Skip to main content
The City Attorney’s Office released an additional 400 pages of messages last week from a group chat among the six members of the Portland City Council’s progressive caucus, which playfully calls itself “Peacock” for short.
The release of the records was awkwardly timed, as city officials and the public were caught up in the impending deployment of Oregon National Guard members by President Trump to tamp down on what he falsely described as a “war-ravaged city.”
It also came as a surprise.
WW previously obtained 311 pages of messages from the chat in late July, and later reported on the contents in August. At the time, there was no indication the city had failed to capture all the texts in the thread. But in an explanatory memo, the City Attorney’s Office said it realized its initial search methods had been porous, then located an additional 400 pages of messages. About 100 of those pages contain dialogue that took place after WW’s initial records request.
The first batch of records provided an unusually clear window into the thinking of the six Peacock councilors: Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, Tiffany Koyama Lane, and Angelita Morillo. Their progressive bloc has voted in lockstep on matters of contention before the council.
Most of the correspondence took place during a series of marathon budget sessions held in public in May and June in which the council debated and voted on close to 100 budget amendments. While the public could hear deliberations going on among the entire council, the public was not privy to a more clandestine conversation happening among the six Peacock councilors. Because of that chat, Peacock was able to coordinate and secure close votes on the budget—including one that rerouted $2 million in new funding earmarked for the Police Bureau over to Portland Parks & Recreation.
The budget sessions revealed a deep policy divide between Peacock councilors and their more centrist counterparts, but also revealed hard feelings between individual councilors. (On multiple occasions, Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney instructed her colleagues not to impugn each other’s motives.)
Peacock councilors stood by the group chat in August, saying it represented how a new era of leadership and collaboration on the expanded council could secure major policy wins for constituents. They also said that because the chat was by law a public record, it was transparent.
Some saw it differently: Councilor Steve Novick called one portion of the chat a “stupid conversation for them to have,” and added, “I think my colleagues and I have a responsibility to avoid even the appearance of a potential violation of [public meetings] law.”
The City Attorney’s Office and the Oregon Government Ethics Commission received more than a dozen complaints alleging the chat broke city rules if not state law. Pointing out that the legal time frame for filing complaints had passed, the city attorney and the OGEC tossed them all out.
“Of course we collaborated, just like any responsible governing body should,” Avalos said of the chat in early August. “I am not ashamed of the hard work we had to do to deliver real wins for our communities.”
The day WW reached out to Peacock councilors about the chat in early August, the latest records show, they coordinated a Microsoft Teams call to discuss how to respond. After WW’s first story appeared Aug. 6, the messages became sparser—and tamer. Two councilors—Koyama Lane and Green—left the group thread altogether. As recently as last week, Koyama Lane took to social media to defend the chat. She wrote: “I think it’s healthy that we’re hashing things out publicly on the dais instead of behind closed doors with big business lobbyists. Transparency > secrecy.” She had left the chat nearly two months before.
Along with that new fact, the latest batch of texts provides further context to previously reported conversations. The new exchanges slot into and between texts released in the last batch of records. They span February to September.
Like the first batch of records, the second shows councilors airing grievances and annoyances with colleagues. The messages show real-time episodes of frustration with process and flow during council meetings. They show some discussion about policies, including progressive concepts floated by Peacock councilors, including a vacancy tax and a proposal that the city buy up affordable housing to ensure its long-term affordability. They also show councilors at one point praising constituents who agreed with them and expressing annoyance at those who did not.
The city released the additional records during a tense but also frenzied time for the city. Local officials and media were occupied by the looming arrival of Oregon National Guard members at Trump’s behest. Regardless, the city keeps trucking along. Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney said at the top of a council meeting this week that the body shouldn’t get too distracted from city business.
“Because our city is under control, because this is a safe city, because we do not have chaos on our streets, we need to continue to do the work of our city. And it’s our responsibility as City Council to do that daily work that our community members expect from us,” Pirtle-Guiney said. “So while all of our attention is a little bit split right now, and I know community members may be wondering how we can do what at times seems like less critical work given the moment we’re in, it’s actually incredibly critical for us to continue to ensure that the daily work of the city is operating while we sit in this time.”
That task also means it’s essential for the public to understand the workings of those operations. Below are two themes gleaned from the latest texts, and snippets of the conversations related to them. They have been lightly edited for clarity.
