PIIAC POKES ITS HEAD UP AFTER A FUNK;
COMMUNITY URGES INDEPENDENT REVIEW
It is amazing how many people are calling for an independent citizen review board in the wake of the Dickie Dow case. Even the wavering Skanner newspaper,which praises police "tough- on-crime" policies as much as it criticizes them, called for an independent review board in their November 4 issue.
But just as amazing is the number of people who assume Portland doesn't even have a review board. Until November (see sidebar), PIIAC (the Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee) was not doing very much to dispel the myth. From May through October, PIIAC only met two times (June and September), cancelling four out of six meetings.
We reported in our last issue that the number of civilians coming forth with appeals of Internal Affairs findings has dropped dramatically since last year. In June and September of 1997, Chief Moose refused to accept two "sustained" findings from City Council, which carries the weight of PIIAC's recommendations, although the 13 citizen advisors and staff person do most of the work. Lisa Botsko, staff person for PIIAC, was angered that our article implied a cause-and-effect relationship between the Chief's actions and the fall-off in appellants. No, we can't prove such a thing; but who in the community would want to go through the grueling process of an Internal Affairs probe, hearings at the Citizen Advisors level, and then a hearing in front of City Council, only to find out that the elected officials do not have final say in their cases of police misconduct?
Firebrand defense attorney Emily Simon resigned from the board in June, in part frustrated by this system. Even though she was a high profile critic of police, neither the mainstream press or even her nemeses in the Portland Police Association (PPA) seemed to notice her resignation.
Now is the time for Copwatch to dust off its 1993 "Proposal for an Effective Civilian Review Board." For newcomers, here is how the current system works versus what we propose:
Current: Copwatch Proposal: PIIAC reviews Internal Affairs investigations Review board has
independent investigators
PIIAC recommends findings through Council Review board's findings are final;
Chief can decide whether or not to discipline,
but the finding must go on the officer's record.
PIIAC is limited to IAD appeals and monitoring Review board
investigates all use of deadly
force and death in custody cases;
holds hearings on policy issues.
It is also important that PIIAC's staff person, according to the Mayor's 1994 initiative intended to fix problems, was supposed to be full time. Currently, Botsko is being asked to pull down other administrative tasks for the Mayor, only putting 50-75% of her time into PIIAC. This is not a criticism of Botsko, but of the Mayor's reneging on her own promise.
Meanwhile, there continue to be calls in the community for electing the members of the review board. While this is an interesting concept, it does not ensure democracy, certainly not in 1990s America. Certainly the same police union who funded the anti-PIIAC efforts in 1980 (they outspent proponents 10:1 and the measure passed by less than one percentage point) will go to the same lengths to fund or oppose those candidates they choose. No, it would be better to not waste the community's time and resources on elections, but rather to create specific criteria for board members regarding community support, lack of ties to police agencies, and diversity.
The time is ripe for this effort: City Council has delayed since February creating a task force to rewrite the ordinance that governs PIIAC--so there's still time for changes. The PPA's contract is up in June of '99, so that means negotiations are going on right now. If people act now to pressure the city, we can get changes to the union contract with regards to PIIAC's final say in cases of misconduct.
Finally, it is tremendously important that those of you who read the People's Police Report not depend on Copwatch to do the work. We must work together and get these changes to happen. The Skanner calls for an initiative on the ballot in 2000--we think the public is ready to demand that City Council do this on its own. Act now--it won't happen if a handful of activists whose very mission is to demand police accountability are the only ones making calls and writing letters. Over 350 people stood on the steps of the Justice Center. It is those people who are the key to organizing success in getting Portland a true civilian review board for the police.