. And I realized that's not going to happen. Um I took my opportunity to come out in front of you today and just open up. I made a mistake.
I took my son hunting and I was with my daughter as stepdaughter and he it was his first time hunting. It was going to be his first animal if he was going to be able to shoot and he just uh wasn't able to do it. He asked for help and I did it. I knew better and yet I let emotions take over and I made a mistake once I it was reported. It wasn't reported by myself to OSP, but it was reported to their by their biological father. As soon as I found out, I made sure I made my sergeant and admin aware of the situation. I was completely honest with them. I did not try to hide anything from them, and I did my very best to be as open and compliant with them to go through the process.
uh through the lengthy process that I endured. It was uh it was quite eye opening to to see what people that we deal with go through all the time.
I'd like to believe that when the trooper came to my home, I treated him with the utmost respect and was honest and compliant through the facts of the case. I just would like it to be known that I did not in any way try to tell my children to hide the fact that I was the one that shot it. I didn't try to um spin the story or try to get them to tell anybody else that Case and actually shot the deer.
When it comes down to it, this process has been, like I said, very eye opening.
And I can say honestly say I've learned my lesson and I will never be putting myself in a position like this ever again. This process was very grueling and I learned my lesson.
All I ask is that the committee, when you guys do make your decision, I ask that you take a look at what I've provided you, my history with the police department and my community, and uh I ask that you not revoke my license so I can continue to provide a service to my community.
That's all I have. Thank you.
[clears throat] Looking for a consensus to adopt a record as presented.
No objections.
Record is adopted. [clears throat] We'll now discuss aggravating or mitigating factors. Remember to state your name and state whether your uh point is an aggravating or mitigating factor. And I'll start Scotty Ning for the record. I thought the letters of support were uh compelling, especially from who they're from, you know, from the sheriff and the chief of police, folks who uh I I think have good standing in the community and are putting their name out there in support of this person potentially at their own risk. That's compelling to me. and uh mitigating >> Livingston. For the record, the mitigating factor is he was uh forthright um and uh honest throughout the investigation and was cooperative and uh took ownership of his mistakes.
>> St. Well, for the record, I think for mitigating his testimony today was very heartfelt and forthcoming and I think he took ownership of it.
Scotty Downing for the record.
mitigating also obviously released from probation early. Uh you know went through the court system was uh given probation was released early which means was complying with all the conditions of the probation doing everything it's supposed to be doing I'll add for mitigating is the the frequency in which we see fish wildlife offenses in this committee. uh this one stands out where there was ownership and complete honesty about the case uh from you know when it was brought forward through the court process so that by national >> it also adds that to his cooperation through the investigation and just having everything available to the trooper who's doing the investigation Luck. And for the record, um I'm speaking as a former classroom teacher.
Um if I were in that situation, I probably would have made the same mistake helping um one of my students to achieve something that he had never achieved before. So to me that seems like yes it was a mistake but I feel like I would have made the same mistake.
Um [clears throat] mitigating also I felt the need to share um I believed everything that you've said he said and uh I don't think I've ever seen an opportunity to be demoted to a nonsworn position with the potential to be reinstated. I think it says a lot about the individual officer and type of person we would want serving our community.
Any other aggravating or mitigating we have Melissa read?
Oh waiting [laughter] for the record it's we get letters of support quite often, but I think my recollections this is the first time we actually received a letter of support from the acting sheriff, which I think speaks volumes to uh the support that officer Rosetti is uh listening for the record. Um I didn't fear any aggravating circumstances but recorded a number of mitigating ones. Um the letters of support uh were compelling. Um he was forthright and cooperative. He took ownership of his mistake. Um his verbal mitigation was heartfelt. Um he took ownership of his actions. His probation uh period was ended early. Uh the case stands out amongst other wildlife violation cases and they took ownership and cooperated uh with the police officers. He provided everything needed to the officers during the investigation. Um his uh mistake was to help a child and was something that was understandable.
Um his agency's decision to demote him was indicative of his good standing with the agency. Um the acting sheriff's letter of mitigation uh was compelling and showed uh support for him. Mr. Chair, >> thank you.
need to now affirm, modify, or negate the moral fitness violation categories.
And in this case, there's only one misconduct.
We're looking for a motion in a second.
>> Robert for the record. I'm going to make a motion that we do affirm the misconduct because it did occur.
>> Outing for the record. I will second.
>> Voting on a motion to affirm the moral fitness violation as presented. Chair Ning. Hi >> extra cording.
>> Hi >> Daniel.
>> Hi >> Duncan.
>> Hi >> Hansen.
>> Hi >> Livingston.
>> Hi >> Lford.
>> I >> member Wood.
>> Hi.
>> And member Williams.
>> Hi.
>> Motion.
Now we're looking for a motion and a second to take action or take no action.
Remember to state why you're making that motion.
>> That means record.
I said we take no action. The mitigating factors are pretty overwhelming and the support from the community and his um law enforcement community.
>> Scotty Downey, I'll second that and add that the courts punished this individual. He did everything that was required and so I think the punishment has been served. So I would second that.
Voting on a motion to take no honey.
>> Member Daniel.
>> Hi.
>> Member Duncan.
>> Hi.
>> Member Hensman.
>> Hi.
>> Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Member Locker.
>> Hi.
>> Member Wood.
>> Hi. and my should you press on all the way Right.
Okay.
[clears throat] I just switched up your whole deal.
Is this Is this >> There's a little bit still of a delay, but yes, it is.
stand first or just ask. Thank you.
>> My name is Scotty Downey. I'm the chair of the police policy committee. After your uh Oh, if you could just identify yourself and Yeah. Oh, my name is Cory Budworth. Uh this is Aaron Schmoutz and I turn your name. Thank you.
Once we present the case, then I'll talk to you about mitigating a mitigating statement. Great. Uh Melissa Langra for the record, uh chair and committee members. The department opened a professional standards case to review uh Corey Budworth's uh criminal charge for assault in the fourth degree. Criminal charges stem from an incident at a protest on August 18th, 2020 in which uh Budworth while on duty push push a photojournalist to the ground and hit them in the head with his baton.