City councilors expressed skepticism of Mayor Keith Wilson’s policies. Councilors have remained, for the most part, quiet about Mayor Wilson’s ambitious shelter plan, in which he pledges to open 1,500 beds by the end of the year and “end” unsheltered homelessness by then. (By that, he means having a night bed available for every single person on the street on any given night.) But as council discontent with the administration grows, so too does discontent with the mayor, who leads that branch of city government. Councilors spoke frankly about the mayor’s policies in the chat.
On March 27, Green says he wants to work on an ordinance to revoke Wilson’s return-to-work mandate, which requires that supervisors and managers return to work full time.
Green: would love [to] work together on an ordinance that overrides the mayor’s return to office plan.
Dunphy: We couldn’t get it through the process before 4/7, and I’m not sure we can be that directive. That said, I’m supportive of the intent.
Green: I’m good to just start exploring the art of the possible.
Kanal: I emailed asking for some legal guidance on this - whether we’re looking at an ordinance to change it vs. a resolution asking for the Mayor to change it or something
Green: The attorney is going to say that we cannot direct the mayor to do something by resolution, only make a demand of him. The charter gives us the power to pass code changes that the mayor must enforce. Still, a reso might be enough and what we can do on a short timeline
Kanal: There is a third option - asking the Mayor to push it back a couple weeks while we discuss (we did that for the Columbia Pool), possibly through a joint letter
The next day, March 28, Avalos sends a screenshot of a press release from Wilson about his budget priorities ahead of budget season. One of the priorities listed is enforcing existing anti-camping laws; Avalos highlighted that section.
Avalos: excuse me?
Dunphy: He’s finally saying the quiet part out loud
Koyama Lane: yup. And it sounds like he’s telling [the Office of Government Relations] he’s interested in civil commitment
Avalos: Wtf
Dunphy: In fairness I do think our civil commitment system is not working and there are folks who are dangers to themselves that we’re allowing to harm themselves and others. I don’t know the answer and I’m not saying arrest everyone who is having a mental health episode but we do need some extra tools
During a work session May 14, the council discusses the mayor’s proposed budget.
Avalos: To Steve’s point: why isn’t the mayor even here to defend his decisions? We should demand that he be here at these imo. He’s letting the CAO take all the heat for his decisions.
Kanal: He’s OOO. I talked to him today, he’s in DC I think or on his way there
Avalos: ooh right I did see that, thanks for the reminder
Councilors spoke candidly about some members of the public. They spoke critically of people who represented business interests, as well as detractors of one of the council’s earliest ordinances: a ban on landlords using AI software to set rents.
During a late-night council meeting April 17, Peacock members grumble good-naturedly in the chat about early morning meetings. Green says he had a breakfast meeting with Greg Goodman of Goodman Development Group, a real estate company that owns significant property in the central city.
Green: I took a meeting with Greg Goodman who I didn’t recognize as one of the “five families.” I have multifaceted regrets
Avalos: oh noooooo good luckkkkk
Dunphy: DUDE
Morillo: five families?
Avalos: five families of developers that basically run and own our city
Dunphy: Goodman, Menashe, Russell, and I’m blanking on the other two
Green: i thought it was novick’s tax guy lol
Dunphy: Is it Zidell and Schnitzer?
On April 3, during public testimony about an ordinance proposed by Morillo to ban the use of AI algorithms to set rents, Jessica Greenlee, a property manager, testifies to the council in opposition. A separate conversation happens in the Peacock chat.
Morillo: jessica greenlee cried when [former City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty] asked her questions on the dais
Avalos: what did she say she was upset about? I missed what she said
Green: this is a public record
Morillo: nothing, she just cries every time she testifies in front of women of color
Green: i’ll say this on the record though: [real estate broker] Brian Owendoff is either lying or ignorant of public notice law
Two people testify in support of Morillo’s ordinance.The chat continues; the councilors’ tone switches to being impressed.
Kanal: She ate
Green: shoulda seen her during my last Arts and Economy committee going into TIFs [tax-increment financing]
Avalos: he also ate lol
Morillo: finally someone did their homework!
Green: these people giving me life
Morillo: regular people were at a huge disadvantage and they’re still outpacing them. I’m gonna cry you guys
Avalos: cry in a good way??
