Man on a roof: Update on mental health intervention training
In Riverside, the argument over the renovation of the Fox theater downtown continues in the letters page in the Press Enterprise. Some support the planned expenditure by the city involving tens of millions of dollars to renovate the monument which was seized by eminent domain by the city's redevelopment agency(also known as the city council) several years ago.
At City Hall, the public safety committee held its monthly meeting and on the agenda, was a progress report on the development of mental health training and a crisis intervention program for the police department.
Chair Andrew Melendrez had decided to include regular status reports on this issue after Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis had included information about the city's decision to look into developing a mental health intervention strategy in the power point presentation he had given last January.
At first given the long silence on the issue of mental health training, it seemed like DeSantis had included information about the city's plans as a carrot on a stick to soften the changes that he and his boss City Manager Brad Hudson planned to implement involving the Community Police Review Commission. But as it turned out, if there was no plan then, there at least is something in the works now.
Capt. Mike Blakely gave a brief presentation in front of the committee, community members and representatives from the police department, the city attorney's office and the city manager's office. It was Blakely's first appearance at a public meeting to discuss his work on the issue of mental health intervention and training as the captain of personnel and training since he was assigned to that position last July. But what came out of his presentation was more information than had been presented by DeSantis in his power point presentation which mostly included references to meetings that the stake holders in both the city and county had conducted.
Blakely provided an overview of the process that had gone off-track last summer but apparently is back on in a direction that hopefully will provide a comprehensive program of mental health assessment and crisis intervention. His current supervisor, Asst. Chief John DeLaRosa seemed to approve and did not say much on the issue.
Among the items discussed were 4o hour training blocs for the department's police officers that would be taught by different mental health experts both working with county agencies and private organizations. Blakely had originally envisioned the training to last a day or two and had been surprised that it added up to 40 hours, but he shouldn't have been, because the majority of training blocs that are used to train police officers to participate in mobile crisis intervention teams is that duration in length.
Blakely added that the police department would take the lead in terms of bringing this form of training throughout the county and indeed many county agencies were included as stake holders in the meetings held between them in the past several months. As stated, these meetings occurred after months of silence on the issue that apparently took place after Chief Russ Leach implemented staff changes in the personnel and training division last summer. The whirlwind of activity began earlier this year, and its sudden revival surprised many community members.
The first set of police officers are set to begin this training by the end of May and the entire patrol force would be trained in 18 months. There was not much in terms of details provided about how the training of the department would be implemented in a way that would ensure that police officers who completed training in the earlier classes would be assigned to work shifts that would offer officers trained in dealing with mentally ill people, 24/7. Often, in other cities when teams are created, the shifts which utilize most of these officers tend to be Monday through Friday, 9-5, leaving fewer trained officers working the other available shifts.
DeSantis said last week that the new program won't experience any of those difficulties and it will be adequately staffed during all work shifts.
Blakely also said that paramedics from American Medical Response under the direction of one of its managers, Peter Hubbard who also sits as a commissioner on the CPRC, may receive up to 120 hours of training. A lot of the responsibility for dealing with mentally ill individuals would be given to the paramedics of AMR, which according to several police officers who worked there first doesn't pay much in the way of annual salaries nor does it involve much in terms of career opportunities. Hopefully, if this training component is successfully implemented by this company, this will change.
There was also references made to the creation of mental health intervention teams for the first time since last spring, but not much was set in terms of whether or not these teams would be comprised of a team of paramedics or whether they would include mental health experts and police officers.
And that's something that needs to be decided upon.
At an earlier public safety committee meeting, Chief Russ Leach admitted that the department had "stumbled" while trying to tackle this issue. Councilman Steve Adams stumbled even further when he made some comments saying that just because they had a program in place, it didn't mean that police officers wouldn't act violent towards mentally ill people who according to Adams are all violent and are "nuts".
He used the tragic mass murder that took place at Virginia Polytechnic University as an example even though it's still not known what the motivation of the man who shot and killed over 30 people was, let alone his mental state. So it's not appropriate to start using this individual and his actions to stereotype all mentally ill people.
