From Acorns to Oaks: Let the CPRC do its job
The Press Enterprise has spoken on the state of affairs involving Riverside's Community Police Review Commission. They urged the city government and city management to allow the commission to do the job the public has through vote assigned it to do.
(excerpt)
The new executive director also needs to boost public outreach. The city manager's office barred the last director from attending community meetings in 2006 -- a bizarre restriction for a position aimed at improving police-community relations. The city's original 2000 job description listed public outreach as one of the executive director's primary duties, and City Hall should free Rogan to do that essential task.
Effective communication with the public is crucial to building civic support for the commission. But city officials also have to provide proper resources and political support for the panel to be effective. Riverside voters backed the panel enough to write its existence into the city charter in 2004. City Hall should respect the voters' decision.
Besides, a credible review commission can help build confidence in the city's police, by providing an independent forum for discussions of police practice. And the panel provides police with a community perspective on events -- one distinctly different from internal police reviews or district attorney investigations. Such insights can be a valuable tool for setting department policy.
Of course, the city government including the micromanaging branch of it on the seventh floor at City Hall has never been good at taking advice and it has never respected the wishes of the voters in terms of their support of the CPRC through a ballot initiative that was approved in 2004. But it was commendable for the editorial board to make an effort to provide some anyway. Noteworthy, but indeed a wasted effort on its part.
The city government has not been neglecting the CPRC. Far from it, it has been doing what some have called, killing it with kindness, meaning that they purport to be making a lot of changes in terms of its operations for the better without community input when in reality, these changes have led to an exodus of commissioners from the commission as well as the "resignation" of an executive director, Pedro Payne. They have led to a commission that no longer knows whether it's coming or it's going and the fact that the voters in this city support the commission has made no difference.
After all, the measure to protect the CPRC passed in every single precinct in every ward in this city including in the wards that are currently represented by city council members who oppose the CPRC. City council members have said publicly that they support the right of the CPRC to do its job because they respect the will of the voters. They have said this with straight faces while behind the scenes, their direct employees have done what Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein has called, "hollowing it out" from the inside. They have said this in the wake of six resignations including five commissioners and one executive director in less than 12 months. Fewer people in the community believe them than they did a year ago.
Actually, what appears to have propelled the latest campaign against Riverside's civilian oversight mechanism is the fact that the voters had the audacity to place it in the city's charter where the current city government, the majority of which don't support the CPRC, couldn't easily touch it. Judging by the actions involving the CPRC and the reluctance of even those on the dais who purportedly support it to question them, the decision of the voters appeared to simply anger and frustrate the city council, most of whom were financed during their initial election campaigns by the Riverside Police Officers' Association because they opposed civilian review.
Now mixed in the fray is incoming executive manager, Kevin Rogan who has a pretty tough row to hoe in terms of either being content to serve as a puppet of the city manager's office like that office tried and failed to do with his predecessor or to struggle for however long his endurance lasts to maintain an independent path. The most prudent step is to do the latter while making it appear to your bosses that you are doing the former but no employee who heads any city department has managed to achieve this delicate balance yet. Which way it will go down remains to be seen in the days, weeks and months if this individual lasts that long, ahead.
Speaking of departures, another CPRC commissioner has resigned. Steve Simpson who was appointed in March submitted his resignation on Friday. His resignation is the fifth during a nine month period and his name the latest on a list of those who departed this ship that is currently headed by City Manager Brad Hudson and his adjutant, Tom DeSantis. His departure puts the commission at a loss, as much as the four previous resignations have. Unlike other commissioners who officially resigned for a variety of reasons, Simpson admitted his frustration but then honesty is one of his strong suits. Abrasive as hell at times, but always telling it as it was, that was Simpson during his short tenure on the panel.
Given that he's as sharp as a tack, it was difficult to believe that there were city officials who actually asked questions of myself about his mental competence only several months ago. One of those elected officials approached me with questions based on part on what he had read on this site.
Was he a pain in the butt a lot of the time? Yes, indeed. But was he mentally competent? Most definitely so along with honest in his choice of words and independent in terms of that as well. It's mind boggling why any council member who hadn't even talked to Simpson would believe it was appropriate to treat him in that fashion. Apparently, there were at least two of them who did.
Unfortunately, honesty and independence of thought are two concepts this city's current regime have always struggled to understand let alone tolerate from the city residents who provide not only public comment at the microphone at weekly meetings but who also serve on its boards and commissions. They probably will never understand what either of these two words mean if they haven't figured either out already.
