|
|
Site NavigationHomeAbout us People's Police Report Shootings & deaths Cool links Other Information Contact info Donate
|
Citizen Review Committee Pushes City Council for Transit Cop Although they have heard only a single appeal regarding police misconduct all year (in February), the members of Portland's Citizen Review Committee (CRC) have been continuing to step up in several areas, including an unprecedented appearance at City Council. The office to which they report, the "Independent" Police Review Division (IPR), has a new Director, while the IPR, CRC and the City Auditor, who oversees the system, consider changes suggested by a consultant in January. CRC Keeps Pushing for Transit Police Accountability After a visit from Transit Division Captain Vince Jarmer in March to question him about the inability of Portland Police to interview officers from other jurisdictions in misconduct complaints (PPR #44), the CRC invited him back to their June meeting. Captain Jarmer let them know that officers from outside of Portland can't be compelled to testify before Portland's Internal Affairs Division (IAD), but are only required to "make a statement" by talking to investigators or writing their police reports. Since this means nobody will ask questions about actions that happened or words that were spoken, it is completely inadequate. When the idea of renegotiating the contracts between Portland and the outlying areas came up, Jarmer exposed the key to this problem: that the collective bargaining units ("unions") would "not be enthused." The CRC has never discussed the power of police "unions" to over-ride the City's public policy goals. We're all for labor solidarity--due process, good benefits, and workplace safety. But when cops defend using excessive force, engaging in bias-based policing, speaking rudely, or otherwise acting out of line, it is more power than public employees should have. CRC Chair Michael Bigham, Vice Chair Hank Miggins, and member Loren Eriksson took the issue of Transit Police misconduct investigations to the City Council on July 2. They pulled the renewed contracts off the "consent agenda," a packet normally passed as a whole with no discussion. This was the first time in 16 years observing the review board (CRC and its previous incarnations) that Portland Copwatch has seen the members pull a consent item to discuss it publicly. It is also the first time the CRC has taken their concerns to a City Council hearing without extensively running their plan by Auditor Blackmer. City Council seemed stuck on the question of whether civilians could file complaints about officers from other jurisdictions, rather than the key issue of the ability to conduct full investigations regardless of jurisdiction. Both Auditor Blackmer (at the June CRC meeting) and new City Commissioner Nick Fish (at the Council hearing) raised the question of liability when officers from other agencies are under the direction of a Portland Commander. Council promised to work on the problem before the contracts are renewed again next year. New Director Brings Some Community Background, Prosecutor's Perspective to IPR In late May, Mary-Beth Baptista, a 7-year veteran of the Multnomah County District Attorney's office, took over as Director of the IPR. Baptista's work at the DA's office involved the Domestic Violence unit, and some outreach to immigrant communities, as well as the elder abuse program. Baptista also once worked for the Sierra Club, so she has a better appreciation for grassroots activism than any of the three former Directors (Richard Rosenthal, Leslie Stevens and Deputy Director Pete Sandrock). Portland Copwatch met with Baptista in June and raised some of our concerns about the system, including the low number of appeals being heard. She said she would consider including appeal forms with the letters IPR sends complainants about the outcomes of the investigations of their complaints. Baptista has continued presenting the monthly "Director's Report" in writing, which Sandrock started. This is a step forward from the previous hasty, verbal reports. Baptista is now wrestling with producing Quarterly and Annual reports as required by the ordinance in addition to the monthlies. On the other hand, Baptista opted not to send announcements out to the public when seeking a new Assistant Director and an outreach expert. Assessment of Review Board Brings Focus on Change, Slowly Last issue, we reported that the CRC held a "secret" April meeting to discuss the changes proposed by consultant Eileen Luna-Firebaugh in her assessment of the IPR in January. In May, Chair Bigham apologized for handling the situation badly and announced the second meeting for the public and press. Unfortunately, because the scope of the Luna-Firebaugh report is so broad, calling as it did for independent investigations, staff for the CRC, and more (PPR #44), the discussion has been slow. The CRC is working with recommendations made by Auditor Blackmer, including suggestions of: limited circumstances when the IPR would conduct its own investigations (Blackmer suggests only when a complaint is against someone with a rank of Lieutenant or higher, or an IAD investigator), better contact with Council (assigning pairs of members to speak to each of the five Council members), outreach (waiting for the expert, then a staff person to be hired), training (perhaps by the Nat'l Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement) and ways to appeal complaints that do not receive full investigations (to be considered by the new complaint handling Work Group). They also said they would look into issues such as CRC term lengths, the size of the CRC, the standard of review (currently "reasonable person") and the power to compel testimony. Portland Copwatch suggested also looking at new findings (training, supervisory, and policy failure), and the possibility of an independent legal counsel, among other ideas. In August, they said to expect a City Council hearing in October or November. A new staff person dedicated to the CRC, discussed earlier in the year, was cut from the 2008-2009 budget. Since Mayor Potter, who contracted the Luna-Firebaugh report, will leave office in January, it remains to be seen whether this or any other of the report's recommendations will be implemented after that time. CRC's new complaint handling work group is also looking at the issue of how allegations are formulated, which is long overdue --we commented about this problem in the summer of 2002! At their May meeting, the CRC focused on the question of whether an investigation should take place if mediation fails. Acting Director Sandrock matter-of-factly stated that doing so would take away the "incentive" for officers to mediate--that is, they are currently agreeing to sit and talk with citizens who file complaints against them because they know they can't be investigated for wrongdoing. We have expressed concerns about this loophole from the beginning of the program. Assistant Director Mike Hess added that providing the possibility of investigation would be the "death" of the Mediation program.