Blakely answered that by saying that the population of mentally ill individuals has changed since he had started working in law enforcement over 30 years ago, with an increase in mentally ill people, people under the influence of drugs and the homeless population. That kind of calmed Adams down a little bit. The other council members, Nancy Hart and especially Andrew Melendrez were more subdued during and after the presentation as they were in later discussions on the status report of the CPRC, which will be the subject of a future posting.
Hart asked questions about whether or not the 40 hours of training would burn out police officers who already received a lot of regular training. Blakely responded by saying that officers in the department were eager to receive the training because they wanted better strategies and tools to use involving the mentally ill. Hopefully that is really what's going on as historically, newly implemented mental health intervention programs and training do meet with some resistance from the police officers.
Melendrez didn't make any comments nor did he ask questions. He appeared a bit nervous during the meeting. Most of those present appeared to be on their best behavior which is nice when it does happen.
The timing of the urgency to develop and implement mental health training and intervention strategies came after several fatal officer-involved shootings including that of Lee Deante Brown in April 2006. Both City Manager Brad Hudson and DeSantis made references to the Brown shooting and the CPRC's deliberation of it as factors into what would be revealed about the new program to assist police officers in interfacing with mentally ill people.
And with City Attorney Gregory Priamos in attendance, although not in the best of moods along with Deputy City Attorney Jeb Brown, who handles police-related litigation, it was hard to forget that the city is currently facing five law suits in connection with four officer-involved deaths since the first one was filed early last year. Priamos has also become a fixture at CPRC meetings as well especially those where discussions involving these incustody deaths have taken place and the law suits began to be filed in relation to incustody deaths.
The city employee who was no-show at CPRC meetings for five years and who vetoed participating in a 2004 workshop as the guest of honor, is now attached to that committee with an umbilical cord. When asked about his frequent attendance at meetings, Priamos became miffed and said that his office was offering its services to the commission. But why exactly that became necessary in 2006 is still an issue of some debate. Some say it's the flurry of litigation hitting his office in relation to the incustody deaths. Some say it's orders from above that have sent him there.
Like Hudson, Priamos can count to four.
Hopefully, this decision to implement mental health training isn't just an order coming down to the department from the city's risk management division. Hopefully, it's a sign that the department has decided to address a situation that it faces with tools to help police officers feel that they have more options in terms of interfacing with mentally ill people.
Hopefully, this is one proposal that the city has made that it will actually follow through with in terms of its implementation.Quite a few grandiose promises have emerged from the city manager's office and then not been followed up on or followed through.
Chief William Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department was the subject of an editorial in the Los Angeles Times recently and not in a nice way.
Bratton backslides from transparency
You see Bratton had been one of the staunch supporters of an assembly bill being heard up in Sacramento this month concerning the disclosure of information regarding disciplinary actions involving police officers. In fact, he was the one who called the state legislature out to respond with a measure to overturn the California State Supreme Court's ruling on the Copley case that was issued last summer.
But several months later, he's a chief who has enjoyed a five year tenure as the head of one of the nation's largest police departments. Bratton has made it clear that he wants to continue to be the department's police chief. He also knows that the rank and file union of the LAPD bitterly opposes the legislation being sponsored by senate majority leader, Gloria Romero.
Bratton also knows that right now would be a very bad time for a union revolt against him or even worse, a no-confidence vote. No chief can continue to work effectively or even at all in an agency where the employees oppose them. Consequently, Bratton is allowing the possibility of such a scenario to govern his actions as a police chief and backing off.
The Times editorial board had some sage advice for him, reminding him that segments of Los Angeles had issued him a not-too-much-confidence-in-him vote.
(excerpt)
But that shouldn't lead Bratton to temper his support for transparency. When the now-secret discipline board earlier this year overturned the Police Commission's finding that an officer was partly unjustified in shooting 13-year-old Devin Brown, Bratton complained that he wasn't able to disclose the board's reasoning. Under Romero's bill, he could.
If the bill is pared back the way the chief and the mayor want, disclosure would be narrower and would apply only to charter cities, such as Los Angeles, where transparency was department policy before the court ruling.Recent polling has shown that, though Bratton remains popular, there's a sharp drop-off in the public's confidence in civilian oversight.
