Mid-week: Reports and reviews

I've had a good response on my postings on the history of the Community Police Review Commission since I started writing them. What sparked them was different things, including references in reports and in conversations. Also, there are many new people who have moved to Riverside who don't know much about the CPRC and its role in civilian oversight in this city.



Yesterday, consultant Joe Brann presented his draft of his report on the CPRC along with recommendations to improve its operations. His audience this time was the Public Safety Committee, which is chaired by Councilman Andrew Melendrez and includes City Council Members Nancy Hart and Michael Gardner as members. Attending was Executive Manager Kevin Rogan and one of his bosses, the assistant city manager, Tom DeSantis and City Attorney Gregory Priamos. Also members of the community, which led the city manager's office to rush off and print copies of the report for them to read, symptomatic of City Hall's response to community on this issue over a period of time.


Here's an article on how several commissioners on the CPRC viewed Brann's report on its operations.


(excerpt)


New commissioner Chani Beeman described the report as "soft," adding that that was to be expected from someone hired by the city.

Nonetheless, it provides a framework for residents, commissioners and the city, Beeman said.

Commissioner Jim Ward said the report carried the fingerprint of city officials. He said the commission remains necessary but residents supporting it are viewed as anti-police.

He said the commission's role is to determine what is appropriate behavior by police.

However, he said he has been discouraged by what he said is a lack of attention to its recommendations by the Police Department.

"They don't understand that police officers are human beings just like the rest of us, and they make mistakes just like the rest of us," Ward said. "The purpose is to point out these imperfections when they occur and hope officers look at them and try to improve on them."




Ward's comments were interesting as I had a conversation with a police officer not too long ago who wanted to be known for all the good he or she did and not just the unpleasant incidents. I'm not sure how he or she viewed the negative or whether it was viewed as a balancing act. Ward might see the negative as an opportunity to learn from in order to reinforce what is positive. At least he engages the process whether you agree or disagree with him. He discusses. He just doesn't sit quietly and then vote on a public report either for a "straw poll" or the final draft.

Perhaps what Ward would point out as the "imperfections" in many cases, the ones that the charter powers designate the CPRC to review and even investigate before issuing findings which fit in several categories of outcomes to choose from. There are those commissioners who are unwilling to "judge" an officer's split-second decision, as individuals who have much more time to review the material even within the lines of a written policy. But no one would expect less of the mechanisms that the police department itself uses to investigate, review and ultimately decide on misconduct allegations and officer involved shootings and deaths. No one should expect less of a commisson that also takes upon an important role. Part of the advantage that the commission enjoys is that it does have the extra time to review the tactics that officers employ before or during an officer involved shooting for example. But some of the commissioners particularly in the shooting case of Lee Deante Brown case felt hesitant to do so during the discussion that took place during the drafting of the public report.

Yet somehow out of it, came 10 policy recommendations including several that involved deployment of both officers and supervisors, as well as tactics used before the shooting. How many of these recommendations will be implemented upon being reviewed? Will the department even respond to them at all? It will be a wait and see process.



Only two commissioners have responded publicly to the report so far out of nine, part of this being because they didn't see the report until right before the meeting. Partly because except for several of them, it's a pretty quiet bunch at least in front of the public.



Hopefully, it will be the topic of further discussions at future commission meetings, but that's not very likely any time soon because the commission has pretty much shied away from these and other related issues in its meeting agendas. Unless one of the commissioners, most often Ward, brings up these issues in commissioner comments for future discussion, all you can hear are crickets on that dais.

The report was viewed as being "soft" but a good "framework" by one commissioner and having a trace of city fingerprints by the other. It is a framework for the city and the commissioners to work with to some degree. But the city's input to it is also readily apparent and ultimately? It's the city which gets to decide whether to implement the recommendations, how many or whether to chuck the whole thing out. That's how it is in any jurisdiction where a report is done on its oversight mechanism like Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and other places.

But as "soft" as the report may be, it wouldn't be much more so than how the commissioners themselves have responded to the issues that have been raised over a period of time. This is in part, reflective of a post-Measure GG commission selection process. Recruiting by wards which is in a sense an artificial construct in this city set aside solely for elected representation and consequently, often leaders to residents in particular neighborhoods within those wards being favored for representation within that ward. One reason why Ward Two commissioners have historically tended to come from Canyoncrest and Sycamore Canyon areas and not the Eastside. for example. Why commissioners from Ward Four except for an original member, haven't come from Casa Blanca. It's complicated greatly by a shortage of applicants from Wards Six and Seven which continued after the passage of GG until last year when there were more applicants including enough to field interviews for the Ward Six vacancy.

The same council members who once howled about Measure GG to the point where they once contemplated sponsoring another ballot initiative to readdress the issue now are quiet themselves because they've figured out how to make it work for them, as politicians are set to do through a series of adaptations and reassessments.



Currently, one-third of the commission comes from Ward One including two out of the three most recent open seats. Every other ward has only a single representative, the minimum required under the current charter. Racially, the commission is predominantly White, with three out of the four Latinos that had been seated on it either terming out or resigning mid-term. Only three Black commissioners have served including current commissioner, Ward. And recently, there was a comment that the reason there were no more Latinos on a commission in a city that's about 40% Latino is because no one qualified has applied, which isn't exactly the truth. The truth is, there have been "qualified" Latinos who have applied, but not been interviewed or selected to be interviewed by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee, which especially during 2007 appeared on several occasions to have had its mind made up on who to interview or even select before its members had even sat down to meet.