Budwor's criminal case was dismissed following a restorative justice process which included a public apology to the photojournalist. Uh Budworth's employer, the Portland Police Bureau, reviewed the incident and determined that his use of force was out of policy and issued him a letter of reprimand. Uh the department uh reviewed the information and identified uh moral fitness violations in the case um or uh as misconduct. The uh department identified that his conduct physically and emotionally harmed Okono journalists documenting a protest in Portland. His conduct harmed the city of Portland, resulting in a civil lawsuit payment of $50,000.
Uh his use of force negatively impacted the efficient operation of the Portland Police Bureau by threatening the relationship between the Portland Police Bureau and the community it serves.
uh uh Budworth uh provided written mitigation which is included in the packet for the committee's consideration and he's here today to provide a statement. Uh the department is seeking a disposition in the case from the >> Thank you. So you will have five minutes exactly to provide a mitigating statement. Uh there'll be a timer here that you can see at the conclusion of your mitigating statement. We can ask you any questions and you can ask us any questions and I will stop you right at five minutes. And then once once you're done, you can either sit at the table here or if you want to sit in the back, it's fine with us. Doesn't matter.
>> I don't think it'll be five minutes, but okay.
>> Whenever you're ready.
>> I appreciate it.
>> Committee members, thank you for letting me speak today. Uh this is not something that comes naturally to me. I'm fairly a quiet person and talking to myself in a room like this is pretty difficult. I I wrote this down because I wanted to be thoughtful and respectful for what I say. I'm here today as a police officer, a husband, and a father who made a mistake nearly six years ago.
I'm not here to argue or minimize about it. Uh regardless of the chaos of the mo moment and regardless of my intent, my actions resulted in harm. I take that seriously. I have taken it seriously from the beginning.
That is why participating in the restorative justice process was so valuable. It gave me the opportunity to listen, take responsibility, and apologize to Miss Jacobs. It also gave me a chance to reflect deeply on my role as a police officer and the trust this profession requires.
I accept the written reprimand opposed imposed by the chief. Since then, I've continued serving at city of Portland and working to show through my conduct that I learned from this experience. I currently serve uniform patrol as an acting sergeant and am on the promotion list uh for for our next one. I'm actually the next one up. Uh I mentioned that not to praise myself, but I believe it reflects the trust my department continues to place on me.
I know one event can stay with a person for a long time. This has stayed with me.
It forced reflection, humility, and growth. I've tried to honor the growth through the way I serve, the way I lead, and the way I carry myself as an officer.
I do not take for granted the privilege of wearing the badge and the responsibility that comes with looking for a consensus to adopt the record as presented.
Any objections?
Now discuss aggravating or mitigating factors. Reminder to state your name and if your point is aggravating or mitigating. I'll start Scotty Downing for the record. I thought was very mitigating the numerous amount of letters of support and [clears throat] who they were from. Oftentimes we see letters of support from the officer's parents or someone uh who we'd expect, but this is from district attorney, the chief of police, command staff, from the chief of police, peers. Uh I I felt that to be very compelling and very mitigating in this case.
for record. I'll I'll add today's testimony was mitigating as well.
>> Mark D for the record. I just want to add that uh not only is it from uh the serving district attorney at the time um in regards to the restorative justice, but also the district attorney today um as well as Chief Day. And uh those were significant documents for me.
got it down for the record. The fact that the that he went through this process, restorative justice, he had to make a video or was did make a video, apologize, it was out there for the world to see. I can imagine it's been six years of just this thing that just will not seem to end. And uh it seems that uh you know, mitigating for me is that he served uh ample punishment for that misjudgment.
>> Well, for the record, I think you guys have covered all of my points. I'll just add that he was given leadership opportunities from within the department. He's now a sergeant and on the promotion list to go up. So mitigating also I think one of the letters was from the baseball coach uh who talked about his volunteerism for years um you know volunteering to serve the youth and so I found that mitigating as well. I would for the record. Um the only aggravating thing is there was contact to the head face with a baton.
But however, mitigating against that, watching the video, slowing it down. I truly believe it was not intentional. I think it was accidental. She was getting back up. It looked like um and I believe what we have here is a policy violation. Um I don't think it's a use of force violation. Well, it's abusive force violation as far as their policy goes. Um, but in addition, it was a very tumultuous time. Um, the I think it was Miss Jacobs. Um, she had press pass on, which is interesting because I remember that allowed them to get behind the line, >> but clearly she was involved in what was going on. And so I can understand um Budworth's action that he took.
member Hensman. Um, mitigating for me it and something I'm not used to. Uh, clearly thinking back to time we faced a few years ago, but reading about the tactics that people used during demonstrations and uh just trying to put myself in that position as a reasonable police officer. Um, I just wanted to share that as a mitigating because I I did appreciate the um tactics being explained on paper that other people use during these demonstrations.
>> What else? Aggravating or mitigating >> most I'll throw out there um the memo from the command staff. I don't remember which one it was, but who went into detail about the gram factors and the situation that he had been hit in the head. He'd been exposed to OC spray and it he witnessed what he thought was an unarrest happening. I think while yes, it was a chaotic time and and he in his verbal testimony said that he's not going to rely on that as facts. I think that that should be taken into consideration because all of that comes into play.
>> Just clarify that's mitigating >> mitigating. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Yeah, member Wood to expand upon that.
um in taking the totality of the circumstances. He had someone running at him during that then veered off at the last minute.
Remember mitigating if I recall correctly. I think he was ordered to leave anyway. That's correct.
>> I'll I'll add for the record. as mitigating just the genuiness of the testimony and and how the officer conducted himself throughout the restorative justice process and that it it felt um taken very seriously and I think the community really appreciated that Ready?
>> I'm ready.
>> Okay.