He also enjoys far less support from nonwhites than whites. That's important because of the long history of tension between the LAPD and minority residents, especially African Americans. To work on that trust, the chief needs to reinvigorate his enthusiasm for transparency.
The American Democratic Action is circulating a resolution in the state of California.
(excerpt)
ADA Issues and Policy Resolutions
Resolution No. 218
Adopted 1991
Amended 1992
Reaffirmed 1993
Reaffirmed 1994
Amended 1995
Reaffirmed 1996
Reaffirmed 1998
Reaffirmed 1999
Reaffirmed 2001
Revised 2003
Reaffirmed 2004
Amended 2005
Reaffirmed 2006
Civilian Police Review Boards No. 218
The police provide a vital service for our communities under
frequently difficult working conditions.At times, officers must use force for the good of the people, and to protect and serve them.At other times, the police have been used as a means to stifle and oppress the poor and minorities, as well as political dissidents and others who do not support certain government policies.
Americans for Democratic Action calls upon all cities and other
jurisdictions to establish civilian review boards, no member of which shall be an employee or in any way retained by the Police Department,with the following minimum powers and authority:
1. Independent funding and staff, free from police involvement;
2. Independent power to investigate charges of abuse or misconduct;
3. The power to recommend discipline and discharge of officers for misconduct.
This resolution is similar to one that had become part of the platform of the Democratic Party's central committee's platform in California which included provisions for civilian review boards and commissions to investigate officer-involved shootings and allegations of excessive force.
Perhaps partly in response to the challenges against civilian review in this state in the wake of the Copley decision which had shut down hearings held by boards and commissions in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as impacting the operations of the internal investigative office of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
The California Newspaper and Publishers' Association's Legislative Bulletin provided information on the appearence of A.B. 1648 and S.B. 1019 which will be heard in Sacramento today, Tuesday, April 17 at the Assembly and Senate committee levels.
The CNPA also sent a letter of support for both bills.
(excerpt)
April 10, 2007
Honorable Gloria RomeroCalifornia State SenateState Capitol, Room 313Sacramento, California 95814 Re: SB 1019 SupportDear Senator Romero,The California Newspaper Publishers Association is pleased to sponsor your SB 1019, which would overturn the recent California Supreme Court case in Copley Press v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272. The Copley Press decision, which held that the public has no right of access to records held by a civil service commission associated with the appeal of a peace officers discipline, has had a severe negative impact on public access to information about confirmed instances of serious police misconduct in jurisdictions throughout the state. Although the decision expressly refused to rule on whether the law also required civil service commissions and citizen review boards to be closed to the public, the decision has effectively shut down virtually every forum in which the public previously had access to the police discipline process.
Copley Press represents nothing less than complete and total victory for the secrecy lobby in this state. In the ultimate perversion of legislative intent, the most powerful forces in government and their exceptionally creative and effective lobbyists have achieved a perfect storm of official secrecy – making it illegal to inform the public about official corruption. The law enforcement lobby has taken laws passed over 30 years ago to prevent the wholesale shredding by police agencies of public records in order to prevent civil litigants from effectively pursuing cases of police abuse, and turned it into law that prohibit police employers from exposing to the public the results of quasi-judicial proceedings resulting in the serious discipline of public employees. These aren’t just any public employees that have achieved the holy grail of KGB-like official secrecy – they are the only public officials given the right by the public to affect the personal liberty of citizens and even take life, if necessary to protect the public peace. The public has a settled right, as explained below, to access the facts about discipline of every other public employee in this state.
As this issue is discussed this year, the law enforcement lobby will insist the issue is about the personal privacy “rights” of peace officers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your bill presents the question about whether the taxpaying public has a right of access to settled official facts generated in quasi-judicial proceedings at significant taxpayer expense, in which due process rights of peace officers are protected, about confirmed instances of serious official behavior, even illegal behavior, that has fallen below a standard of behavior set by the public employer.
