Terry J. Harris
@trryjhrrs.bsky.social
Portland, Baltimore, Oregon, Idaho, green, blue, law, government, cats, kittens.
I feel like my man Archie could use some challenge to his comfort
November 15, 2025 at 8:38 AM
I feel like my man Archie could use some challenge to his comfort
A couple of key findings from a consultant's report published last year on the Portland's budget process transition to the new form of government. No reason. Totally random post.
November 12, 2025 at 9:47 PM
A couple of key findings from a consultant's report published last year on the Portland's budget process transition to the new form of government. No reason. Totally random post.
She looks like our sweet old one-eyed cat Claude who we lost a few years ago and who I still miss every day. He was VERY soft.
November 11, 2025 at 4:51 PM
She looks like our sweet old one-eyed cat Claude who we lost a few years ago and who I still miss every day. He was VERY soft.
P.P.S This is a weird rationalization for not doing any outreach.
November 10, 2025 at 1:39 AM
P.P.S This is a weird rationalization for not doing any outreach.
This item purports to conform city code with new changes in state code so that normally confidential business license info will (still?) be able to be shared to BES "to allow the bureau to perform the compliance activities it is required to perform."
OKAY BUT WHAT COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES?
2/2
OKAY BUT WHAT COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES?
2/2
November 10, 2025 at 1:31 AM
This item purports to conform city code with new changes in state code so that normally confidential business license info will (still?) be able to be shared to BES "to allow the bureau to perform the compliance activities it is required to perform."
OKAY BUT WHAT COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES?
2/2
OKAY BUT WHAT COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES?
2/2
So here's another odd housekeeping-ish thing in the Finance Committee tomorrow afternoon. The item explains exactly what it does, and (kinda) why. But, to me, it seems to be missing a key piece of information. 1/2
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
November 10, 2025 at 1:31 AM
So here's another odd housekeeping-ish thing in the Finance Committee tomorrow afternoon. The item explains exactly what it does, and (kinda) why. But, to me, it seems to be missing a key piece of information. 1/2
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
The resolution says, basically, the Council should suspend committee work for the month of January every year, and instead hold facilitated full-council priority setting sessions. While I don't think full suspension of committees should be necessary, this framework could work well. 3/
November 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM
The resolution says, basically, the Council should suspend committee work for the month of January every year, and instead hold facilitated full-council priority setting sessions. While I don't think full suspension of committees should be necessary, this framework could work well. 3/
Setting some priorities for the council early in the new government (as found in GTAC's final and onboarding recommendations below) was something that everyone acknowledged was a good idea, but nobody could figure out how to implement. Until now, maybe. 2/
November 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Setting some priorities for the council early in the new government (as found in GTAC's final and onboarding recommendations below) was something that everyone acknowledged was a good idea, but nobody could figure out how to implement. Until now, maybe. 2/
Here's another Council item I'll be tracking this week. This one is a resolution from @councilordanryan.bsky.social to establish an annual strategic priority setting process for the Council. And although I could nitpick it a bit, it's a good idea. 🧵
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
November 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Here's another Council item I'll be tracking this week. This one is a resolution from @councilordanryan.bsky.social to establish an annual strategic priority setting process for the Council. And although I could nitpick it a bit, it's a good idea. 🧵
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
www.portland.gov/council/docu...
Although Fiona also missed the juvenile coyote walking through the yard only some 20 minutes earlier, she NEVER misses the hummingbird who torments her several times a day.
November 9, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Although Fiona also missed the juvenile coyote walking through the yard only some 20 minutes earlier, she NEVER misses the hummingbird who torments her several times a day.
Fiona listens to me explain that although we live in a fairly large city, there’s abundant wildlife to enjoy, often in our own backyard.
#explainingthingstocats
#explainingthingstocats
November 9, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Fiona listens to me explain that although we live in a fairly large city, there’s abundant wildlife to enjoy, often in our own backyard.