>> Um, as aggravating, I think the only thing I heard was that he did make contact with the photo photojournalist's head. Um, and then as mitigating specifically to mitigate that, um, his uh, contact was not intentional.
um also as mitigating I heard that there were multiple letters of support um and those letters of support were from uh district district attorneys, chiefs and peers uh and they were mitigating to uh the case. His verbal mitigation today was mitigating uh the restorative justice process um was conducted uh publicly and he was punished um publicly for his conduct. Uh he's currently on the promotion list.
uh his baseball coach um uh and community service um for that is mitigating.
Uh at the time uh the event occurred, there was turmoil in the city and his actions were understandable.
Uh the tactics uh that were explained uh uh that the tactics that were being used and his actions that were explained were mitigating Um the memo from uh command staff uh where they believed an unarrest was happening although that is not what was happening uh should be considered as mitigating to the case. Uh um there were people running at uh officer Budworth.
Uh the crowd was ordered to leave and how he conducted himself uh throughout the process was mitigating. Mr. Chair, >> thank you. Looking for a consensus that was has captured or aggravating and mitigating.
Anything else to add missed?
There's consensus. We now need to have discussion about whether or not there is a moral fitness violation options to affirm, modify, or negate. And it's only misconduct.
>> Yeah. For the record, did I just interrupt you? Um, >> it was right. [laughter] I would propose that we strike the misconduct. As I said earlier, I believe this is a policy violation and an intentional policy violation. So, I don't believe there's a moral fitness violation >> conversation about that or a second.
>> Michelle Duncan, for the record, I'd second that. I I think with the totality of everything going on, I don't know that this was a use of force violation.
>> Have a motion in a second.
>> Negate >> on a motion to negate the moral fitness violation as presented. Uh Chi, >> I vice chi.
>> Hi.
>> Daniel, >> hi.
>> Duncan, >> hi.
>> Hens.
>> Hi.
>> Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Locker. Hi >> Wood I and me numbers.
>> Thank you.
Yeah, 10 minute break.
We're going to take a 10 minute break.
Yes.
Let me go ahead and hit record.
We're good. Okay, it's 11:07. We're back on the record. The next item on the agenda is if we're going by this criminal justice be invitation. Chris Inquis, take it away. Uh I am not Chris Inguist. Uh in hisstead, uh I'm Joe Stab. I'm a skills training manager here at DPSST. Um and I'm filling in for Chris who was over at the OSA conference in uh central Oregon today. Uh so back in I'm sure you guys all knew this from your notes. Uh but back in December of 2025, uh we addressed the board uh to look at the possibility of implementing a fee structure for some of the the regional training that we do and some of the use of this facility uh by constituent agencies. Um the board asked that we uh do a little bit more research, conduct a study um just a survey of agencies to find out how they would react to this uh and then to run it by each of the individual policy committees um and see if we could get endorsement to take it back to the board. Um so just to be clear uh today's uh endorsement or non-endorsement u is not uh saying yes or no to the fee implementation. It's giving us the option to go back to the board uh with the the fee structure and things that we've come up with here. So um the the idea of the fee structure um really is coming from the costs primarily in regional trainings uh when people don't show up to the courses. Uh so when we have uh you know we have 20 seats, 30 seats, whatever it is for a firearms IDC or use force update, whatever it is that we're running regionally, um we we have you know people assigned to those seats, we send a correct number of instructors to get our our you know student to instructor ratios correct on the range, all that type of stuff. Uh and then if we have people back out of that at the last minute, uh those instructors already there. It's still you know we're still paying the money to have instructors uh training originally uh when we could have done it with fewer instructors. Uh the original idea was to start charging a nominal fee uh to to agencies when they sign their their officers or deputies up uh to come to the trainings. [snorts] Um after conducting our study, the idea of a feebased process for attending the courses was not very well received. Uh better received by agencies was the idea of a no-show fee. Right? So, if you sign up your your student to come to this training um and at the last minute and 72-hour window was our our kind of last minute uh and at the if at the last minute you had to pull your student out, there was going to be a fee uh paid for having withdrawn from the the course last minute. So, um that's what the the um registration fee has been turned into as a no-show fee. Uh on the local side here at DPSST um currently the the facilities use contracts that we use uh allow us to recuperate costs if a specific damage is occur right if somebody's using the village for some kind of you know building clearing training and they break a window uh we can charge that agency to replace that window. So specifically things like that can be charged but just general maintenance wear and tear on things like the track and the building the firehog towers and those types of things. There's no mechanism to to uh recoup any of the money from just the wear and tear of use. Uh so uh the the facilities use fee structure uh that's the idea behind that one. Uh is that uh obviously facilities wear out faster the more you use them.
Uh the more often we have outside agencies coming here to use the things like the track and the the other training venues that we have. uh the house building. Um so uh we came up with a a structure a fee structure. Um depending on which facility you're using or which training venue on campus you're using um there would be a daily use fee basically. Um to I think you guys have the copy of the study that has the the fee structures and things in there. Is that accurate? Okay.
Um so uh and just to summarize the kind of the feedback from the survey itself uh we talked about the the idea of the uh the uh sign up fee for regional trainings that wasn't super well received. Uh they did prefer the option of uh a no-show fee. Uh we also have built in a the option for a waiver to the fees if you're if it's going to be a significant financial hardship uh to your agency to send somebody with the the uh or to come use this facility with with the fee structure that we built. Uh there would be a waiver process where you could apply to use it without having to pay that fee.
Yep. So, uh, if you guys were to, uh, endorse this idea, we would take it back to the board in their July meeting and, uh, present this to them and see how they feel about it. There would be obviously legislative process have to take place postboard approval. Uh, so this actual implementation of these this fee structure would take place for probably a year plus to get the process.
Um if this committee chose not to endorse um that would basically just be telling us and telling the board that this is not something we think uh is good for constituent agencies out there uh and we start looking at other other options for ways to fund you know ongoing maintenance on campusing for the record of my reading right the on the survey is roughly 50% of the comments were against the fees is that all the fees or just uh yes like that.