SB 1019 remedies the problems created by Copley Press as follows: it would directly overturn Copley Press, allowing oversight agencies throughout the state to function as they did prior to the decision. Second, with regard to internal affairs cases, it would provide access to limited summary information in sustained cases (officer name, complaint’s name unless requested withheld, charges, factual summary, discipline). Third, the bill allows a police chief to release information in cases that have not been sustained when another governmental entity such as a police commission or human rights commission makes a finding that a departmental action was out of policy. Under those circumstances, the police chief may disclose information related to the investigation in order to explain to the public the rationale for the department’s decision.
As a result of the Copley Press decision, the open and public records and hearings of civil service and citizen review boards associated with police misconduct in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Berkeley have been closed to the public.
There are strong policy reasons for allowing access to serious cases of police misconduct. First, public knowledge about how police agencies deal with officer misconduct serves to reassure the public that those entrusted with tremendous authority are using their powers fairly and that misconduct is not sanctioned or sidestepped. Without access to the official record, the public’s respect for the police agency and its officers is immeasurably damaged. As the United States Supreme Court said in a case involving access to the public court system: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” (Richmond Newspapers, Inc., v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980)).
Second, openness promotes accuracy and fairness. Citizens who have knowledge about a particular incident or police officer may come forward with evidence, either incriminating or exculpatory.
Third, public access to the “official record” brings to the public the settled, adjudicated facts associated with a serious situation in which the public has an overriding interest. For example, the public has a strong interest in the facts associated with officer involved shootings or a death in custody. Without public access to the official record, the public is left with sorting out rumor, innuendo, misinformation and statements made by “interested persons,” some of whom may themselves be accused of crime. SB 1019 will return to the public the highest quality of information associated with the official conduct of law enforcement – the official record of an adjudication of rights.
Finally, contrary to the arguments of opponents, SB 1019 will not harm officers’ reasonable right to privacy. Public employees generally have no privacy interest in records concerning serious allegations of misconduct. [See, Bakersfield City School District v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.4th, 1041 (2004) (allowing access to complaints and disciplinary action against school employee over allegations of sexual misconduct, violence, and threats of violence); American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSME) v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal.App.3d 913 (1978) (allowing access to portions of audit report looking at alleged retaliatory action against an employee for reports on financial irregularities by superiors ordered released); and, BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742 (allowing access to information including investigators report related to possible sweetheart deal between superintendent who was under investigation and school board)]. These cases recognize that (for non-peace officer public employees) the public’s right to know overrides the privacy interests of the employees and checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy. As Supreme Court Justice Werdeger said in dissent in the Copley Press decision: “. . . the majority overvalues the deputy’s interest in privacy, undervalues the public’s interest in disclosure, and ultimately fails to implement the Legislature’s careful balance of the competing concerns in this area.”
If your irony bone is not absolutely killing you yet, get this: we hire law enforcement to keep us safe, to apprehend those suspected of crime and present them to the open and public judicial system for prosecution. If you or I are arrested – not convicted, just arrested – agencies are required to routinely make the following information public: “The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.” (Government Code Sec. 6254 (f)(1)). Following Copley Press, If a police commission or employing agency, after a secret quasi-judicial proceeding officially concludes that a law enforcement official has violated a law, the commission or employer is not only not required to inform the public of this official finding, it is prohibited from doing so. The only hope the public has that any information will surface about crime committed under the color of official authority is if the information is referred to a district attorney and if the district attorney exercises his or her discretion to prosecute. Failing those two big “ifs,” this official information will remain secret forever.
In this country, the people are the sovereign. As the elegant preamble to the Ralph M. Brown open meeting law said over 50 years ago: “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know and what is not good for them to know.” If the people, through their elected officials, let stand the Copley Press decision, they have indeed given their officials the right to decide “what is not good for them to know.”
The Copley Press decision has created unchecked secrecy in the peace officer discipline process. Absent legislative action on this bill, there is virtually no opportunity for the public to access any information associated with confirmed serious misconduct of peace officers. On behalf of the over 750 newspaper members of the CNPA, thank you for introducing this bill to bring a basic level of public accountability to the peace officer discipline system.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. NewtonGeneral Counsel
cc: Jerry Bean, CNPA President, Publisher, Yucaipa News-Mirror Harold W. Fuson, Jr. CNPA Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, VP and Chief Legal Officer, Copley Press, Inc Jack Bates, CNPA Executive Director James W. Ewert, CNPA Legal Counsel Steve Meinrath, Consultant, Senate Public Safety Committee
At City Hall, the public safety committee held its monthly meeting and on the agenda, was a progress report on the development of mental health training and a crisis intervention program for the police department.