Whoever is selected to replace him will be decided upon by the vote of the entire city council after a recruitment, selection and interview process is undergone, in theory. In reality, it's the choice of the city council member who is owed a political favor, given that about 99% of the qualified individuals who apply to be considered for the positions have no realistic chance of even being interviewed. Whoever on the dais is owed a political favor by the others will be the one who ultimately selects Simpson's replacement. While Simpson was an independent thinker, it's likely his replacement will be the opposite, whomever that person might be. That's the nature of political appointments after all.
The scenario that may play itself out was simply delayed in its inevitability. But as some have said, including at least one commissioner, things will sort themselves out soon enough.
And so it goes in River City.
The Oregonian published an article about how Mayor Tom Potter of Portland, who is a retired police chief fired a current police officer for a series of mistakes he had made in relation to an onduty shooting.
(excerpt)
Potter demanded Lt. Jeffrey Kaer's badge despite the advice of Chief Rosie Sizer and the 17-year veteran's own emotional plea for his job during a July 30 meeting with the mayor.
At that sit-down, the officer known to colleagues as "Kaer Bear" reminded the mayor that he has spent his career winning commendations and doing exactly the kind of neighborhood-based police work Potter loves. A union lawyer also reminded the mayor that there's a good chance a state arbitrator will give Kaer his job back.
But in a sternly worded termination letter, Potter listed 10 separate points at which he believes Kaer either violated Police Bureau policy or policing common sense. They all came before Kaer fired his 9mm Glock pistol.
"Make no mistake, every police officer has the right and the duty to protect themselves and the community," Potter said. "But no officer should put themselves in that position by repeatedly ignoring bureau policy and exercising poor judgment."
It's a bit different situation where an elected official even a former law enforcement officer can fire a police officer but then again, Portland's a lot different than Riverside in many ways. Potter's kind of an interesting politician, actually or so I've heard.
In Denver, the police department has its hands tied when it come to addressing problems with officers who are repeat offenders, according to this article in the Denver Post. What it sounds like is that if this agency even has an early warning system mechanism in place, it's not one that works properly.
(excerpt)
At least 25 officers remained on the force from January 1997 through September 2006 after they were punished for what the department calls "departure from the truth." In some other police departments, such a complaint, if sustained, can lead to immediate dismissal because it can be used by defense lawyers in criminal cases to challenge an officer's court testimony.
And the force also has persistent repeat offenders. Of 16 officers with 10 or more sustained complaints against them in the time period, only one has been fired. Three of those repeat offenders resigned, and one retired during that time.
It's all part of a discipline system top city officials say is broken and in need of a complete overhaul. Long-standing rules at the city require safety officials to consider past discipline when they impose new sanctions. That means the current administration feels bound by the decisions made by past, more lenient administrations.
In a recent federal court case, Al LaCabe, the city's safety manager, who is in charge of overseeing the Police Department, said not enough written guidelines exist for disciplining officers. He said the "comparative discipline" rule has backfired and caused numerous inconsistencies and problems.
"In my experience as a manager, I have come to learn that there are certain systems in the Police Department and certain ways discipline is handed out which are somewhat inconsistent and leads to what I call sometimes inconsistent results," LaCabe said."
One officer had 26 disciplinary actions taken against him before he was finally fired. One excuse offered up was that the management of the department only reviewed cases where officers were terminated or suspended so they missed many other red flags appearing all over the department.
Several officers still employed have been convicted of crimes including drunk driving. That's not much different than the Riverside Police Department which employs two officers with misdemeanor convictions. In fact, one of them was even promoted while serving out a term of summary probation given as part of a sentence connected with a drunk driving related conviction.
The NAACP in San Jose, California is demanding a federal probe of that city's police department according to the San Jose Mercury News. The organization's leaders said that the department practices racially profiling of Black and Latino motorists and further investigation by an outside agency is warranted.
Rev. Nelson B. Rivers from the NAACP's national office met with the police chief but had some critical words to say about him.
(excerpt)
The chief is very affable, very smooth and eloquent; he has command of the subject matter," Rivers said in an interview with the Mercury News. "But he also did not want to deal with the reality of what we were talking about."
Rivers said: "The chief may be living in the 51st state - the state of denial."
No word as of yet from the U.S. Department of Justice on whether or not it will open a federal probe into the police department.
Also, the public safety committee in Riverside hosted an update of the police department's crisis mental health training that was widely attended by city employees and county mental health professionals serving on the training committee.
Councilman Steve Adams nixed sitting with Committee Chair Andrew Melendrez and fellow member, Councilwoman Nancy Hart to sit with the police contingent. Never a dull moment in his quest for their political endorsement and support during the final round of Election 2007.
