Look at this condescending-ass take, chock full of lies and run-aroundism. https://twitter.com/JoAnnPDX/status/1273015708968878080

Hardesty is trying to say that *because reasons* the budget can't be further amended.

The important thing to know is that the rules are made up and that only power is real- they could change it if they wanted. Beyond that, let's look at the specifics:

City budget process is regulated under Oregon Revised Statues ("the law") in ORS 294: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/294.456 

Specifically, it says the budget may be amended up until the start of the fiscal year, ie, July 1.

Now, that's not a *ton* of time, but it's certainly not *no* time. The Portland city charter gives Council broad leeway to adjust schedule of their meetings. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28201 

If there were truly a majority will on the city council, they could simply do it.

The fact that it's not happening isn't because of some administrative procedure stopping it.

Instead, it's revealing the power structure that ultimately controls the PPB. They don't work for us.

I'm not done. That's just for the budget! The budget sets the maximum a bureau can spend. The council - again, if they wanted to - could do more to cut the police: they could block contract approval or otherwise limit expenditures of money already budgeted, per the city charter.

They could create additional ordinances to substantially limit the power, scope, and authority of the PPB. They could change HR policy, PPB directives, use of city equipment, agreements with other law enforcement agencies-

The problem is not that some divinely-ordained policy structure "won't let" the city council defund, disarm, and disband the PPB. The problem is that the commissioners - and their power base - don't want to.

But here's the thing. It's not something where we can just learn the rules, or find One Weird Trick, or ask them nicely to change.

We have to think in terms of power. How do we build enough power that the politicians have *no choice* but to move towards abolition?

That, to me, is pretty much the only question that matters.