Chair Andrew Melendrez had decided to include regular status reports on this issue after Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis had included information about the city's decision to look into developing a mental health intervention strategy in the power point presentation he had given last January.
At first given the long silence on the issue of mental health training, it seemed like DeSantis had included information about the city's plans as a carrot on a stick to soften the changes that he and his boss City Manager Brad Hudson planned to implement involving the Community Police Review Commission. But as it turned out, if there was no plan then, there at least is something in the works now.
Capt. Mike Blakely gave a brief presentation in front of the committee, community members and representatives from the police department, the city attorney's office and the city manager's office. It was Blakely's first appearance at a public meeting to discuss his work on the issue of mental health intervention and training as the captain of personnel and training since he was assigned to that position last July. But what came out of his presentation was more information than had been presented by DeSantis in his power point presentation which mostly included references to meetings that the stake holders in both the city and county had conducted.
Blakely provided an overview of the process that had gone off-track last summer but apparently is back on in a direction that hopefully will provide a comprehensive program of mental health assessment and crisis intervention. His current supervisor, Asst. Chief John DeLaRosa seemed to approve and did not say much on the issue.
Among the items discussed were 4o hour training blocs for the department's police officers that would be taught by different mental health experts both working with county agencies and private organizations. Blakely had originally envisioned the training to last a day or two and had been surprised that it added up to 40 hours, but he shouldn't have been, because the majority of training blocs that are used to train police officers to participate in mobile crisis intervention teams is that duration in length.
Blakely added that the police department would take the lead in terms of bringing this form of training throughout the county and indeed many county agencies were included as stake holders in the meetings held between them in the past several months. As stated, these meetings occurred after months of silence on the issue that apparently took place after Chief Russ Leach implemented staff changes in the personnel and training division last summer. The whirlwind of activity began earlier this year, and its sudden revival surprised many community members.
The first set of police officers are set to begin this training by the end of May and the entire patrol force would be trained in 18 months. There was not much in terms of details provided about how the training of the department would be implemented in a way that would ensure that police officers who completed training in the earlier classes would be assigned to work shifts that would offer officers trained in dealing with mentally ill people, 24/7. Often, in other cities when teams are created, the shifts which utilize most of these officers tend to be Monday through Friday, 9-5, leaving fewer trained officers working the other available shifts.
DeSantis said last week that the new program won't experience any of those difficulties and it will be adequately staffed during all work shifts.
Blakely also said that paramedics from American Medical Response under the direction of one of its managers, Peter Hubbard who also sits as a commissioner on the CPRC, may receive up to 120 hours of training. A lot of the responsibility for dealing with mentally ill individuals would be given to the paramedics of AMR, which according to several police officers who worked there first doesn't pay much in the way of annual salaries nor does it involve much in terms of career opportunities. Hopefully, if this training component is successfully implemented by this company, this will change.
There was also references made to the creation of mental health intervention teams for the first time since last spring, but not much was set in terms of whether or not these teams would be comprised of a team of paramedics or whether they would include mental health experts and police officers.
And that's something that needs to be decided upon.
At an earlier public safety committee meeting, Chief Russ Leach admitted that the department had "stumbled" while trying to tackle this issue. Councilman Steve Adams stumbled even further when he made some comments saying that just because they had a program in place, it didn't mean that police officers wouldn't act violent towards mentally ill people who according to Adams are all violent and are "nuts".
He used the tragic mass murder that took place at Virginia Polytechnic University as an example even though it's still not known what the motivation of the man who shot and killed over 30 people was, let alone his mental state. So it's not appropriate to start using this individual and his actions to stereotype all mentally ill people.
Blakely answered that by saying that the population of mentally ill individuals has changed since he had started working in law enforcement over 30 years ago, with an increase in mentally ill people, people under the influence of drugs and the homeless population. That kind of calmed Adams down a little bit. The other council members, Nancy Hart and especially Andrew Melendrez were more subdued during and after the presentation as they were in later discussions on the status report of the CPRC, which will be the subject of a future posting.
