Skip to main content
Earlier this week, WW reported on a message thread among the six members of the progressive caucus on the Portland City Council, who call themselves “Peacock” for short.
The hundreds of messages, obtained through a public records request, show that Peacock members tightly coordinated their actions during the May and June budget sessions, helping the caucus to secure several wins, including rerouting $2 million in new funding from the Portland Police Bureau to Portland Parks & Recreation.
They exchanged the messages on the dais in council chambers as the budget hearings occurred. As a result, onlookers and other councilors watched one meeting unfold on the public record, but the texts show that members of Peacock were conducting an unofficial parallel meeting at the same time, one that onlookers were not made privy to. The contents of that second meeting are only now being made public, more than two months later.
There’s no indication that this was against the rules. Oregon’s public meetings law requires hearings be public only if a quorum is present—meaning seven councilors, or one more than was included in the Peacock thread. But the texts were still a savvy maneuver: The result was that the six Peacock members moved in lockstep on votes in which the council was split, and used the text thread to coordinate their strategy in real time on the dais as hearings unspooled. (The progressive councilors also hold standing Peacock meetings.)
Councilor Steve Novick, who also served on the council from 2013 to 2017, says such text exchanges between city commissioners were “unheard of” in his previous term in office.
But the pages of messages show more than just how Peacock moved as a coalition. They also make clear that Peacock councilors see themselves as an antidote to the historical powers that be at City Hall, and as necessary disruptors of a system that once primarily served Portland’s wealthiest citizens.
That sentiment shows up in two ways throughout the thread.
The first is in the candid and sometimes biting comments Peacock members made about their more centrist colleagues on the council. While the remarks are only an extension of the frank conversations common in government hallways, it’s rare that elected officials have so plainly put such thoughts in writing. It’s also noteworthy because the 12 members of the Portland City Council in its new form are still trying to find their footing with each other, and relations have often been tender.
The second can be seen in Peacock members’ comments and remarks about the Portland Police Bureau and its leadership. That members of Peacock are skeptical of police is to be expected—many of them have frankly voiced their belief that the bureau has been allowed to operate with little oversight or accountability. (The latest evidence to buttress that belief arrived just this week, as the council approved a $3.75 million settlement with the family of 30-year old Immanueal Clark, an unarmed Black man shot dead by a Portland police officer in 2022. The officer who killed Clark received no discipline and remains employed at the bureau.)
The six members of Peacock are: Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, Tiffany Koyama Lane and Angelita Morillo. Four of them stood by the message thread and its contents.
Avalos says: “What you saw in the chat was a response to real concerns. Holding the police bureau to a high standard isn’t personal—it’s our responsibility.”
Kanal says the role of the new council is to “challenge traditional power structures, including the fossil fuel industry and police, that haven’t always served all Portlanders. That means asking tough questions at times—and expecting accountability.”
Koyama Lane said as much, too: “I’m proud of the work my colleagues and I have done as newly elected women and people of color. We show up daily to create a new model for governance that in some cases is exactly opposite of the systems that have been in place.” Morillo said that if it takes a group chat to deliver on her top priorities, so be it.
Only Avalos spoke to the snide remarks made about her colleagues. She says none of the comments about other councilors should come as news to them.
“None of what you are bringing up here will be a surprise to the public or to our colleagues,” Avalos said. “In fact, the vast majority ended up on the public record, including our feelings about the process and our colleagues.” (Two Peacock members, Mitch Green and Jamie Dunphy, did not respond to a request for comment.)
Yet for six elected officials to record their often-cutting evaluations of their colleagues and for some of them to express distaste for the Police Bureau’s top brass displays either remarkable confidence in the rectitude of their position, or laxity in recognizing their communications would eventually become public.
Below are snippets of the text conversations among members of Peacock.
