Hiding in Plain Sight: What are some strategies for women and does anyone care?
"Strategies That Work" was a position paper that addressed the recruitment and retention of female officers that was published by Police Chief Magazine. In terms of the prevalence of sexual harassment inside police departments, it stated that it was both pervasive and widespread.
To combat that, the article stated that the department's management had to impose policies and procedures which reflected a zero tolerance philosophy involving sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Officers should be trained in the policies governing the handling of sexual harassment including supervisors who often were assigned the task of conducting investigations of sexual harassment complaints.
To be effective, the training had to be different than what is often in place.
(excerpt)
Typically, training on the topic of sexual harassment is delivered in a dry lecture format that prompts many participants to "tune out." This training was different in a number of ways: there was no lecturing; all of the work was done in groups; examples of typical situations that occur in a chain-of-command environment were used; there was a focus on the gray areas of the law rather than only on black-and-white situations; the training was customized to reflect the APD's sexual harassment policies and procedures; and pre- and post - tests were administered. Twenty supervisors - most of them male -attended the voluntary first training session; the second session was mandatory for the remaining supervisors. While both groups gave the training high marks, those who attended voluntarily were clearly more receptive, as shown below.
That's one challenge that's faced which is not to just reach those who might be receptive to the training but to those who may reject it or even be hostile to it. And it's too often the case that inside law enforcement agencies, the latter attitudes are still all too common. Even in police agencies which have experienced other problems which have put them in an unpleasant and unwelcome spotlight, issues with gender and sexual harassment often emerge as well.
In Eureka, California, the police department had experienced great turmoil in the wake of several fatal officer-involved shootings in the past several years along with the drive by city residents to push for civilian oversight over the police department's complaint process. Now, focus is on the controversy over whether or not, the police chief should have his contract renewed.
In the midst of it all comes allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.
(excerpt, Eureka Times-Standard)
DeeDee Wilson said she has served the city for 26 years as a support services manager for the department, but was punitively reassigned to a different position by Nielsen in February.
”I wish I could go into everything that happened to me, but I am unable to do so because I have filed a sexual harassment, hostile workplace complaint against Garr Nielsen, which is currently being investigated,” Wilson told the council as Nielsen sat listening just a few feet away.
”I have been ordered not to speak about this investigation. What I can say is that I am begging you to wait on Chief Nielsen's contract and investigate what is going on in the police department.”
Wilson tearfully went on to say she is not alone, and others in the department have experienced Nielsen's “vindictiveness.”
Before the meeting, City Manager David Tyson said there is one grievance against Nielsen pending with the city, but said it didn't have to do with sexual harassment.
”Sexual harassment is not tolerated in the workplace here in Eureka, bottom line,” Tyson said.
Whether or not that's actually true will depend on how the latest allegations to shake the department this time internally play out. But those statements are often said by the leaders of many a law enforcement agency and meanwhile, it's going on in the background pretty much unchallenged until one or more officers have had enough, are fed up to the point where this attitude overrides the fear of throwing careers away and they file complaints. If they're really cynical about their agencies, they file complaints with outside agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Then you find out that the only thing not tolerated about sexual harassment in the workplace is the reporting of it.
Vanessa Dickons from Massachusetts actually sued her police union for retaliation against her for filing a sexual harassment claim against officers stemming from behavior at a union-sponsored event. She received $2.2 million in damages from a jury.
In Riverside, California, a female police officer who wasn't on the job very long sued alleging that she'd been fired her first day at work with the police department because she filed a sexual harassment complaint at the training academy.
Before Kelsy Metzler had filed a lawsuit against the City of Riverside, she had filed a claim through her attorney, Michael McGill with Lackie & Dammeier, a claim where she provided some details of the chain of events that led to her ouster from the police department as she saw it.
