Court Opinion

ID: 9593805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:25:05.027028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:22.153645
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the lead opinion’s statement:
“An officer who, without authority to do so, attempts to use his official position to negotiate a resolution to a problem that at that very moment is occupying the attention of his superiors, cannot rely on constitutional protections of speech to avoid sanctions * * *.” 94 Or App at 488.
I also agree with note 2:
“Plaintiff states the facts as though he only had been one citizen commenting to another on a matter of public interest. That view ignores the nature of his actions. During a major public controversy, plaintiff, a subordinate member of the Police Bureau, attempted, without consulting his superiors, to negotiate a resolution of the controversy with a leading critic *490of the Bureau. He did so from a police telephone after identifying himself to Herndon as ‘Lieutenant Koch.’ It was not unreasonable for the mayor to determine that plaintiffs oral statements could impair or diminish the order and effective operation of the Bureau.” 94 Or App at 487.
I do not agree that much else needs to be said. However plaintiff would characterize his arguments, there is no “speech” issue of any substance in this case. Plaintiff’s expression was an unauthorized act, that was clearly incompatible with his public duties and which usurped the authority of his superiors to conduct city business. See Oregon State Police Assn. v. State of Oregon, 94 Or App 478, 766 P2d 408 (1988), and authorities there cited.