More on that meeting in a future posting.
(excerpt)
The new executive director also needs to boost public outreach. The city manager's office barred the last director from attending community meetings in 2006 -- a bizarre restriction for a position aimed at improving police-community relations. The city's original 2000 job description listed public outreach as one of the executive director's primary duties, and City Hall should free Rogan to do that essential task.
Effective communication with the public is crucial to building civic support for the commission. But city officials also have to provide proper resources and political support for the panel to be effective. Riverside voters backed the panel enough to write its existence into the city charter in 2004. City Hall should respect the voters' decision.
Besides, a credible review commission can help build confidence in the city's police, by providing an independent forum for discussions of police practice. And the panel provides police with a community perspective on events -- one distinctly different from internal police reviews or district attorney investigations. Such insights can be a valuable tool for setting department policy.
Of course, the city government including the micromanaging branch of it on the seventh floor at City Hall has never been good at taking advice and it has never respected the wishes of the voters in terms of their support of the CPRC through a ballot initiative that was approved in 2004. But it was commendable for the editorial board to make an effort to provide some anyway. Noteworthy, but indeed a wasted effort on its part.
The city government has not been neglecting the CPRC. Far from it, it has been doing what some have called, killing it with kindness, meaning that they purport to be making a lot of changes in terms of its operations for the better without community input when in reality, these changes have led to an exodus of commissioners from the commission as well as the "resignation" of an executive director, Pedro Payne. They have led to a commission that no longer knows whether it's coming or it's going and the fact that the voters in this city support the commission has made no difference.
After all, the measure to protect the CPRC passed in every single precinct in every ward in this city including in the wards that are currently represented by city council members who oppose the CPRC. City council members have said publicly that they support the right of the CPRC to do its job because they respect the will of the voters. They have said this with straight faces while behind the scenes, their direct employees have done what Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein has called, "hollowing it out" from the inside. They have said this in the wake of six resignations including five commissioners and one executive director in less than 12 months. Fewer people in the community believe them than they did a year ago.
Actually, what appears to have propelled the latest campaign against Riverside's civilian oversight mechanism is the fact that the voters had the audacity to place it in the city's charter where the current city government, the majority of which don't support the CPRC, couldn't easily touch it. Judging by the actions involving the CPRC and the reluctance of even those on the dais who purportedly support it to question them, the decision of the voters appeared to simply anger and frustrate the city council, most of whom were financed during their initial election campaigns by the Riverside Police Officers' Association because they opposed civilian review.
Now mixed in the fray is incoming executive manager, Kevin Rogan who has a pretty tough row to hoe in terms of either being content to serve as a puppet of the city manager's office like that office tried and failed to do with his predecessor or to struggle for however long his endurance lasts to maintain an independent path. The most prudent step is to do the latter while making it appear to your bosses that you are doing the former but no employee who heads any city department has managed to achieve this delicate balance yet. Which way it will go down remains to be seen in the days, weeks and months if this individual lasts that long, ahead.
Speaking of departures, another CPRC commissioner has resigned. Steve Simpson who was appointed in March submitted his resignation on Friday. His resignation is the fifth during a nine month period and his name the latest on a list of those who departed this ship that is currently headed by City Manager Brad Hudson and his adjutant, Tom DeSantis. His departure puts the commission at a loss, as much as the four previous resignations have. Unlike other commissioners who officially resigned for a variety of reasons, Simpson admitted his frustration but then honesty is one of his strong suits. Abrasive as hell at times, but always telling it as it was, that was Simpson during his short tenure on the panel.
Given that he's as sharp as a tack, it was difficult to believe that there were city officials who actually asked questions of myself about his mental competence only several months ago. One of those elected officials approached me with questions based on part on what he had read on this site.
Was he a pain in the butt a lot of the time? Yes, indeed. But was he mentally competent? Most definitely so along with honest in his choice of words and independent in terms of that as well. It's mind boggling why any council member who hadn't even talked to Simpson would believe it was appropriate to treat him in that fashion. Apparently, there were at least two of them who did.
Unfortunately, honesty and independence of thought are two concepts this city's current regime have always struggled to understand let alone tolerate from the city residents who provide not only public comment at the microphone at weekly meetings but who also serve on its boards and commissions. They probably will never understand what either of these two words mean if they haven't figured either out already.