According to the claim, Metzler completed the academy portion of her training and then moved on to complete the two-week orientation training at the police department which she did. She then prepared to be assigned to begin the field training officer program, which was to begin on Sept. 23, 2005. However, instead of being given an assignment, her employment was terminated on Sept. 22 apparently based on an unspecified incident at the academy which the department didn’t like but that incident wasn't explained. Metzler's attorney, Michael McGill wrote in the claim that Metzler was fired because she filed a sexual harassment complaint against another cadet at Ben Clark Training Academy.
Metzler’s claim was rejected according to a letter sent out by the city attorney’s office on Dec. 3, 2005 to McGill. At the end of the city’s letter was a notice that if the lawsuit was determined to be “frivolous”, the city intended to seek legal costs and fees from the plaintiff. Neither statement is uncommon. The city rejects most of the claims it receives in the sense that it almost appears routine and other plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against the city were admonished that they might be charged with the city's legal costs if their lawsuits were deemed frivolous. In the case of the lawsuit filed in 1997 by about 17 Black city employees from various departments, their own attorney wrote them a letter warning them that the city might do like against them if they lost their case at trial or received a verdict that was lower in value than the settlement offer.
Metzler obviously dismissed the warning, hired a new attorney and filed a lawsuit in November 2006.
So what exactly happened to this lawsuit? Not much as it turns out, in terms of it leaving a long paper trail of court appearances, motion hearings and judge's rulings. It didn't even remain in the court system for very long. The city filed a demurrer against it which didn't really address the allegations made by Metzler itself, a demurrer that was never argued or challenged inside a courtroom, because by the hearing date, the lawsuit had been settled. Missing from the demurrer were the usual statements about how nothing in the lawsuit ever happened. Instead, the city's position was that the lawsuit itself, simply wasn't timely.
Contrast that with how the city's handled other racial and sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuits including several that it fought tooth and nail for years, even in one case a decade before reaching a resolution. Not so in this case, which lasted a relatively terse three months after it was filed, less than that if you count the days from the time the city was first served with the lawsuit.
In May 3, 2007, a case management statement was released which included statements by the defendants that the allegations raised by Metzler were without merit and she wasn’t entitled to any damages. It also included the following statement.
Defendants also believe that the parties have reached a full settlement of this action and anticipate the filing of a notice of settlement forthwith, followed by a request for dismissal.
Both parties expressed interest in mediation but depositions were scheduled to be taken in the case in the summer of 2007 in case it didn't all work out. However, Kelsy Metzler v the City of Riverside resolved itself before either party ever made a single court appearance. That's a bit different than the handling of most lawsuits filed by city employees alleging harassment and/or discrimination.
It was pencil whipping at its best. But what happened? Chances are, the public which paid to have this lawsuit litigated by the city will never know. The public will never know, because the city doesn't want it to know. The city could have gone to court to argue on behalf of the demurrer it filed to sink the lawsuit before it pretty much got started. Although it's a tossup whether or not it would have had it dismissed by a judge for not being timely, it could have at least tried to go through with it. Instead, what did the city do? It settled the case quietly and behind closed doors before any more pencil whipping by either side could hit the public record.
Even though the case was settled in such a hush hush way, it leaves one with an unsettled feeling that the city with all its litigation might have had an arsenal of legalese and a ton of tax payer money at its disposal but among these was there righteousness and truth? Why is the impression left behind that the city was scared of one female police officer who remained in its employment not long enough to even begin the field training program? If there was concern about the track record Metzler was bringing into the police department as a complaint filer and the implications for the department and the city if she filed a lawsuit alleging misconduct in her new job, would that be grounds for job termination?
The United States District Court in Riverside served as the stage for issues surrounding the upcoming manslaughter trial of former U.S. Marine sergeant and former Riverside Police Department officer, Jose Nazario. The decision was whether or not to dismiss two manslaughter charges filed against him.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
A former Riverside police officer, Nazario has pleaded not guilty to two charges of manslaughter in the deaths of two Iraqi detainees. He is being tried in federal court because he is no longer in the military.
Also, two other Marines have been charged in the deaths of two more Iraqis connected to the Nazario case.
According to court documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Nazario killed one detainee, ordered the two subordinates to kill two more and then shot the remaining detainee himself.