Yeah. So roughly 50% uh were concerned that that the fee might be an issue for them from a financial standoint, right?
They would create a hardship for them um uh and that they would probably use that that waiver route if it were an option.
Scott for I guess my concern is there's lots of uh organizations and places you could send folks to pay for training.
Many agencies use DPSST because it's where you can send them and not necessarily pay for training. So I think uh getting in the business of pay for training, you're going to put yourself in a whole new level of comp competition. Although this seems very starting out very inexpensive, but there are lots of training courses out there and all all sorts of places that charge to go to. So you be misguided.
>> Can I jump in? Marie, I would for the record. Are you talking about the fee for onampus usage or regional fee?
>> So, this is only if you Well, I guess it's both. So, the Ebok track like $200 a day.
>> Yeah, >> I'm saying. So there's there's other places that also teach or >> right >> and you can correct me if I'm wrong Joe but my understanding of the fee the proposed fee implementation would be if it is not DPSST putting on the training but an external agency wanting just needing to use the facility for their own non DPSSST purpose. So DPSST's trainings are still free >> to to those who need them if they're sponsored.
>> And that's and that's my point. I think a lot of agencies at least local agencies come here or >> okay >> and use this facility rather than sending their folks somewhere else to and pay for training. Yes, if you just to lose that Rob would for the record as a non-sworn trainer who happens to work for the regional team, I can tell you how frustrating it is when we set up a class and we have to limit it not only because of the range itself or the classroom but because of safety instructor student ratios and there's a waiting list which I don't think Joe you mentioned there's always a waiting list sometimes it's four and five people And this just happened in Bend. I was tasked with call and the person didn't show and he said, "Oh, I thought someone was going to call you. I can't make it."
At that point, the class is starting.
It's impossible to call someone from the coast to come over to Bend. So, I personally believe the late fees not aggressive enough. And we didn't we talk about a deposit that would be refundable so that way they would make sure the agency would pay for it. They're no vehicle for doing that. So, that was an idea that was floated at one point um that didn't come out in the final version uh or the original version that was that was presented to the board. Um something along those lines could certainly be looked at at some points.
Uh but the the the place that we landed was was not charging any fees up front.
Um no deposits, no anything. You would only have to pay a fee if you withdrew at the last minute.
>> And sorry, that makes sense to me.
Paying if you don't show up because it $100 a month. That's that's that's and and I know this has gone through lots of discussion but I think we need to encourage people to either show or give the product notice that they can't >> what happens if they don't pay >> that's that's a w state police >> Maria I would for the record I know at least in the discussions I was a part of um part of the a conversation involving paying in advance and then getting kind of refunded upon completion um or what do we do if someone doesn't pay for no show. Some of these concerns are a little bit due to like a lack of a logistical mechanism for DPSS to start collecting. We're not a collection agency, you know, so we'd have to really um take a lot of steps to obtain either software or some sort of fee collection system to to do things any other way besides, you know, show. this is the the simplest way to incentivize um arrival when you say you're going to be there or a modest penalty if you're not >> then you're probably going have to hire someone to manage this uh fee collection >> right [laughter] >> system and right >> uh member Hensman just a comment um I I don't really see an issue with um utilization fee for the facility a peep's expense of uh wear and tear and and sometimes police officers and I assume everybody else that's here. Um, you know, they I'm not gonna say they treat the place rough, but you know, we put it to work, I would imagine. Um, so I don't necessarily have any issue with a fee in that sense. I I know in my own city I'm charged a square footage fee, so I'm kind of used to it, I guess.
>> Michelle Duncan, for the record, I also do not have an issue with the utilization fee. Um, and uh, I think that especially like I know the track is extremely difficult to book and you have some agencies that use it a lot more than others and they're so they're more responsible for those that wear and tear. So that fee would kind of like equally disperse that um, to the agencies using it.
Running for the record, I I think I appreciate the the look at this and the survey and trying to land at what would be supported by the law enforcement community. And I I think it's fair. I think that problem you're describing is something many agencies face internally and and we usually try to curve it with, you know, low-level corrective action and go from there. But it is really disruptive and when that is your your day job and your business like it it's taking away from other people.
So really we're impacting the the agencies they work for but then the agencies are going to turn around and manage their officers a bit better. So I support that that we need a motion to move this to the board. Yes. motion >> uh action that Maria I would for the record action item on the memo uh is to review and recommend that the agency proceed with the fee approval process to the board. So basically presenting uh similar information to the board for consideration. So motion and vote on that >> mark for the record I make that motion >> to move the proposal from DPSST to the full board.
Member Hensman second.
>> We're voting on a motion to approve the criminal justice v implementation for facilities in regional as presented. Uh chair ni >> hi.
>> Hi.
>> Member Daniel.
>> Hi.
>> Duncan.
>> Hi.
>> He hens.
>> Hi.
>> Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Locker.
>> Hi.
>> Member Wood.
>> Hi.
>> And member Wood.
>> All right. Motion car.
>> Cute. [clears throat] Moving on to proposed rule changes with O 259 00800 85.
>> Thank you. Jennifer Howell for the record. Uh for this agenda item uh DPSSS requests that it be tabled for a later meeting. It needs the accompanying uh curriculum proposal for the subject hour breakdown uh to precede the rule change.
So that did not make it in time to your packets or >> I can grant that. I'll grant it.
>> Do I have the authority to do that or grant it?
>> It just records that it was on the agenda move to a later meeting.
>> Move on to 0300 310.
Thank you, chair and members of the committee. Jennifer Howell. For the record, this agenda item presents additional recommended changes for administrative rules 259, 0008, 0300, and 0310.
Both of these rules were included in the comprehensive set of proposed rules uh related to moral fitness standards and the processes that we use for denying and revoking certifications. when that major packet was presented to you in February.