Whoever is selected to replace him will be decided upon by the vote of the entire city council after a recruitment, selection and interview process is undergone, in theory. In reality, it's the choice of the city council member who is owed a political favor, given that about 99% of the qualified individuals who apply to be considered for the positions have no realistic chance of even being interviewed. Whoever on the dais is owed a political favor by the others will be the one who ultimately selects Simpson's replacement. While Simpson was an independent thinker, it's likely his replacement will be the opposite, whomever that person might be. That's the nature of political appointments after all.
The scenario that may play itself out was simply delayed in its inevitability. But as some have said, including at least one commissioner, things will sort themselves out soon enough.
And so it goes in River City.
The Oregonian published an article about how Mayor Tom Potter of Portland, who is a retired police chief fired a current police officer for a series of mistakes he had made in relation to an onduty shooting.
(excerpt)
Potter demanded Lt. Jeffrey Kaer's badge despite the advice of Chief Rosie Sizer and the 17-year veteran's own emotional plea for his job during a July 30 meeting with the mayor.
At that sit-down, the officer known to colleagues as "Kaer Bear" reminded the mayor that he has spent his career winning commendations and doing exactly the kind of neighborhood-based police work Potter loves. A union lawyer also reminded the mayor that there's a good chance a state arbitrator will give Kaer his job back.
But in a sternly worded termination letter, Potter listed 10 separate points at which he believes Kaer either violated Police Bureau policy or policing common sense. They all came before Kaer fired his 9mm Glock pistol.
"Make no mistake, every police officer has the right and the duty to protect themselves and the community," Potter said. "But no officer should put themselves in that position by repeatedly ignoring bureau policy and exercising poor judgment."
It's a bit different situation where an elected official even a former law enforcement officer can fire a police officer but then again, Portland's a lot different than Riverside in many ways. Potter's kind of an interesting politician, actually or so I've heard.
In Denver, the police department has its hands tied when it come to addressing problems with officers who are repeat offenders, according to this article in the Denver Post. What it sounds like is that if this agency even has an early warning system mechanism in place, it's not one that works properly.
(excerpt)
At least 25 officers remained on the force from January 1997 through September 2006 after they were punished for what the department calls "departure from the truth." In some other police departments, such a complaint, if sustained, can lead to immediate dismissal because it can be used by defense lawyers in criminal cases to challenge an officer's court testimony.
And the force also has persistent repeat offenders. Of 16 officers with 10 or more sustained complaints against them in the time period, only one has been fired. Three of those repeat offenders resigned, and one retired during that time.
It's all part of a discipline system top city officials say is broken and in need of a complete overhaul. Long-standing rules at the city require safety officials to consider past discipline when they impose new sanctions. That means the current administration feels bound by the decisions made by past, more lenient administrations.
In a recent federal court case, Al LaCabe, the city's safety manager, who is in charge of overseeing the Police Department, said not enough written guidelines exist for disciplining officers. He said the "comparative discipline" rule has backfired and caused numerous inconsistencies and problems.
"In my experience as a manager, I have come to learn that there are certain systems in the Police Department and certain ways discipline is handed out which are somewhat inconsistent and leads to what I call sometimes inconsistent results," LaCabe said."
One officer had 26 disciplinary actions taken against him before he was finally fired. One excuse offered up was that the management of the department only reviewed cases where officers were terminated or suspended so they missed many other red flags appearing all over the department.
Several officers still employed have been convicted of crimes including drunk driving. That's not much different than the Riverside Police Department which employs two officers with misdemeanor convictions. In fact, one of them was even promoted while serving out a term of summary probation given as part of a sentence connected with a drunk driving related conviction.
The NAACP in San Jose, California is demanding a federal probe of that city's police department according to the San Jose Mercury News. The organization's leaders said that the department practices racially profiling of Black and Latino motorists and further investigation by an outside agency is warranted.
Rev. Nelson B. Rivers from the NAACP's national office met with the police chief but had some critical words to say about him.
(excerpt)
The chief is very affable, very smooth and eloquent; he has command of the subject matter," Rivers said in an interview with the Mercury News. "But he also did not want to deal with the reality of what we were talking about."
Rivers said: "The chief may be living in the 51st state - the state of denial."
No word as of yet from the U.S. Department of Justice on whether or not it will open a federal probe into the police department.
Also, the public safety committee in Riverside hosted an update of the police department's crisis mental health training that was widely attended by city employees and county mental health professionals serving on the training committee.
Councilman Steve Adams nixed sitting with Committee Chair Andrew Melendrez and fellow member, Councilwoman Nancy Hart to sit with the police contingent. Never a dull moment in his quest for their political endorsement and support during the final round of Election 2007.
More on that meeting in a future posting.
Labels: business as usual, CPRC vs the city
posted by Five Before Midnight | 8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home