Attorneys for Nazario requested the case be dismissed, asserting that the law under which he was charged does not apply to combat -- and that it's not the job of the civilian courts and juries to examine combat actions.
Prosecutors said the killings violated the laws of war.
The presiding judge did not issue a ruling on whether Nazario can be tried by a civilian jury for a crime that occurred during a military action, but asked questions of whether or not that situation could parallel that of a police officer who was being prosecuted for an onduty use of force incident whose future would lie in the hands of a jury which may not have been trained in departmental policy but would still be required to issue a verdict.
Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein was out conducting polls again, this time at UCR's illustrious carillon tower to determine how many university students know who Thurgood Marshall was. As it turned out, not many people he cited in his column on the subject seemed to know that he was the first Black United States Supreme Court justice.
His poll likely comes in response to the fact that most of the members of the Alvord Unified School District which is preparing to name a new school knew who he was either.
Weighing on the emerging controversy over the renovation of the Fox Plaza is the Press Enterprise Editorial Board, which takes City Hall to task for what it calls stifling public input.
The board does understand that what's going on with the Fox Plaza project is not an isolated incident where the powers-that-be at City Hall have made it clear how disinterested they are in receiving public comment. This is just the latest example.
(excerpt)
Cultural Heritage board member Ralph Megna offered a cogent analysis of that suggestion: "What does this say to the public about the way the city treats their views?"
Indeed. The perception of a city government dismissive of public input played a central role in last year's city elections. The city's handling of the $1.8 billion Riverside Renaissance Initiative is a prime example: The City Council approved the sweeping civic improvement plan with little chance for the public to digest the details. And when residents did catch up, the city had to backtrack on plans to sell Tequesquite Park.
Bypassing public input saps civic support for the city's renewal efforts. Residents see the wisdom of bringing new economic life to the city's core. But that understanding does not give the city permission to short-circuit their participation.
Hopefully, some day the folks at City Hall will figure this out. If not, there's another election cycle coming up next year.
A cement factory near Riverside that apparently has been spewing out hexavalent chromium drew hundreds of upset local residents, according to the Press Enterprise.
(excerpt)
Resident Donna Peters said the cement dust affects her every day. "My lawnmower is white instead of red. When you get up at four in the morning, you see cement dust coming at you," she said.
Cement dust covers her car, she said. "When I get home from work, I have to have a bottle of vinegar to clean it off.
"No one seems to care."
Many of the 200 to 300 people at the meeting, held at Ina Arbuckle Elementary School in Rubidoux, said they believe the cement dust has made them ill, or wonder if it has.
Diane Leyerly said she has lived a block from the plant for about 15 years.
"We have all this white powder, and it's ruining our cars and our house, and now we've learned it's hurting our health," she said in an interview before the meeting. She said she wonders if the cement dust contributed to her breast cancer, diagnosed four years ago.
Leyerly's daughter, Sheila Leyerly, said her sons, ages 1, 5 and 7, come down with rashes when they visit their grandmother.
A neighbor, Russ Randol, said his wife, Theresa, suffers from chronic allergies. "The family gets sick all the time and I don't know why."
Dozens of cases involving police officers in Los Angeles and San Francisco will remain in their respective administrative systems after a State Supreme Court decision that prevented them from being dismissed.
The first trial will begin of an Atlanta Police Department officer involved in the 2006 fatal shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnson, who was shot to death in her own home after plain-clothed narcotics officers broke into her house with a falsified warrant.
In Spokane, the new ombudsman there debuted to mixed reviews, according to the Spokesman Review.
(excerpt)
The Spokane proposal limits the ombudsman to monitoring citizen complaints and does not allow independent investigations of serious incidents involving the police, such as officer-involved shootings and use of force – incidents such as the 2006 death of Otto Zehm.
Investigations into complaints could only be launched after the police agree an investigation is needed.
Limiting the ombudsman to reviewing citizen complaints is a "major, major weakness" in contrast to already-established programs in Portland, Denver, Boise and Seattle, Bobb added.