Hart asked questions about whether or not the 40 hours of training would burn out police officers who already received a lot of regular training. Blakely responded by saying that officers in the department were eager to receive the training because they wanted better strategies and tools to use involving the mentally ill. Hopefully that is really what's going on as historically, newly implemented mental health intervention programs and training do meet with some resistance from the police officers.
Melendrez didn't make any comments nor did he ask questions. He appeared a bit nervous during the meeting. Most of those present appeared to be on their best behavior which is nice when it does happen.
The timing of the urgency to develop and implement mental health training and intervention strategies came after several fatal officer-involved shootings including that of Lee Deante Brown in April 2006. Both City Manager Brad Hudson and DeSantis made references to the Brown shooting and the CPRC's deliberation of it as factors into what would be revealed about the new program to assist police officers in interfacing with mentally ill people.
And with City Attorney Gregory Priamos in attendance, although not in the best of moods along with Deputy City Attorney Jeb Brown, who handles police-related litigation, it was hard to forget that the city is currently facing five law suits in connection with four officer-involved deaths since the first one was filed early last year. Priamos has also become a fixture at CPRC meetings as well especially those where discussions involving these incustody deaths have taken place and the law suits began to be filed in relation to incustody deaths.
The city employee who was no-show at CPRC meetings for five years and who vetoed participating in a 2004 workshop as the guest of honor, is now attached to that committee with an umbilical cord. When asked about his frequent attendance at meetings, Priamos became miffed and said that his office was offering its services to the commission. But why exactly that became necessary in 2006 is still an issue of some debate. Some say it's the flurry of litigation hitting his office in relation to the incustody deaths. Some say it's orders from above that have sent him there.
Like Hudson, Priamos can count to four.
Hopefully, this decision to implement mental health training isn't just an order coming down to the department from the city's risk management division. Hopefully, it's a sign that the department has decided to address a situation that it faces with tools to help police officers feel that they have more options in terms of interfacing with mentally ill people.
Hopefully, this is one proposal that the city has made that it will actually follow through with in terms of its implementation.Quite a few grandiose promises have emerged from the city manager's office and then not been followed up on or followed through.
Chief William Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department was the subject of an editorial in the Los Angeles Times recently and not in a nice way.
Bratton backslides from transparency
You see Bratton had been one of the staunch supporters of an assembly bill being heard up in Sacramento this month concerning the disclosure of information regarding disciplinary actions involving police officers. In fact, he was the one who called the state legislature out to respond with a measure to overturn the California State Supreme Court's ruling on the Copley case that was issued last summer.
But several months later, he's a chief who has enjoyed a five year tenure as the head of one of the nation's largest police departments. Bratton has made it clear that he wants to continue to be the department's police chief. He also knows that the rank and file union of the LAPD bitterly opposes the legislation being sponsored by senate majority leader, Gloria Romero.
Bratton also knows that right now would be a very bad time for a union revolt against him or even worse, a no-confidence vote. No chief can continue to work effectively or even at all in an agency where the employees oppose them. Consequently, Bratton is allowing the possibility of such a scenario to govern his actions as a police chief and backing off.
The Times editorial board had some sage advice for him, reminding him that segments of Los Angeles had issued him a not-too-much-confidence-in-him vote.
(excerpt)
But that shouldn't lead Bratton to temper his support for transparency. When the now-secret discipline board earlier this year overturned the Police Commission's finding that an officer was partly unjustified in shooting 13-year-old Devin Brown, Bratton complained that he wasn't able to disclose the board's reasoning. Under Romero's bill, he could.
If the bill is pared back the way the chief and the mayor want, disclosure would be narrower and would apply only to charter cities, such as Los Angeles, where transparency was department policy before the court ruling.Recent polling has shown that, though Bratton remains popular, there's a sharp drop-off in the public's confidence in civilian oversight.
He also enjoys far less support from nonwhites than whites. That's important because of the long history of tension between the LAPD and minority residents, especially African Americans. To work on that trust, the chief needs to reinvigorate his enthusiasm for transparency.