Green: guys we were elected to lead and to call the question on the absolute absurdity of all of this. and we’re doing that and showing them the regular people are the majority and they’ve had it.
Councilors grappled with the “doom loop.” Sprinkled throughout the months of chats are brief conversations among Peacock members about the grim realities of Portland’s economic status and the lack of affordable housing.
On May 23, Green talks in the chat about the affordable housing stock in Portland—and how the city could take over the ownership and management of much of the city’s affordable housing, an idea rooted in the concept of “social housing,” a popular progressive policy that three Peacock councilors flew to Vienna to learn more about last month.
Green: I mean we should take ownership [of] as much of the affordable housing stock as possible, because it’s also true that the [community development corporations] need rental income to maintain those units. CDCs and [community-based organizations] can still manage them but we have to take the balance sheet constraints off so they can keep rents low. we’re burning through cash that could be used to just directly provision this stuff
Dunphy: CDCs almost exclusively don’t support themselves from rent, most are funding their operations off of developer fees they get from starting new projects.
Kanal: But also, we COULD just manage them directly right? If our overhead was lower than theirs
Green responds to Kanal: I mean yes but every time I say that I get a thousand angry emails from non profits and I can’t keep taking grenades from all sides lol
Avalos: that’s what my housing preservation dollars amendments were about. but I have no funding source for it now.
Dunphy: Also most CDCs don’t manage their own properties either. Which is a separate problem I want to work on.
Avalos: edit: it wasn’t specifically about us taking ownership of them, it was about protecting them from getting lost. so many units are currently at risk. I would just request that we be very intentional about how we talk about and work with our affordable housing providers. they already take so much crap from the likes of people like [Eric Zimmerman] and [Dan Ryan], and they are always under-resourced. the city is a terrible partner to orgs in general, but those orgs always take all the blame and fault. so, I’m sensitive about the narrative that emerges because it’s often rooted in a disdain for service workers and a paternalistic view of their work.
Green: heard that. i’m not going in on the “admin overhead” angle this time.
Avalos: lol yeah thanks, i promise you the admin is never enough and it makes our work REALLY hard. let’s just not let our messages of accountability blend too much with the reactionaries on our council.
Green sends a chart to the chat June 13 that shows vacancy rates by type of unit. He asks about a vacancy fee—something Peacock councilors bounced around this year after some claimed that landlords may be intentionally holding space unrented for tax breaks.
Green: My office purchased the economic impact analysis tool IMPLAN, and I’m having fun poking around. Here is a table of housing vacancy rates. Note: vacancy rates for seasonal, recreational, etc, is much higher than vacancies for rent. Vacancy fee??
Avalos: I wanna learn more for sure
On June 4, Avalos asks Green to discuss talking points to combat the narrative that property taxes are high in Multnomah County.
Avalos: at an upcoming peacock meeting, can our socialist economist (Green, Mitch) give us some info, talking points, etc to respond to “we’re the second highest taxed city in the country” and “property revenues are going down” etc etc? I don’t know how to combat those talking points because I’m not an expert here. and I need help explaining.
Green: we have a document that Erik prepared that we can just send along!
On July 9, Avalos sends a link to a story about the office tower Big Pink selling for $45 million. It was last purchased in 2015 for $370 million.
Dunphy: $45 million dollars? THAT’S IT??? Holy shit are we in market correction mode.
Avalos: What does market correction mode mean?
Dunphy: Meaning that our real estate prices have been wildly out of control, and that the values of these buildings don’t match their worth, so now we’re seeing prices reduced to firesale levels, which will reduce property taxes etc
Avalos: Reduce property taxes and therefore revenue the city gets?
Dunphy: Yes. Plus it will impact the evaluation of value for other buildings in the area,
Dunphy: It’s not inherently a bad thing, it’s not great, and we all knew our real estate prices were detached from reality, but this kind of a market correction can hurt. I’m less concerned about the biggest buildings be devalued, but it could have ripple effects to individual homes or condos etc
Avalos: Forgive my ignorance here because this is NOT my area of expertise, but isn’t it good for these prices to go down? And if buildings are this cheap we can capitalize and do more buying as a city like we did recently with those 3 apartment buildings?
Dunphy: There are definitely some opportunities that could be beneficial, yes.
Avalos: People’s individual homes have skyrocketed in value, making it so much harder for new people to get homes, so don’t we want them to go down?