Also, the ombudsman would not be able to recommend any police discipline. He or she would only be able to certify that an investigation conducted by the police was "thorough and objective" – and would have to appeal to the police themselves for additional investigation. Spokane Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick has insisted that she be the sole arbiter of discipline.
That's somewhat weaker than in the other major West Coast programs, Bobb said.
"In no other system does the office have the power to impose discipline. But they can make a recommendation," Bobb said.
A guest columnist, Breean Beggs argued that weak oversight is worse than none at all.
(excerpt, Spokesman Review)
The results of that step were made public April 9. Unfortunately, the "tentative" agreement that emerged from the negotiations is missing the very essence of independence that Pailca recommended. The new proposal fails to deliver what was promised to the public for the following reasons:
• Under the new plan, the ombudsperson would have no power whatsoever to conduct independent investigations of alleged police misconduct. Investigations into complaints could be initiated only when police agree that an investigation is warranted.
• If an investigation is initiated, the ombudsperson's role would be restricted to observing and, at most, asking questions of officers and witnesses when police investigators are done with their questions. The ombudsperson would have no say whatsoever in the outcome of the police inquiry.
• If the ombudsperson concludes that a police investigation into a complaint is not "thorough and objective," the most he/she could do is appeal to the chief or the mayor for additional investigation – by the police themselves.
This is not what Pailca recommended and the mayor and chief endorsed. In her proposal, the ombudsperson/monitor would always retain the right to conduct an independent inquiry when dissatisfied with a police investigation.
There are other serious shortcomings in the new plan, all of which allow the police to hold so much power that it may deter any professionally qualified candidate with integrity from applying for the new position.
The ACLU is supporting attempts by the civilian oversight mechanism in Albany to receive more information on police officers who receive multiple complaints.
(excerpt)
The citizen review board was created to promote trust between police officers and citizens to assure accountability of the department. The proposed legislation would provide the board with a comprehensive understanding of the officers in the police department and would enable the board to better identify patterns of behavior. This provides an early warning system that would aid the department in realizing which officers would benefit from additional training or counseling.
This legislation will in no way affect officers who are committed to providing safe communities, but will simply give the review board a chance to hold officers to the highest level of accountability.
Residents of Columbia, Missouri have one more opportunity to provide input on civilian review in their city.The city government created a research committee to examine various forms of civilian oversight and then make recommendations to the governing council. What's been fairly consistant is that the residents of Columbia who have spoken out want a stronger, more independent mechanism of civilian oversight but is the city ready for this?
(excerpt, The Maneater)
The Citizen Oversight Committee met at the Armory Sports & Community Center on Thursday night, and the consensus of the about 20 citizens in attendance was that a review board is needed to restore trust in the police.
“The fact that we’re all here says a lot,” Columbia resident William Robertson said.
Robertson said the citizens wouldn’t have gathered if they weren’t concerned with the state of police relations with civilians. He said if a review board were created, it would be key that the board be objective and transparent, giving it external accountability.
“It should be used in only extraordinary situations,” Robertson said.
Columbia resident Edith Prince said she had an incident with police involving her son about a year and a half ago. Prince felt the police did not treat her or her son fairly during or after the incident. She said she was unable to file a complaint, and began holding meetings in churches and other public locations.
“I went and talked to the police chief,” Prince said. “That is as good as filing a complaint.”
And in what must be a rare situation, the Columbia Police Officers' Association announced its support of civilian oversight.
'
If you've been following the situation involving Riverside Police Department Officer Marcus Smail including the latest here, you know that negotiations between him and the city have ended regarding the purchase of the house that he's been renting on Antioch Street.
If you support having the two parties resume negotiations, contact your elected officials below.