The American Democratic Action is circulating a resolution in the state of California.
(excerpt)
ADA Issues and Policy Resolutions
Resolution No. 218
Adopted 1991
Amended 1992
Reaffirmed 1993
Reaffirmed 1994
Amended 1995
Reaffirmed 1996
Reaffirmed 1998
Reaffirmed 1999
Reaffirmed 2001
Revised 2003
Reaffirmed 2004
Amended 2005
Reaffirmed 2006
Civilian Police Review Boards No. 218
The police provide a vital service for our communities under
frequently difficult working conditions.At times, officers must use force for the good of the people, and to protect and serve them.At other times, the police have been used as a means to stifle and oppress the poor and minorities, as well as political dissidents and others who do not support certain government policies.
Americans for Democratic Action calls upon all cities and other
jurisdictions to establish civilian review boards, no member of which shall be an employee or in any way retained by the Police Department,with the following minimum powers and authority:
1. Independent funding and staff, free from police involvement;
2. Independent power to investigate charges of abuse or misconduct;
3. The power to recommend discipline and discharge of officers for misconduct.
This resolution is similar to one that had become part of the platform of the Democratic Party's central committee's platform in California which included provisions for civilian review boards and commissions to investigate officer-involved shootings and allegations of excessive force.
Perhaps partly in response to the challenges against civilian review in this state in the wake of the Copley decision which had shut down hearings held by boards and commissions in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as impacting the operations of the internal investigative office of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
The California Newspaper and Publishers' Association's Legislative Bulletin provided information on the appearence of A.B. 1648 and S.B. 1019 which will be heard in Sacramento today, Tuesday, April 17 at the Assembly and Senate committee levels.
The CNPA also sent a letter of support for both bills.
(excerpt)
April 10, 2007
Honorable Gloria RomeroCalifornia State SenateState Capitol, Room 313Sacramento, California 95814 Re: SB 1019 SupportDear Senator Romero,The California Newspaper Publishers Association is pleased to sponsor your SB 1019, which would overturn the recent California Supreme Court case in Copley Press v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272. The Copley Press decision, which held that the public has no right of access to records held by a civil service commission associated with the appeal of a peace officers discipline, has had a severe negative impact on public access to information about confirmed instances of serious police misconduct in jurisdictions throughout the state. Although the decision expressly refused to rule on whether the law also required civil service commissions and citizen review boards to be closed to the public, the decision has effectively shut down virtually every forum in which the public previously had access to the police discipline process.
Copley Press represents nothing less than complete and total victory for the secrecy lobby in this state. In the ultimate perversion of legislative intent, the most powerful forces in government and their exceptionally creative and effective lobbyists have achieved a perfect storm of official secrecy – making it illegal to inform the public about official corruption. The law enforcement lobby has taken laws passed over 30 years ago to prevent the wholesale shredding by police agencies of public records in order to prevent civil litigants from effectively pursuing cases of police abuse, and turned it into law that prohibit police employers from exposing to the public the results of quasi-judicial proceedings resulting in the serious discipline of public employees. These aren’t just any public employees that have achieved the holy grail of KGB-like official secrecy – they are the only public officials given the right by the public to affect the personal liberty of citizens and even take life, if necessary to protect the public peace. The public has a settled right, as explained below, to access the facts about discipline of every other public employee in this state.
As this issue is discussed this year, the law enforcement lobby will insist the issue is about the personal privacy “rights” of peace officers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your bill presents the question about whether the taxpaying public has a right of access to settled official facts generated in quasi-judicial proceedings at significant taxpayer expense, in which due process rights of peace officers are protected, about confirmed instances of serious official behavior, even illegal behavior, that has fallen below a standard of behavior set by the public employer.
SB 1019 remedies the problems created by Copley Press as follows: it would directly overturn Copley Press, allowing oversight agencies throughout the state to function as they did prior to the decision. Second, with regard to internal affairs cases, it would provide access to limited summary information in sustained cases (officer name, complaint’s name unless requested withheld, charges, factual summary, discipline). Third, the bill allows a police chief to release information in cases that have not been sustained when another governmental entity such as a police commission or human rights commission makes a finding that a departmental action was out of policy. Under those circumstances, the police chief may disclose information related to the investigation in order to explain to the public the rationale for the department’s decision.