Since then, staff have identified two additional areas where the language within the rules could be clearer. And today, I'd like to walk you through those two issues and the proposed amendments uh that will help align the rules more closely with their original int or well, I'll just keep going. Uh the first issue involves how we handle student conduct at the academy. Right now, uh, the rule gives DPSSST fairly broad authority, uh, to open a professional standards case based on any violation of the student conduct standards, even if the student wasn't dismissed from the academy as a result.
Uh, that is a bit broader than what was originally intended. It also creates confusion on who's making the determination that a violation occurred.
Uh, the proposed change that's in your memo is straightforward. We're limiting these discretionary cases to situations where a student is actually dismissed uh under administrative rule 2590120035 uh for a conduct violation. This accomplishes two things. It places the responsibility for determining whether the student conduct was a violation with the training division and not with compliance staff.
uh it narrows the grounds for opening the professional standards case to situations where the dismissal occurred.
So if the dismissal is appealed by the student and overturned by the director, then it's no longer a dismissal, therefore no longer grounds or a professional standards case. And that was one of the gray areas that we wanted to clean up.
Um, if the dismissal does occur, it is a violation, then it moves over to the compliance staff for a determination on whether or not there was a moral fitness violation.
Uh, this brings the rule back in line with the original purpose and removes ambiguity for both staff and for students.
Uh, the second issue relates to employment arbitration.
Under the current rule, our handling of professional standards cases is tied fairly closely to what the arbitrator finds. But as we worked through cases, it became clear that there is an unintentional limitation to the independent authority of the department, the committees, and the board to determine moral fitness. So the proposed rule changes remove the prescriptive outcomes that are currently found in the administrative rule. And instead, they'll clarify that the arbitration findings may be considered, but are not the determination.
So, in other words, employment decisions such as a reinstatement or an arbitrator's view of the underlying facts do not control the moral fitness determinations.
And here are some key points. DPSST will be able to stay a case while the arbitration is happening. That's our current practice and we would continue that forward and the administrative rule would maintain that authority.
Once the arbitration is complete, we would continue reviewing the case under the usual processes that are found in administrative rule.
And if an arbitrator orders reinstatement, we would continue to treat the matter as a discretionary professional standards case. And in following uh that process review that's found in rule, uh it would come to the committee as appropriate. That could be through an administrative closure or through a discretionary case where you make findings.
CPSST recommends approval of these two rule changes and the memo that you have includes a fiscal impact statement. That fiscal impact statement identifies that we did not find a fiscal impact as a result of legal changes. So, we often recognize that anytime someone is um denied or revoked, it impacts the individual and it impacts their employing agency, but those are pre-existing conditions. So, we didn't find anything that was new or unique about uh the rule changes.
Process-wise, if the policy committee votes to approve the proposed rule changes, we're going to submit the proposed rule changes to the Secretary of State for the public comment period. And then uh we already plan to come back to the committee in August with the revisions that we're making to that larger package of moral fitness rule changes. So what we'll do then is after the public comment period, we will merge these changes with that large package of changes and you're going to see that uh package in totality again in August for final review and approval before submitting to the board.
I would be happy to answer any questions, but otherwise you have um action items on page five. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you.
>> So, it says a consensus or a vote or a consensus and a vote.
>> Consensus on the fiscal statement and then a motion and vote on the approval of the proposed rule changes.
probably since there's no fiscal impact starting down for the record, I think we could probably look for a consensus to approve that as prepared.
So, we have a consensus to item one.
Does anyone have any comment or do they want to make a motion in a second to approve the changes as presented?
body down. For the record, it made sense to me. I would make a motion to approve it. Sam will second.
>> Motion to approve the proposed rule changes for Oregon and cons rules 2590080300 and 0080310.
>> I Daniel.
>> Hi Duncan.
>> Hi.
>> Hman.
>> Hi.
>> Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Locker.
>> Hi.
>> Member Wood.
and numbers.
>> Okay, moving on still [clears throat] with Jennifer to a whole bunch of uh changes starting at 20 259 08 Z5 all the way through 000400.
>> Thank you. Uh chair, members of the committee, Jennifer Howell for the record. This agenda item facilitates review of the comments that were collected for the proposed rule changes relating to the moral fitness standards and denial revocation processes for criminal justice public safety professionals.
Uh for the record, the proposed changes were for administrative rules 259 division 8, the numbers ending in uh 005, 290, 300, 310, 320, 330, 340, and 400. So DPSSST presented the proposed rule changes to the policy committees during the February 2026 meetings. Each policy committee provided feedback that DPSST collected as part of the comment process.
Following the policy committee meetings, DPSST held public comment period uh from February 26 through March 31st, 2026 and DPSST received one written comment.
Your memo is arranged in two parts with supporting attachments for reference if needed. Uh the attachments provide the written comments and a copy of the proposed rule changes as they were presented in February. Part one of the memo is summarizing the comments from all three committees uh from February and no action is requested today on part one. We are already in the process of incorporating the committee feedback into revisions to the proposed rule changes.
uh those as mentioned before those revised drafts will return to the policy committee in August for review before they go to the board for final approval.
So we're looking today at part two of the memo which covers the single written public comment that was received. Staff summarized the comments and provided an interpretation and an analysis in sections A through F.
The action item is outlined on page four of the memo just before the summary and the analysis of the comments. The committee can either adopt uh DPSSST's recommendations regarding the written comments and that would mean no additional changes beyond what's already provided in part one or if you feel that any part of the written comment uh should lead to a rule revision, you can make a motion to include those specific sections uh uh for consideration when we bring the August uh draft back to you.
Uh chair, thank you. Return it to you for discussion and happy to take any questions.
catch up. Sorry. [clears throat] >> And so you are looking for a motion from us on this one.
>> Yes. uh DPSSS is seeking feedback on whether or not you want to accept DPSSST analysis as as provided in the memo or whether or not there was something in the written comment that you would like to have explored further.
member will for the record. Um, looking at number C, the emergency suspension, the DVSS recommends conditional or considering additional review. Can you kind of walk me through is that more review from us? Is that more review in total? I mean, [clears throat] >> certainly. Um so when we presented the emergency suspension uh there there was feedback from the committees and so we already have feedback from the committees that we're looking to incorporate. Um, so let's see. The comment said I think that the comment was primarily about it gave permission to do emergency suspension but not did not require it in certain situations.