City Council: 826-5991
mgardner@riversideca.gov
asmelendrez@riversideca.gov
rbailey@riversideca.gov
fschiavone@riversideca.gov
cmacarthur@riversideca.gov
nhart@riversideca.gov
sadams@riversideca.gov
Mayor's office: 826-5551
rloveridge@riversideca.gov
To combat that, the article stated that the department's management had to impose policies and procedures which reflected a zero tolerance philosophy involving sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Officers should be trained in the policies governing the handling of sexual harassment including supervisors who often were assigned the task of conducting investigations of sexual harassment complaints.
To be effective, the training had to be different than what is often in place.
(excerpt)
Typically, training on the topic of sexual harassment is delivered in a dry lecture format that prompts many participants to "tune out." This training was different in a number of ways: there was no lecturing; all of the work was done in groups; examples of typical situations that occur in a chain-of-command environment were used; there was a focus on the gray areas of the law rather than only on black-and-white situations; the training was customized to reflect the APD's sexual harassment policies and procedures; and pre- and post - tests were administered. Twenty supervisors - most of them male -attended the voluntary first training session; the second session was mandatory for the remaining supervisors. While both groups gave the training high marks, those who attended voluntarily were clearly more receptive, as shown below.
That's one challenge that's faced which is not to just reach those who might be receptive to the training but to those who may reject it or even be hostile to it. And it's too often the case that inside law enforcement agencies, the latter attitudes are still all too common. Even in police agencies which have experienced other problems which have put them in an unpleasant and unwelcome spotlight, issues with gender and sexual harassment often emerge as well.
In Eureka, California, the police department had experienced great turmoil in the wake of several fatal officer-involved shootings in the past several years along with the drive by city residents to push for civilian oversight over the police department's complaint process. Now, focus is on the controversy over whether or not, the police chief should have his contract renewed.
In the midst of it all comes allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.
(excerpt, Eureka Times-Standard)
DeeDee Wilson said she has served the city for 26 years as a support services manager for the department, but was punitively reassigned to a different position by Nielsen in February.
”I wish I could go into everything that happened to me, but I am unable to do so because I have filed a sexual harassment, hostile workplace complaint against Garr Nielsen, which is currently being investigated,” Wilson told the council as Nielsen sat listening just a few feet away.
”I have been ordered not to speak about this investigation. What I can say is that I am begging you to wait on Chief Nielsen's contract and investigate what is going on in the police department.”
Wilson tearfully went on to say she is not alone, and others in the department have experienced Nielsen's “vindictiveness.”
Before the meeting, City Manager David Tyson said there is one grievance against Nielsen pending with the city, but said it didn't have to do with sexual harassment.
”Sexual harassment is not tolerated in the workplace here in Eureka, bottom line,” Tyson said.
Whether or not that's actually true will depend on how the latest allegations to shake the department this time internally play out. But those statements are often said by the leaders of many a law enforcement agency and meanwhile, it's going on in the background pretty much unchallenged until one or more officers have had enough, are fed up to the point where this attitude overrides the fear of throwing careers away and they file complaints. If they're really cynical about their agencies, they file complaints with outside agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Then you find out that the only thing not tolerated about sexual harassment in the workplace is the reporting of it.
Vanessa Dickons from Massachusetts actually sued her police union for retaliation against her for filing a sexual harassment claim against officers stemming from behavior at a union-sponsored event. She received $2.2 million in damages from a jury.
In Riverside, California, a female police officer who wasn't on the job very long sued alleging that she'd been fired her first day at work with the police department because she filed a sexual harassment complaint at the training academy.
Before Kelsy Metzler had filed a lawsuit against the City of Riverside, she had filed a claim through her attorney, Michael McGill with Lackie & Dammeier, a claim where she provided some details of the chain of events that led to her ouster from the police department as she saw it.
According to the claim, Metzler completed the academy portion of her training and then moved on to complete the two-week orientation training at the police department which she did. She then prepared to be assigned to begin the field training officer program, which was to begin on Sept. 23, 2005. However, instead of being given an assignment, her employment was terminated on Sept. 22 apparently based on an unspecified incident at the academy which the department didn’t like but that incident wasn't explained. Metzler's attorney, Michael McGill wrote in the claim that Metzler was fired because she filed a sexual harassment complaint against another cadet at Ben Clark Training Academy.