At least one applicant who had a Ph.D and a law degree who actually was referred to the process by both civilian community members and police officers withdrew his application because he was concerned that those who expressed their opinions would be pressured to resign or kicked off.


Because of all the mid-term resignations and the process for filling mid-term vacancies, city council members who with the exception now of Gardner, appear to know very little about the actual demands and operations of the CPRC are left to go out and find people to fill vacancies from their ward. That changed slightly when the process was recently changed so that all vacancies would be filled using the same process as is used annually for the CPRC, the Board of Public Utilities and the Planning Commission.



Councilman Mike Gardner from Ward One, who once served on the commission asked for an analysis of the pros and cons of using the city attorney's office to provide legal counsel for the CPRC or going to an outside attorney.



City Attorney Gregory Priamos who was sitting at the table didn't look entirely pleased. Neither Priamos nor Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis looked thrilled when Gardner made another suggestion which was to evaluate who the commission should report to, the city manager or the city council. Then you had two unhappy looking men, who chatted back and forth from time to time during Brann's presentation and the conversations that their direct employers, the city council members, had with Brann during the meeting. Still the smiles returned when they moved on to other issues.



It would be intriguing to have the commission report to the city council but it wouldn't free it from being heavily dependent in its current state on the political culture of the dais. Would it increase it? That would depend.

Hart had some interesting comments about comparing the commission's deliberation process to the film, 12 Angry Men which made it appeared that she believed that commissioners should be like-minded. She suggested that propsective commissioners be given an orientation to educate them on the role and time commitment to the commission while they were awaiting appointment.




What's the most secretative civilian oversight mechanism in the country? It might just be Boston's. At least one national expert in civilian oversight was shocked at what's come about in Beantown.



(excerpt, Boston Herald)



Since Mayor Thomas M. Menino created the Community Ombudsman Oversight Panel and Complaint Mediation Program in March, the three-member board has convened just 11 times, in six locations - all of them closed to the public, said corporation counsel William Sinnott.

The meetings lasted two hours on average, Sinnott said, but no minutes were taken to record what transpired. To date, only one Boston resident has brought a complaint to the panel, Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce said yesterday, and that happened after the Herald began making inquiries two weeks ago.

Sinnott said the board has thus far reviewed seven cases picked at random by the Boston Police Department’s internal affairs department. City officials refuse to provide any details of those cases, or of recommendations the board may have made to BPD brass, saying it would violate the privacy of city employees.

One national expert, who was consulted by city officials when they were creating the current board, expressed shock and dismay at the way the Hub panel conducts business.

“How can you have an agency that doesn’t keep minutes?” said Sam Walker, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nebraska. “That doesn’t even meet the minimum standards. I knew there were a lot of compromises in what was finally created. (But) that’s not acceptable.”




You'd think. If the process was created to foster accountability, transparency and trust, then the way it's operating creates little of that.



Not surprisingly, all three board members declined to comment for the article. Maybe they'll do so in secret.











More controversy with Eugene's auditor. But the Eugene Registrar-Guard's editorial board stated that the auditor's office should be strengthened.



(excerpt)


The council must also establish clear lines of communication with the auditor’s office. Swanson listed his allegations against Beamud in a Feb. 4 letter to the council, but it took eight days for councilors to learn about them. Some councilors were understandably upset by that ridiculous delay, and they should put in place the procedures necessary to make sure they learn about future complaints within hours, not days.

It’s taken a long time, but the auditor’s office is finally up and running. But recent developments make it clear the council has more work to do to ensure the survival of a system that for decades to come will provide the accessible, impartial, transparent and accountable oversight that’s essential to restoring and preserving this community’s trust in its police department.




But the Lane County District Attorney's office has declined to file any charges against Beamud.




If you want to access links to the country's civilian oversight mechanisms used by different cities and counties go here.







In Michigan, a recent court ruling on a case where a police officer started a blog criticizing the police chief in his department. The site, Fire Jerry O was started by Officer John Bennett in 2002. Bennett is now running for city council.


The Watering Hole is another blog.




In Salt Lake City, a city with a civilian oversight mechanism which has experienced a lot of turmoil comes the question. Is Police Chief Chris Burank hiding the dirt in his department?



Columnist Rebecca Walsh of the Salt Lake City Tribune is asking that question. She's concerned about proposed legislation to tighten the disclosure laws about peace officers in that city.


(excerpt)



Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank and police union President Tom Gallegos are tight.


Which explains how Gallegos can still be on the job after harassing two female co-workers - "I probably should not be alone in a room with you when you're on your knees," he told one - and sending porn from his city computer (a felony). Instead of firing Gallegos, Burbank has filled his personnel file with letters of reprimand.


Gallegos probably would rather not have the dirty details of his on-the-job sexual harassment training revealed. But even Chief Burbank couldn't help him.

West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars can. He's sponsoring legislation that would allow cops like Gallegos - with the complicity of police chiefs like Burbank - to keep their disciplinary records secret. Under the bill, which is backed by the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, officers would have to consent to release information about their bad acts.



They'll win because they have the money and the pockets to dig deep into, but because they will win in the long run, everyone will lose.






There's an comprehensive and interesting article in the Philadelphia Daily News on why its officer-involved shooting rate is consistantly high. This article is part of an ongoing series by the publication on this issue.