#explainingthingstocats
#explainingthingstocats
And so we're all clear, "PPB’s failure to clear debris does not approach [civil rights era] level of obstruction."
![21 The occasional friction between PPB and federal law enforcement due to Oregon’s sanctuary
law stands in stark contrast to Civil Rights era examples of National Guard deployments to
respond to state defiance of federal Civil Rights laws. See Newsom v. Trump, 2025 WL 2977104,
at *12 (Berzon, J., regarding the denial of rehearing en banc) (describing how “Presidents
Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson federalized the National Guard at various points during the
civil rights era when state law enforcement made clear that it would not enforce federal orders,
and, in some cases, openly tried to prevent enforcement”). Although these federalizations
occurred under the Insurrection Act, “[i]n each of these cases, because regular law enforcement
refused to perform their duties, federalization of the National Guard was necessary to execute
federal law.” Id. PPB’s failure to clear debris does not approach this level of obstruction.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pruks2ogmhuoqojg32hmpolc/bafkreid2qyshrgseg3vtq5bkaqbelapjzjqhctz7kyepwy34fb4j3izkpe@jpeg)
November 8, 2025 at 4:28 AM
And so we're all clear, "PPB’s failure to clear debris does not approach [civil rights era] level of obstruction."
The court understands that Newsom is the key 9th Circuit case, but that California's federalization circumstances (and timelines) are not the same as Portland's. So there's 6 pages of "history and tradition" to sort through.
November 8, 2025 at 4:23 AM
The court understands that Newsom is the key 9th Circuit case, but that California's federalization circumstances (and timelines) are not the same as Portland's. So there's 6 pages of "history and tradition" to sort through.
The 10th Amendment argument is only a paragraph at page 103 of 106 (where I'd TOTALLY be running out of steam), but it's also reads like a slam dunk if the 10th Amendment is more than just a truism.
![c. Tenth Amendment
Defendants’ deployment of unlawfully federalized National Guard troops to Oregon also
violated the Tenth Amendment. Under the Tenth Amendment, “[t]he powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.” As discussed above with respect to standing, Defendants’
federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard commandeered these state officers
to enforce a federal law enforcement program at the Portland ICE facility, in violation of the
Tenth Amendment. Printz, 521 U.S. at 935. And as to the federalized California and Texas
National Guards, these deployments involve the intrusion of California and Texas National
Guardsmen in their capacity as militiamen of those States, in violation of Oregon’s “sovereignty
under the Constitution,” and Oregon’s “equal sovereignty among the States.” Shelby County, 570
U.S. at 544 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S.
706, 748 (1999) (“Although the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, our federalism
requires that Congress treat the States in a manner consistent with their status as residuary
sovereigns and joint participants in the governance of the Nation.”).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pruks2ogmhuoqojg32hmpolc/bafkreigkskmqwdrkafgfru2p6hid5woljfxx6mfonnqhoe3e2qxvzzyvfa@jpeg)
November 8, 2025 at 4:10 AM
The 10th Amendment argument is only a paragraph at page 103 of 106 (where I'd TOTALLY be running out of steam), but it's also reads like a slam dunk if the 10th Amendment is more than just a truism.
The court found PPB "credible" in its testimony and assessments. The Court found FPS "not ... credible"
November 8, 2025 at 4:02 AM
The court found PPB "credible" in its testimony and assessments. The Court found FPS "not ... credible"
![20 Another interpretive question is the meaning of “regular forces” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). In
Illinois v. Trump, No. 25-cv-12174, 2025 WL 2886645, at *16–18 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025), the
district court provided compelling reasons why “the phrase ‘regular forces’ was understood at
the time of enactment to mean the soldiers and officers regularly enlisted with the Army and
Navy, as opposed to militiamen.” The Supreme Court awaits supplemental briefing on this issue,
but Defendants have provided this Court with arguments why “regular forces” refers to federal
civil officers and not the standing army. Defs. Post-Trial Br., ECF 131 at 6–10. In any event, this
Court need not resolve this “thorny and complex issue[] of statutory interpretation.” Illinois v.