Metzler’s claim was rejected according to a letter sent out by the city attorney’s office on Dec. 3, 2005 to McGill. At the end of the city’s letter was a notice that if the lawsuit was determined to be “frivolous”, the city intended to seek legal costs and fees from the plaintiff. Neither statement is uncommon. The city rejects most of the claims it receives in the sense that it almost appears routine and other plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against the city were admonished that they might be charged with the city's legal costs if their lawsuits were deemed frivolous. In the case of the lawsuit filed in 1997 by about 17 Black city employees from various departments, their own attorney wrote them a letter warning them that the city might do like against them if they lost their case at trial or received a verdict that was lower in value than the settlement offer.
Metzler obviously dismissed the warning, hired a new attorney and filed a lawsuit in November 2006.
So what exactly happened to this lawsuit? Not much as it turns out, in terms of it leaving a long paper trail of court appearances, motion hearings and judge's rulings. It didn't even remain in the court system for very long. The city filed a demurrer against it which didn't really address the allegations made by Metzler itself, a demurrer that was never argued or challenged inside a courtroom, because by the hearing date, the lawsuit had been settled. Missing from the demurrer were the usual statements about how nothing in the lawsuit ever happened. Instead, the city's position was that the lawsuit itself, simply wasn't timely.
Contrast that with how the city's handled other racial and sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuits including several that it fought tooth and nail for years, even in one case a decade before reaching a resolution. Not so in this case, which lasted a relatively terse three months after it was filed, less than that if you count the days from the time the city was first served with the lawsuit.
In May 3, 2007, a case management statement was released which included statements by the defendants that the allegations raised by Metzler were without merit and she wasn’t entitled to any damages. It also included the following statement.
Defendants also believe that the parties have reached a full settlement of this action and anticipate the filing of a notice of settlement forthwith, followed by a request for dismissal.
Both parties expressed interest in mediation but depositions were scheduled to be taken in the case in the summer of 2007 in case it didn't all work out. However, Kelsy Metzler v the City of Riverside resolved itself before either party ever made a single court appearance. That's a bit different than the handling of most lawsuits filed by city employees alleging harassment and/or discrimination.
It was pencil whipping at its best. But what happened? Chances are, the public which paid to have this lawsuit litigated by the city will never know. The public will never know, because the city doesn't want it to know. The city could have gone to court to argue on behalf of the demurrer it filed to sink the lawsuit before it pretty much got started. Although it's a tossup whether or not it would have had it dismissed by a judge for not being timely, it could have at least tried to go through with it. Instead, what did the city do? It settled the case quietly and behind closed doors before any more pencil whipping by either side could hit the public record.
Even though the case was settled in such a hush hush way, it leaves one with an unsettled feeling that the city with all its litigation might have had an arsenal of legalese and a ton of tax payer money at its disposal but among these was there righteousness and truth? Why is the impression left behind that the city was scared of one female police officer who remained in its employment not long enough to even begin the field training program? If there was concern about the track record Metzler was bringing into the police department as a complaint filer and the implications for the department and the city if she filed a lawsuit alleging misconduct in her new job, would that be grounds for job termination?
The United States District Court in Riverside served as the stage for issues surrounding the upcoming manslaughter trial of former U.S. Marine sergeant and former Riverside Police Department officer, Jose Nazario. The decision was whether or not to dismiss two manslaughter charges filed against him.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
A former Riverside police officer, Nazario has pleaded not guilty to two charges of manslaughter in the deaths of two Iraqi detainees. He is being tried in federal court because he is no longer in the military.
Also, two other Marines have been charged in the deaths of two more Iraqis connected to the Nazario case.
According to court documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Nazario killed one detainee, ordered the two subordinates to kill two more and then shot the remaining detainee himself.
Attorneys for Nazario requested the case be dismissed, asserting that the law under which he was charged does not apply to combat -- and that it's not the job of the civilian courts and juries to examine combat actions.