On March 7, Councilor Angelita Morillo messages the group, saying Portland police officers showed up to her town hall the night before and “lurked in the back.” It struck her as odd, and she asks if any other councilors had a similar experience. (In the following weeks, Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney would ask Police Chief Bob Day to consult with councilors before sending police officers to community events. He would agree to the request, though the Police Bureau would maintain that sending officers to council town halls was standard practice.)
Avalos: That’s very very strange. That just happened to Sameer. But I’m pretty sure they are notorious for doing this. Didn’t they do this to [City Commissioner] Jo Ann [Hardesty]? Weird that they left after you tried to ask who sent them.
Morillo: They did do this to JoAnn.
Morillo: Because if you’re doing community engagement I assume you have to be invited and there’s criteria for it and you wouldn’t be lurking you’d be like shaking hands and smiling?
Avalos: Sameer was told that it’s “standard practice” for officers to do “community engagement” on the block like this, but it seems excessive to send 5 officers to an electeds town hall
Morillo: i thought there was so much crime happening that the police could barely keep up with patrol
Avalos: i’m glad they’re reporting it so the public is aware. I’m sorry you two, we’ve got your backs.
Green: curious…haven’t seen any police at my events. I can’t qwhite put my finger on why that is.
Avalos: my first town hall is in two weeks…maybe this news story deters them.
The council holds its first budget session May 21 to discuss more than 100 amendments to Mayor Keith Wilson’s proposed budget. First up: a package of amendments by Council President Pirtle-Guiney, which she hopes will speed the amendment process by combining a number of councilors’ ideas into one vote. Peacock immediately makes it clear members find the president’s package skewed heavily toward amendments by centrist councilors. During the president’s package discussion, centrist Councilor Eric Zimmerman proposes cutting money from the enforcement arm of the parks bureau’s Urban Forestry division. In the chat, Peacock members discuss his idea.
Koyama Lane: he’s in denial that he’s not getting his package through. And is purposely wasting time. Time to call the question?
Avalos: so…he’s made it clear that we worked with her [Pirtle-Guiney] to get this in the package - did she work with anyone else to make sure their stuff was in there?
Morillo: The fact that there’s this much debate about the largest amendment in the package is a sign there is not consensus lol
Avalos: deadass lmao
Morillo: this is a waste of time and i’m gonna say that tbh. no im serious, we are wasting precious time and zimmerman knows we don’t have the votes. He’s wasting time on purpose.
Avalos: yerp - let’s drag em lol
Koyama Lane: Because he hasn’t let go yet of the fact that he doesn’t have the power he wants to have
Pirtle-Guiney realizes on the dais there’s little appetite for her president’s package of amendments and attempts to describe why she thought it might strike a balance. Peacock councilors take to the chat.
Morillo: she doesn’t wanna get roasted she keeps doing this
Koyama Lane: ohhh you’re probably right. I was thinking she was being reflective and trying to be a good leader, but i tend to be too generous sometimes (a lot of the time)
As the council votes to reject the president’s package, Councilor Dan Ryan says he can’t vote for it because he heard from the Police Bureau that an amendment by Kanal would turn 17.5 officer positions into limited-term openings. This is in conflict with what budget director Ruth Levine had said. As Ryan speaks, and Levine and Police Chief Bob Day are asked to weigh in, two councilors offer commentary.
Kanal: Here we go
Avalos: YAWN
Chief Day testifies for five minutes, complaining that past councils have always relied on money from the Police Bureau to backfill budget holes in other bureaus. He says Kanal’s amendment would imperil existing officer positions. In the chat, two councilors have an exchange, making reference to Regina George, the leader of the titular clique in the movie Mean Girls.
Morillo: so he agrees, it’s the largest and most expensive bureau
Avalos: regina George him pls [one of George’s more memorable lines in Mean Girls is: “So you agree? You think you’re really pretty?”]
Morillo: we literally value it the most. Based on how much money it has. Lol.
Morillo: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!!! Like get over it!!