Dunphy: Well, the problem then becomes having homeowners “underwater,” where the value of their home is worth less than the outstanding principal on their mortgage, so they won’t be able to refinance. There’s also a lot of these larger buildings that are owned by retirement accounts, so if the value of their portfolios decreases, retirees would see their investment portfolios decrease rapidly.
Avalos: Hmm ok I see
Dunphy: It also potentially makes us less attractive to new development because those monied interests who would build new are instead just going to buy old.
Green: I think the sale of Big Pink at such a discount relative to its previous valuation is a really good thing. Of course, it’s always best for the economy to not have such a dramatic reset, but that there are still buyers at any price mean that there is evidence of positive expectations for future growth. It’s good for two [of] the following reasons:
-it will allow for more competitive leasing rates, which should lower the vacancy rate. generally, the cost basis for the landlord sets a minimum rent price. That this was a cash purchase at a low valuation means they have an incentive to lease it quickly versus hold out for higher rent
-It avoids foreclosure (the big doom loop risk). There is a negative effect on property tax values, but my instinct is that the market vs assessed value compression is already priced in. In other words, the impact of the last few years of high vacancy rates has already pulled down the market value. What we’re seeing with this sale is transactions finally catching up to that new reality.
Councilors were aware their conversations could become public. Peacock councilors occasionally checked each other’s harsher or more sarcastic comments in the chat by noting that the chat is, by law, a public record. They also discuss what qualifies as quorum and, early on, discuss how to use the chat in accordance with public meetings laws.
Avalos texts the thread, just created, on Feb. 14.
Avalos: I figured if it’s ok, we can use this chat as kind of a rapid response info kind of thing? I know people have varying levels of comfort with public records and things in writing. I just feel it’s gonna be too hard for me to keep up if we don’t have some kind of comms channel! Open to thoughts though.
Morillo: Are the rules different if we officially establish a progressive caucus?
Avalos: I’m not sure - I don’t think there are any rules about caucuses for the city
Koyama Lane: Can someone ask an attorney?
Avalos: I will ask yes. Also I’ve got a meeting with Linly at 130 to discuss meetings law + caucuses.
Morillo asks Feb. 20 if sending a letter to the chat for signing would violate quorum rules.
Morillo: Can i send a letter in this chat to see if this is something folks would want to sign onto or is that illegal lol. how am I supposed to consult everyone to sign up on a letter without triggering quorum?!?!?! ah robert said if it’s not something going to Council it doesn’t trigger quorum
During an April 21 council meeting, Councilor Loretta Smith introduces two resolutions for discussion.
Morillo: I will say Elana gave me SUCH A HARD TIME about invited testimony for the algorithmic bill and loretta is just allowed to bring people up with no permissions ahead of time?
Avalos: mhmmm.
Green: it is a very loose connection. both of these are resolutions and not binding at all on the budgetary impacts, which need ordinances
Avalos: inconsistent use of her council pres powers. just another day at portland city council lmao
Koyama Lane: This is a public record
Avalos shares a screenshot during a June 10 budget meeting of a message from Councilor Eric Zimmerman in which he says he thought she was a “no” vote on all of his tree-related amendments, so he had not thought to send her a revised version he’d shared with other councilors.
Koyama Lane: your staff told him you said you were a no. it hurt his feelings
Avalos: what the fuck? are you joking or being serious. I’ve NEVER said that. Did he tell you that my staff told him that??
Morillo: let’s continue these discussions offline. is my gentle recommendation
Avalos: My staff never said that, they barely even talked to his staff (because they constantly refuse to talk to my team btw), so this is just another example of disrespect. I am a city councilor, I have a vote, I deserve to get all the information. I’m fucking pissed. I’ll leave it at that.
Avalos sends a news article about Morillo’s chief of staff being the subject of a complaint by two people, one of them a frequent council agitator named Tiana Tozer. Tozer was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the city in 2022 alleging that unsanctioned camping allowed by the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Avalos: Fun story: Tiana once tweeted her outrage about me using the handicap stall in City Hall, I was there to testify on a police accountability thing, and she said on Twitter she considered banging on the door and sticking a camera over the stall wall to catch me in the action of inappropriately using the stall. Psycho!
Morillo: Gentle reminder everything is a public record