Prosecutors said the killings violated the laws of war.
The presiding judge did not issue a ruling on whether Nazario can be tried by a civilian jury for a crime that occurred during a military action, but asked questions of whether or not that situation could parallel that of a police officer who was being prosecuted for an onduty use of force incident whose future would lie in the hands of a jury which may not have been trained in departmental policy but would still be required to issue a verdict.
Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein was out conducting polls again, this time at UCR's illustrious carillon tower to determine how many university students know who Thurgood Marshall was. As it turned out, not many people he cited in his column on the subject seemed to know that he was the first Black United States Supreme Court justice.
His poll likely comes in response to the fact that most of the members of the Alvord Unified School District which is preparing to name a new school knew who he was either.
Weighing on the emerging controversy over the renovation of the Fox Plaza is the Press Enterprise Editorial Board, which takes City Hall to task for what it calls stifling public input.
The board does understand that what's going on with the Fox Plaza project is not an isolated incident where the powers-that-be at City Hall have made it clear how disinterested they are in receiving public comment. This is just the latest example.
(excerpt)
Cultural Heritage board member Ralph Megna offered a cogent analysis of that suggestion: "What does this say to the public about the way the city treats their views?"
Indeed. The perception of a city government dismissive of public input played a central role in last year's city elections. The city's handling of the $1.8 billion Riverside Renaissance Initiative is a prime example: The City Council approved the sweeping civic improvement plan with little chance for the public to digest the details. And when residents did catch up, the city had to backtrack on plans to sell Tequesquite Park.
Bypassing public input saps civic support for the city's renewal efforts. Residents see the wisdom of bringing new economic life to the city's core. But that understanding does not give the city permission to short-circuit their participation.
Hopefully, some day the folks at City Hall will figure this out. If not, there's another election cycle coming up next year.
A cement factory near Riverside that apparently has been spewing out hexavalent chromium drew hundreds of upset local residents, according to the Press Enterprise.
(excerpt)
Resident Donna Peters said the cement dust affects her every day. "My lawnmower is white instead of red. When you get up at four in the morning, you see cement dust coming at you," she said.
Cement dust covers her car, she said. "When I get home from work, I have to have a bottle of vinegar to clean it off.
"No one seems to care."
Many of the 200 to 300 people at the meeting, held at Ina Arbuckle Elementary School in Rubidoux, said they believe the cement dust has made them ill, or wonder if it has.
Diane Leyerly said she has lived a block from the plant for about 15 years.
"We have all this white powder, and it's ruining our cars and our house, and now we've learned it's hurting our health," she said in an interview before the meeting. She said she wonders if the cement dust contributed to her breast cancer, diagnosed four years ago.
Leyerly's daughter, Sheila Leyerly, said her sons, ages 1, 5 and 7, come down with rashes when they visit their grandmother.
A neighbor, Russ Randol, said his wife, Theresa, suffers from chronic allergies. "The family gets sick all the time and I don't know why."
Dozens of cases involving police officers in Los Angeles and San Francisco will remain in their respective administrative systems after a State Supreme Court decision that prevented them from being dismissed.
The first trial will begin of an Atlanta Police Department officer involved in the 2006 fatal shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnson, who was shot to death in her own home after plain-clothed narcotics officers broke into her house with a falsified warrant.
In Spokane, the new ombudsman there debuted to mixed reviews, according to the Spokesman Review.
(excerpt)
The Spokane proposal limits the ombudsman to monitoring citizen complaints and does not allow independent investigations of serious incidents involving the police, such as officer-involved shootings and use of force – incidents such as the 2006 death of Otto Zehm.
Investigations into complaints could only be launched after the police agree an investigation is needed.
Limiting the ombudsman to reviewing citizen complaints is a "major, major weakness" in contrast to already-established programs in Portland, Denver, Boise and Seattle, Bobb added.
Also, the ombudsman would not be able to recommend any police discipline. He or she would only be able to certify that an investigation conducted by the police was "thorough and objective" – and would have to appeal to the police themselves for additional investigation. Spokane Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick has insisted that she be the sole arbiter of discipline.