And uh the the initial proposed rule was written that way because we were looking at a broader scope of of conduct that could uh result in that emergency suspension based on some of the committee discussion. We would be looking at a narrower focus on what would uh trigger an emergency suspension event. And with that uh adjustment then it may become something that is a automatic outcome. if this then that if it has that narrower focus. So, uh it's kind of still in development and we would be bringing it back.
>> Okay.
>> Uh based on the committee feedback >> and member will again so for when it says consider additional review if we take action on this. I'm assuming you'll bring it back with said additional review.
>> Yes.
>> All of the changes are coming back in August for another for another look.
>> Okay. Thank you.
I interject.
>> Absolutely.
>> Marie Atwood, for the record, the for the emergency suspension section, it's also important to note that the comment we received was essentially suggesting we consider broadening again the scope of what someone could be emergency suspended for and how soon they could be suspended. So, um, for example, the the rule proposal, I believe in our initial draft was if someone is indicted for a specific list of very um significant crimes. However, the comment um suggestion would be um uh enforceable at the time of arrest, right? Which is a bit of a a lower bar for proof requirement. So, um that would be among the uh items for possible consideration if the committee would like us to engage in further discussion and review of the comment suggestion, >> but we wouldn't do that today. That would be something.
>> So, we come back to us again.
>> We'll come back to you no matter what.
Yeah.
>> But if you have feedback and direction on what we should be including in what we bring back to you in August, then that would be helpful at this time.
>> Member Wilson, I think the way that DPSST has it established now is appropriate. I don't think that the comment through suggestion to to broaden it is necessarily appropriate for the record. I think it may be solving a problem that is doesn't exist because someone gets indicted for a very serious crime. I can't imagine any police agency keeping them working.
>> Sure.
um just I just think that would be of course I guess the head of the agency keeps himself working but [clears throat] and I guess from the comment as as our understanding that's the problem they're trying to solve is if there's this major crime this person has committed and they still have their certification even though it's a practical matter they're not utilizing it.
>> Correct. It's the it's even though a person may have been put on a leave of absence when you look at the DPSST records they show as employed and certified and um this would be allowing so as proposed and it would be in your attachment B DPSST presented to you.
It is page 17. Um that after being notified of a charge, DPSS would submit any supporting documentation to the board's executive committee for review, determine whether there is a serious danger to the public uh to allow the person to retain their certification while everything is in process. So the emergency suspension immediately suspends the certification before we can go through the denial revocation process.
That's how pardon me >> uh that is that is how we proposed the change. So the current we don't currently uh exercise emergency suspension unless it's being presented to the committee uh for for that. Uh so this is so there there are two parts. We're maintaining what we already do. So if if we if we came to you with a discretionary case today and you said this person cannot walk out the door and continue to have their certification, we recommend an emergency suspension to go into effect now while you're finishing out the denial revocation process.
That's that's what's in administrative rule right now. And then what we presented in February was an expansion of that. So when we're notified of a charge. So, uh, when we have, uh, the unfortunate incident of an individual who has been, uh, charged with severe crimes, uh, being able to take action on that immediately, even before we have put the case together to bring, uh, bring to you. So, we'd be bringing it forward to the executive committee for that authorization.
>> Got it for the right. That's a temporary suspension.
>> Emergency suspension is is temporary.
It's effective immediately. It doesn't require any u prior notice. It just goes into effect immediately once it's been approved by a body.
Um and then it remains in effect until either withdrawn or until the um final order revoking the certification is complete.
>> So if additional information came up that show this person maybe did not >> do that, they could >> Yes. each other.
>> So recent example, there was potential for community harm because the individual was not in custody. So in an incarceration example, >> we could still just do it regardless even though they're >> they're incarcerated charges, right? We would still do this.
>> It it gives the authority too, right?
Right now it's a May issue. Uh and so what we'll be determining what to bring forward in August is whether or not that narrows if we're narrowing the scope because it's right now it is um charged with any crime uh that would be a felony uh under our mandatory standards. And that's fairly broad. And the committee feedback that we had was that perhaps to uh reduce the discretion from one case to another, different outcomes being subjective, that perhaps we could look at narrowing that not to just any felony crime, but maybe major person crimes or the measure 11 crimes.
And then if you're looking at that narrow focus then uh then what may be considered is whether or not does it need to come to uh a committee for approval or if it's that narrowly focused is it just something that DPSS does. So those are the different changes and nuances that we would discuss in August with sample language for you all to be able to review and and choose from.
I mean for the record with that kind of further description I definitely agreeing with member Willlet about the comment section like not I wouldn't want to go broader to like just being arrested to keep it more stringent.
Michelle Duncan, for the record, I think just with the case we even just heard um where he was indicted, I mean, if if the DA said his baton was potentially a deadly and dangerous weapon, um like even an [clears throat] indictment or an arrest without all of the whole story, I think it's it could be a a potentially dangerous road for us to go down. Um, so I would say if we use it, we're going to have to be really cautious in how we use it that in that way and member [clears throat] again just to kind of get off of that comment just to clarify the process. If some if somebody gets indicted and it comes to DPSSST for review, DPSSST wouldn't automatically issue the suspension. It would come before a committee.
>> Yes.
>> So, okay.
>> Yes. Right now, it comes before um a committee and then in the proposal that was uh presented in February, it would be submitted to the uh executive committee of the board, which is available for those sure >> emergent things that come up between board and committee meetings.
Thank you.
>> Still a may >> still a may may issue an emergency suspension.
>> So discretionary issue is falling upon DPSST side if there's a community threat or an element of this case that should come to a committee.
Um, Jennifer, for the record, in in part, yes. But the um in the proposed rule change where it's currently stating that it would be anytime someone's charged with a felony.