As a result of the Copley Press decision, the open and public records and hearings of civil service and citizen review boards associated with police misconduct in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Berkeley have been closed to the public.
There are strong policy reasons for allowing access to serious cases of police misconduct. First, public knowledge about how police agencies deal with officer misconduct serves to reassure the public that those entrusted with tremendous authority are using their powers fairly and that misconduct is not sanctioned or sidestepped. Without access to the official record, the public’s respect for the police agency and its officers is immeasurably damaged. As the United States Supreme Court said in a case involving access to the public court system: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” (Richmond Newspapers, Inc., v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980)).
Second, openness promotes accuracy and fairness. Citizens who have knowledge about a particular incident or police officer may come forward with evidence, either incriminating or exculpatory.
Third, public access to the “official record” brings to the public the settled, adjudicated facts associated with a serious situation in which the public has an overriding interest. For example, the public has a strong interest in the facts associated with officer involved shootings or a death in custody. Without public access to the official record, the public is left with sorting out rumor, innuendo, misinformation and statements made by “interested persons,” some of whom may themselves be accused of crime. SB 1019 will return to the public the highest quality of information associated with the official conduct of law enforcement – the official record of an adjudication of rights.
Finally, contrary to the arguments of opponents, SB 1019 will not harm officers’ reasonable right to privacy. Public employees generally have no privacy interest in records concerning serious allegations of misconduct. [See, Bakersfield City School District v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.4th, 1041 (2004) (allowing access to complaints and disciplinary action against school employee over allegations of sexual misconduct, violence, and threats of violence); American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSME) v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal.App.3d 913 (1978) (allowing access to portions of audit report looking at alleged retaliatory action against an employee for reports on financial irregularities by superiors ordered released); and, BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742 (allowing access to information including investigators report related to possible sweetheart deal between superintendent who was under investigation and school board)]. These cases recognize that (for non-peace officer public employees) the public’s right to know overrides the privacy interests of the employees and checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy. As Supreme Court Justice Werdeger said in dissent in the Copley Press decision: “. . . the majority overvalues the deputy’s interest in privacy, undervalues the public’s interest in disclosure, and ultimately fails to implement the Legislature’s careful balance of the competing concerns in this area.”
If your irony bone is not absolutely killing you yet, get this: we hire law enforcement to keep us safe, to apprehend those suspected of crime and present them to the open and public judicial system for prosecution. If you or I are arrested – not convicted, just arrested – agencies are required to routinely make the following information public: “The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.” (Government Code Sec. 6254 (f)(1)). Following Copley Press, If a police commission or employing agency, after a secret quasi-judicial proceeding officially concludes that a law enforcement official has violated a law, the commission or employer is not only not required to inform the public of this official finding, it is prohibited from doing so. The only hope the public has that any information will surface about crime committed under the color of official authority is if the information is referred to a district attorney and if the district attorney exercises his or her discretion to prosecute. Failing those two big “ifs,” this official information will remain secret forever.
In this country, the people are the sovereign. As the elegant preamble to the Ralph M. Brown open meeting law said over 50 years ago: “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know and what is not good for them to know.” If the people, through their elected officials, let stand the Copley Press decision, they have indeed given their officials the right to decide “what is not good for them to know.”
The Copley Press decision has created unchecked secrecy in the peace officer discipline process. Absent legislative action on this bill, there is virtually no opportunity for the public to access any information associated with confirmed serious misconduct of peace officers. On behalf of the over 750 newspaper members of the CNPA, thank you for introducing this bill to bring a basic level of public accountability to the peace officer discipline system.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. NewtonGeneral Counsel
cc: Jerry Bean, CNPA President, Publisher, Yucaipa News-Mirror Harold W. Fuson, Jr. CNPA Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, VP and Chief Legal Officer, Copley Press, Inc Jack Bates, CNPA Executive Director James W. Ewert, CNPA Legal Counsel Steve Meinrath, Consultant, Senate Public Safety Committee
Labels: civilian review spreads, public forums in all places
posted by Five Before Midnight | 7:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home