Trump, No. 25-2798, 2025 WL 2937065, at *7 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025). In Newsom, the Ninth
Circuit implicitly resolved this question by equating “regular forces” with “federal officers,” i.e.
federal civilian law enforcement, which is binding on this Court. 141 F.4th at 1051–52.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pruks2ogmhuoqojg32hmpolc/bafkreibrs2h56wmjy67gy6l5biqdemvf7b4tklrrnzx4pkqceg4vnxdagy@jpeg)
Guys, there's more than 12 pages citing like a dozen dictionaries from more than a 100 years ago, and recounting the history of three different non-Civil War rebellions, to get to the operative legal definition of the terms "rebellion" and "danger of rebellion."
November 8, 2025 at 3:50 AM
Guys, there's more than 12 pages citing like a dozen dictionaries from more than a 100 years ago, and recounting the history of three different non-Civil War rebellions, to get to the operative legal definition of the terms "rebellion" and "danger of rebellion."
So, I do not know if this 2024 change makes any difference to the City's stated oil and gas policy categories (below), but it seems to me that some of the subcategories don't quite match up anymore. Anyway, If it were up to me, I'd kinda want to double check and make the necessary updates. 9/9
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
So, I do not know if this 2024 change makes any difference to the City's stated oil and gas policy categories (below), but it seems to me that some of the subcategories don't quite match up anymore. Anyway, If it were up to me, I'd kinda want to double check and make the necessary updates. 9/9
And there are some wild new "industry classifications" in just this tiny list of 2024 changes: Cryptocurrency Investment Companies, "Blank Check" special purpose acquisition companies, but also what appears to be a re-categorization of "Oil & Gas Producers" to "Oil & Gas Supply chain" 8/
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
And there are some wild new "industry classifications" in just this tiny list of 2024 changes: Cryptocurrency Investment Companies, "Blank Check" special purpose acquisition companies, but also what appears to be a re-categorization of "Oil & Gas Producers" to "Oil & Gas Supply chain" 8/
Now, I don't have access to a complete list of Bloomberg's "industry classification standards" (that I could find) but I did notice that Bloomberg updates these lists. For example, here's a list of changes they made in 2024. 7/
assets.bbhub.io/professional...
assets.bbhub.io/professional...
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Now, I don't have access to a complete list of Bloomberg's "industry classification standards" (that I could find) but I did notice that Bloomberg updates these lists. For example, here's a list of changes they made in 2024. 7/
assets.bbhub.io/professional...
assets.bbhub.io/professional...
But there's also this "socially responsible overlay" which prohibits investment in "prohibited industry classifications." Which, at first glance, looks like a pretty good list of industries where we shouldn't have our (corporate debt) money. 5/
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
But there's also this "socially responsible overlay" which prohibits investment in "prohibited industry classifications." Which, at first glance, looks like a pretty good list of industries where we shouldn't have our (corporate debt) money. 5/
Here's where the city puts it investments - mostly government debt and corporate debt. 4/
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Here's where the city puts it investments - mostly government debt and corporate debt. 4/
I am decidedly NOT a financial wizard, but the Policy seems to be performing fairly well on its basic purposes - safe, liquid, and earning decent rates for this type of portfolio. 3/
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
I am decidedly NOT a financial wizard, but the Policy seems to be performing fairly well on its basic purposes - safe, liquid, and earning decent rates for this type of portfolio. 3/
From the presentation slides, this is "an administrative action" that makes "no material changes to the existing policy." And that appears to be true. The main changes appear to simply give the Chief Financial Officer some responsibilities instead of other city officials. 2/
November 7, 2025 at 8:36 PM
From the presentation slides, this is "an administrative action" that makes "no material changes to the existing policy." And that appears to be true. The main changes appear to simply give the Chief Financial Officer some responsibilities instead of other city officials. 2/