Avalos: you cant predict the future but you can read the past and they never, not once, have hit the mark
On the same day, Councilor Loretta Smith takes issue with an amendment that would decrease councilors’ office budgets. “It’s not my fault that others on this dais did not get an office. I did. And I hired folks to do the job of communicating with my constituents in East Portland,” Smith says. As WW previously reported, Smith took over an office lease from a city bureau in the Gateway neighborhood. That annoyed her fellow District 1 councilors, Peacock members Avalos and Dunphy. Avalos’ chief of staff, Jamey Evenstar, said at the time that Smith’s decision to go it alone “eliminated the possibility of a shared office.” (Smith said the lease Dunphy and Avalos were pursuing was too expensive, and asked them to share her lease.) As Smith speaks from the dais, Avalos offers her reaction as other Peacock councilors speak to the underlying amendment.
Avalos: WOW. I….I….I JUST.
Koyama Lane: I’m wondering if [Pirtle-Guiney’s amendment] gives all of council more staff or if it gives [the council president] more staff
Green: are you going to ask that?
Morillo: I am going to ask clarity on all lol
Avalos: THE WAY THAT I AM TRYING SO HARD NOT TO MAKE SO MANY FACES. [Avalos sends a meme captioned “screams internally.”]
Green: yeah Lori [Brocker Knapp, former council operations manager] is just up there making fun of all of this
Koyama Lane: You guys I’m gonna [ask] more directly because I think [Pirtle-Guiney’s] original hope was that those 3 full-time employees in [her amendment] support her office more
Avalos: oh snap
Koyama Lane: I knew one was for council president office and really just needed that said transparently
In that same discussion, Councilor Steve Novick says he plans to hire three staffers with his office budget, adding he finds the current councilor budgets more than adequate.
Avalos: that’s not a flex….lol. Giving people poverty wages for high skilled work is not cute.
Councilor Smith speaks again about her council office.
Avalos: The fucking irony istg [I swear to God] she needs to stop talking about council offices. She literally took back her money for us to have a district office. AND DIDNT TELL US BTW. we found out from the budget office guy.
Nearing the end of the marathon June 12 budget session—the second and final one—Council Vice President Koyama Lane asks her Peacock colleagues to help her get an amendment heard. Pirtle-Guiney had asked her to table it earlier in the day. The clash between Koyama Lane and Pirtle-Guiney that night on the dais would result in a weekslong breakdown in their relationship. The two have since taken steps to mend it.
Koyama Lane: I need help.
Avalos: ?
Koyama Lane: [Pirtle-Guiney] is saying I don’t get to bring my [Vision Zero] amendment at all. Because there’s no time.
Avalos: but yeah let’s fight
Kanal: omnibus and divide. Meaning, if we can get ONE amendment moved and it’s the “last” amendment, we can pull some Roberts Rules stuff
Green: fuck that force the vote
Avalos, in response to Koyama Lane: that’s silly - nah, we fightin
As the budget session winds down, councilors give their closing remarks before casting a final vote. Two councilors take to the chat during Councilor Smith’s comments.
Kanal: Let’s time Loretta
Avalos: she literally held us up with her questions for how many minutes???
Koyama Lane: i have data on talk time for some meetings if anyone wants to see [that data would end up showing that Kanal and Zimmerman spoke the most.]
During his closing statement, Councilor Ryan chastises members of Peacock. “Lately, I’ve been asking the Peacock caucus: Tell me, what is your north star? Is Portland the testing site to eliminate capitalism for socialism?”
Kanal: holup, he voted not to fund parks maintenance, not us.
Avalos: he voted against all the things we did to fix the problems he seems to say exist. Make it make sense.
Councilor Smith praises Councilor Green in her closing remarks for working with her on a plan to fund sidewalks. She jokes that she didn’t think she’d be working with a Democratic Socialists of America member on sidewalk funding.
Avalos: lmfao sidewalks for all IS SOCIALISM im ded