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/iprassessmentrecsonly.html. Transparency & Use of Force/Performance Review Boards At the June meeting, Assistant Chief Brian Martinek answered questions about Use of Force Review Boards (UFRBs), which determine whether an officer's use of force was in policy, and Performance Review Boards (PRBs), which decide whether a finding of out-of-policy on any kind of complaint is appropriate. These hearings are not open to the public. While the UFRBs include two civilians, and the PRBs one civilian, from a pool of 23, such participation does not make the process "transparent" as claimed by A/C Martinek. In her assessment of the IPR, consultant Eileen Luna-Firebaugh defined transparency as "the public's right to know the public's business." Nonetheless, CRC members Lewellyn Robison and Loren Eriksson both remarked on how open the process is.
The IPR staff and CRC asked Martinek to provide a list of the members of the UFRB/PRB pool-- which he did eight days after the meeting. They also requested statistics on the frequency of board meetings and the outcomes. Martinek said that they were not currently keeping such statistics. It seems like no big deal because the UFRB looks at only 6-9 cases per year and the PRB probably reviews only about 15-35 cases a year in which "sustained" findings are attached to incidents. One example of the lack of transparency came when Portland Copwatch asked Martinek whether the two instances in which the UFRB found officers out of policy were for use of force or something else, such as failure to write a report. Martinek, prompted by Office of Professional Standards (OPS) Director Leslie Stevens, admitted that neither was for the use of force. Then he said we could figure out which cases they were (and jibed at Copwatch, "I'm sure you will"). That is a prime example of lack of transparency-- putting the burden back on the citizenry to figure out what is going on. This attitude is contrary to the recom-mendations of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) and Ms. Luna-Firebaugh's report. We have long said that the UFRB and PRBs should be better integrated with the IPR/CRC system; a hybrid of the two models would provide more transparency.
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/pbnotify.cfm?action=ViewContent&content_id=1248 [link no longer accurate as of 2021] Former IPR Director Shields Police from Public in New Office Stevens, the Former IPR Director who now heads the OPS inside the Police Bureau, spoke at the May CRC meeting. Her new position has the potential to help coordinate various accountability mechanisms--the "Employee Information System," risk management, UFRBs/PRBs, and policy issues. Director Stevens' presentation made it clear that the Bureau still hasn't defined what the OPS' role will be. Stevens announced that her office was not concerned about having public input because there are many other venues. She used an example of CRC members Loren Eriksson and Hank Miggins reviewing the changes to the Taser policy. We had no idea that the CRC was looking at the Taser policy, and such a policy proposal should have come forward to the whole CRC to discuss publicly. With the apparent demise of the Chief's Forum and these ad hoc less-than-a-quorum meetings of the CRC, Director Stevens' attitude that the OPS does not need to hear from the public rings hollow. What happened to "community policing"? Also at the IPR: --Presenting to the CRC in July, Joanne Fuller of the Multnomah County Mental Health Division did not use the word "police" until 20 minutes into her talk. After visits from Jarmer, Martinek and Stevens, this threatened to bring the CRC back to their pattern of hearing people who were not talking about police accountability issues. Eventually, Fuller did address the use of the Crisis Intervention Team and noted that after the José Mejía shooting in a psychiatric hospital in 2001 (PPR #24), the hospitals no longer call police for minor security issues. She also mentioned a new program which essentially allows officers to make a medical decision about a civilian's mental health before they decide where to transport them, an issue which concerned CRC member Mark Johnson. --Rob Milsenick, who took Marcella Red Thunder's seat after her supposed excessive absences (PPR #40), missed 7 of 18 CRC meetings as of July. Adding to his rare presence in general meetings, Milesnick also has attended just one Work Group meeting, and his only other task-- compiling the group's "tracking list"--was exposed as incomplete at the July meeting when he admitted he lost the most updated copy of the list.
|
September, 2008
|
|
Portland Copwatch Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.
People's Police Report
#45 Table of Contents
|