Um that would probably be the time that we would that would probably indicate to staff to bring it forward to determine whether or not to have the executive committee determine whether or not there is a um a threat or harm to public safety.
And then if if based on the previous comments from the committee that would were more narrowly focused that would also make it an easier process to bring bringing it forward to the executive committee for review.
>> Yeah would for the record jumping off of what Jennifer just stated. Our goal in the proposed rule as we've drafted it currently is um not to kind of place or give any uh undue discretion to DPSST to be that decision maker. But if there's a really narrow set of cases where arguably there should be a decision made about whether to emergency suspend or not, it gives us a clearer pathway and a and a lot better picture of which cases should go to a committee for that decision. So, we wouldn't be the people exercising discretion over who does and does not warrant an emergency suspension, but if it falls into that narrow bucket of cases, that those are the ones we take to committee to decide does this warrant an emergency suspense or not.
>> And Scott, for the record, the executive committee is comprised of >> Jennifer for the record, each chair of all of the committees. So, the police policy committee, corrections policy committee, telecommunications policy committee, fire policy committee, private security policy committee, and the chair of the board on the record. I I would maybe propose that we we look for language that would narrow if it's if it's at any felony crime. I it's a bit broad. We've seen cases here where an individual's charged with felony crime and there's really no belief there's ongoing community threat.
Like it was a one-off situation with a known person. We don't think it's going to carry on versus victims.
The person's out in the community. We believe there's likely to be more victims. Like if we can articulate there is an ongoing community threat, I believe that is the the the cases we would like to see. But there's plenty of cases that come through here that are at felony level where I don't I don't think we would want to be making that determination without the full record.
We learned that picking up a rock in the national park is a felony. And so um we did learn that mandatory rest and so I that's where I think to your point we have to be well and I like there's just there is discretion obviously still supposed to be doing make a motion to do something based on your conversation about what the comments uh suggested you would you would recommend no changes re related to the comments and then uh as discussed uh when we're coming back in August and we're incorporating the policy committee feedback from February and the discussion today uh we'll be presenting some revisions to the proposed emergency suspension process uh that also incorporate a narrower um triggering events >> circumstances.
So, if you didn't have any other um questions or you're welcome to have more questions and discussions about other parts of the public comments, but if you if you don't, then it would just be motion to um take it as written from DPSSD staff regarding the comments.
>> For the record, I think DPSS adequately u answered the public comments. Um, and I would make a motion to this forward.
>> And you'll second a motion to approve the review of the public comments for the proposed rule changes for OAR 259, 008 with serial serial ending 0005, 0290, 0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, and 0400. Chair now, Vice Chair, member Daniels. Hi >> Duncan.
>> Hi >> Hensmith.
>> Hi >> Livingston.
>> Hi >> Lock.
>> Hi >> Woodson.
Motion >> here.
>> Thank you.
>> Next item is applicant review committee nominations.
>> I'll take that one. Maria Atwood for the record. Um so we have uh obviously PPC gets two spots of representation on the applicant review committee. One of our current members, uh, Rob Wood, is facing the end of his first term on the applicant review committee. So, today, assuming that Rob still wants to be on the applicant review committee, [laughter] would be the day for us to renominate him to continue in that position.
>> There's no other open positions.
>> No, not right now.
>> Does anyone else want it? [laughter] >> We've all heard you do a great job.
Word on the street. [laughter] I'll make a motion that we nominate Rob.
I would enthusiastically second that.
>> Voting on a motion to renominate Rob Wood to the applicant review committee.
Cherni.
>> Hi.
>> Vice Chair Cotti.
>> Hi.
>> Member Daniel.
>> Hi.
>> Duncan.
>> Hi.
>> Member >> Henson.
>> Hi.
>> Member Livingston.
>> Hi.
>> Member Locker.
>> Hi.
>> Member Wood.
[laughter] >> And member will. Motion carries. Mr. [laughter] and moving on to agency updates.
>> Okay, we'll also take some of those on reward for the record. Um I guess to jump off on a similar note, we also have a few members of this committee whose first term is going to be expiring. All of whom I believe intend to continue serving on their second term. We don't need to do anything on that today, but I do just want to thank members, Daniel, and Lafrren for your first successful term on the PPC. and we hope to see all of you again for your second term. Um updates from the agency. There's a lot going on right now. Uh one thing of note is the significant amount of progress we've made since the last time this committee met um in our procurement of a learning management system for the training division. Um so we had hired a program manager to begin that process and she has done a mountain of work and moved at light speed. Um, as I'm sure many of you know, the process of procuring something at the state level is um, glacial to say the least. Uh, and she's done a really great job of trying to get us um, some momentum built so that we're not uh, waiting, you know, years down the line to get this learning management system up and running. So the update that I have on that is that we have uh officially gotten our stage gate one endorsement and moving into stage gate two which is project management terminology for we're past the initiation and information gathering phase into the resource identification phase. So figuring out um what or uh what what collection I suppose of companies or vendors we're going to be uh potentially sourcing our learning management system from. um if and when we get that figured out then we'll we'll proceed with the actual procurement of the system itself. Simultaneously we are also pursuing a legislative concept for 2027 that involves adding a few staff to um DPSST's roster for the purpose of uh kind of getting the program up and running and staffing its continued maintenance uh and and making learning management system a really um groundbreaking part of how we deliver training. It should uh hopefully give accessibility to a lot of regional constituents who just can't come to DPSSST all the time for things like maintenance. Um and it should make everything from enrollment through certification a lot more streamlined and simplified for all of our um new officers and public safety professionals who are here at the academy. Um other agency updates, we have a whole lot of campus projects going on right now which I'm sure you've seen some of. Our uh B building has a large scale roof uh renovation happening right now. We just got our memorial lights replaced. Um they look great. Uh the F building of course is going through a major renovation because um it's been described to me that if the wind blew too hard that whole building would fall down. So really grateful that those are up and running. Our facilities and operations team has done an enormous amount of work to make sure that our um deferred maintenance budget and our um kind of repairs budget is uh correctly ordered in terms of priority for um what's kind of at the code red level for this uh 20 plus year old agency that hasn't had a ton of renovations since the day it was built. Um some things are definitely more pressing than others and they're doing a great job to keep those balls rolling. Um we are also at the end of June and a couple first days of July doing a parking lot repaving project. So luckily we're we're planning to have it um complete during the time that we're in down week period. So there shouldn't be a ton of students or people who need parking around. It's also part of holiday week. So that should be um helpful in facilitating that. Uh, and on the note of our memorial lights being replaced, we did have a very nice ceremony for the fallen officer memorial a couple of weeks ago and on June 16th, we're doing our fallen firefighter memorial. Um, so if you're interested in attending that, we would highly encourage it. Um, other updates, legislative concepts. In addition to our um learning management system staffing proposal, we're also pushing forward a few legislative concepts that are relevant to this group um and to our other committees on our board. One of which is we are uh asking the legislature to uh have us adopt a new category of board membership for tribal membership um so that we can have adequate representation on in these conversations because the work we do here is is pretty important and the discussion that our committees and boards engage in. um is really critical to anyone in the industry. The other um significant legislative concept that's moving forward that's relevant to this group especially is because uh we are once again pushing to have deferred cases available for us to exercise jurisdiction on for moral fitness violations. So when I say deferred cases, I mean those cases where a moral fitness violation may have occurred, but the person is no longer employed with their agency. We at this time do not have jurisdiction do to do anything about those a lot of the time. Um and they have been piling up in a a fairly large backlog and sitting in limbo until somebody new wants to hire this person.