That's somewhat weaker than in the other major West Coast programs, Bobb said.
"In no other system does the office have the power to impose discipline. But they can make a recommendation," Bobb said.
A guest columnist, Breean Beggs argued that weak oversight is worse than none at all.
(excerpt, Spokesman Review)
The results of that step were made public April 9. Unfortunately, the "tentative" agreement that emerged from the negotiations is missing the very essence of independence that Pailca recommended. The new proposal fails to deliver what was promised to the public for the following reasons:
• Under the new plan, the ombudsperson would have no power whatsoever to conduct independent investigations of alleged police misconduct. Investigations into complaints could be initiated only when police agree that an investigation is warranted.
• If an investigation is initiated, the ombudsperson's role would be restricted to observing and, at most, asking questions of officers and witnesses when police investigators are done with their questions. The ombudsperson would have no say whatsoever in the outcome of the police inquiry.
• If the ombudsperson concludes that a police investigation into a complaint is not "thorough and objective," the most he/she could do is appeal to the chief or the mayor for additional investigation – by the police themselves.
This is not what Pailca recommended and the mayor and chief endorsed. In her proposal, the ombudsperson/monitor would always retain the right to conduct an independent inquiry when dissatisfied with a police investigation.
There are other serious shortcomings in the new plan, all of which allow the police to hold so much power that it may deter any professionally qualified candidate with integrity from applying for the new position.
The ACLU is supporting attempts by the civilian oversight mechanism in Albany to receive more information on police officers who receive multiple complaints.
(excerpt)
The citizen review board was created to promote trust between police officers and citizens to assure accountability of the department. The proposed legislation would provide the board with a comprehensive understanding of the officers in the police department and would enable the board to better identify patterns of behavior. This provides an early warning system that would aid the department in realizing which officers would benefit from additional training or counseling.
This legislation will in no way affect officers who are committed to providing safe communities, but will simply give the review board a chance to hold officers to the highest level of accountability.
Residents of Columbia, Missouri have one more opportunity to provide input on civilian review in their city.The city government created a research committee to examine various forms of civilian oversight and then make recommendations to the governing council. What's been fairly consistant is that the residents of Columbia who have spoken out want a stronger, more independent mechanism of civilian oversight but is the city ready for this?
(excerpt, The Maneater)
The Citizen Oversight Committee met at the Armory Sports & Community Center on Thursday night, and the consensus of the about 20 citizens in attendance was that a review board is needed to restore trust in the police.
“The fact that we’re all here says a lot,” Columbia resident William Robertson said.
Robertson said the citizens wouldn’t have gathered if they weren’t concerned with the state of police relations with civilians. He said if a review board were created, it would be key that the board be objective and transparent, giving it external accountability.
“It should be used in only extraordinary situations,” Robertson said.
Columbia resident Edith Prince said she had an incident with police involving her son about a year and a half ago. Prince felt the police did not treat her or her son fairly during or after the incident. She said she was unable to file a complaint, and began holding meetings in churches and other public locations.
“I went and talked to the police chief,” Prince said. “That is as good as filing a complaint.”
And in what must be a rare situation, the Columbia Police Officers' Association announced its support of civilian oversight.
'
If you've been following the situation involving Riverside Police Department Officer Marcus Smail including the latest here, you know that negotiations between him and the city have ended regarding the purchase of the house that he's been renting on Antioch Street.
If you support having the two parties resume negotiations, contact your elected officials below.
City Council: 826-5991
mgardner@riversideca.gov
asmelendrez@riversideca.gov
rbailey@riversideca.gov
fschiavone@riversideca.gov
cmacarthur@riversideca.gov
nhart@riversideca.gov
sadams@riversideca.gov
Mayor's office: 826-5551
rloveridge@riversideca.gov
Labels: Backlash against civilian oversight, civilian review spreads, officer-involved shootings, public forums in all places, sexism costs
posted by Five Before Midnight | 12:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home