It creates a really difficult situation for us because we just can't process anything. um we're we're kind of stuck um in the mud and it also creates significant hurdles for the public safety professional who's in limbo because um they may not get hired because they would have to declare that there is a pending or deferred moral fitness case against them uh and they they can't gain any traction in further employment. So that proposal would allow our policy committees and our board to have discretion and jurisdiction uh in deciding those moral fitness cases either in an effort to um engage in denial or revocation of that person's lensure or to take no action and let them move freely forward with their career in public safety. Um another big update for the agency is our efforts toward accreditation. So we are pursuing accreditation through iatalyst. Uh it's going to be a really good sort of um national scale stamp of approval on the uh excellent work that our training um division does here at the academy. We're actually pursuing two uh different rounds of accreditation. The first is going to be really particular to the training division and then the second level of accreditation will move into our post. So um our professional standards division. Um we are doing an enormous amount of internal auditing of all of our practices uh in uh the training division to ensure that everything we're doing is meeting national standards uh that we're adhering to evidence-based practices.
And after we're done with our internal audit and submit, you know, our request for accreditation, um we then are subject to an on-site audit by um iatalyst to uh facilitate our approval.
So, we will keep uh all of our committees and our board posted with any updates uh in those processes. Um let's see here. We Oh, one update for this group in particular. I'm sure many of you know because we were frantically emailing about um availability, but we are going to have a special meeting of the PPC to hear a case that we were not able to have um on the record today.
That meeting is scheduled for June 23rd.
So, if that's not already on your calendars, um please note it for uh your awareness so that we can ensure we still have quorum um to get that case heard in a timely fashion.
>> 10 a.m. as well.
>> 10 a.m.
>> 10 a.m. Yes. Is that correct? Juan, >> so um we we usually try to keep them at the same time and on the same day of the week if we can. Okay. Now, moving into um our very last uh action item of the day. I have a couple of certificates here. Um so we always like to thank the members of our committees um for their service to the committee. Uh and we have a couple of people to issue thanks to today. First um and unfortunately not here today um but Chief Day often uh is occupied right and has a designate that appears for him uh at these committee meetings and that would be uh Chris Jovik. So he is retired or retiring in the very near future. um however has served uh pretty diligently with this committee and routinely appears to hear our cases on behalf of Chief Day. So um we will make sure to send the certificate of our appreciation and a letter to him just uh illustrating how much we appreciate his willingness not only to step up to the committee but on another person's behalf and we know that it's a lot of work. We send you guys with a lot of materials. So um we certainly appreciate it. And uh someone who is here today, who has served for four years on this committee and who I'm very sad to see um not be able to be on PPC anymore is Rob Wood. So Rob has been a very diligent PPC member. Uh luckily now I got you for one more year on ARC.
So you're not going anywhere that soon, but also just helps DPSST out in a variety of capacities as a trainer. Um, and as I'm sure you all know, it's just a really, uh, excellent and highly valued member of the public safety community. Rob, thank you [clears throat] so much for everything you've done for this committee, uh, and for your continued service on ARC.
>> I just add, Rob, I've appreciated as a public member, you have, you're always prepared. You read the material, you watch the videos, you know the cases inside and out. I know it takes a lot of your volunteer time to do that. And um I have really appreciated it. When people are not talking, I always look to you to say something.
>> Well, I just know you I know you you have thoughts and I appreciate that.
That's why we're here. And so as the chair, you have uh filled in awkward silences a lot. This committee is much better now. I think about uh talking because I started calling on people, but I' I've really appreciated you being on the board. Sad to see you go.
>> Thank you for that. You know, four years ago, I didn't know exactly what I was getting into and get these volumes of things and uh that's a heavy responsibility. Not only protecting the public from bad players, but protecting someone's career like Budworth today. Um it's difficult and I'm honored to be to set with all of you that you hold your people to such high standards. I think that's great. It's really good. So, thank you.
>> Thank you, Robbie. Um, and I guess on that note, I would also just like to thank everybody for your participation today, for waiting through these heavy volumes of books and uh, for always giving us um, the the best of your discussion and deliberation. These are not easy cases and every single one of them, as we saw today, is very unique.
The work you do is really, really important. So, thank you all.
>> Right. Next policy committee, August 20th, 10 a.m. Well, actually, not >> June 20th. [laughter] It's on a seat. Sorry.
I will be on that one apparently. June 23rd.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
