|
|
Site NavigationHomeAbout us People's Police Report Shootings & deaths Cool links Other Information Contact info Donate
|
Chief, "Union" Throw Wrench in Minimal Reforms Auditor
Proposed for Police Oversight System
On October 23, Portland Auditor Lavonne Griffin-Valade, whose office houses the "Independent" Police Review Division (IPR), proposed a number of changes to the IPR ordinance, including some that will improve the oversight system. However, her proposal was delayed due to pushback from different directions. On one hand, Police Chief Mike Reese and the Portland Police Association (PPA) critiqued the changes as going too far to fix a system they think is working well; on the other, community members argued the proposal was not strong enough and needed to go further. IPR Director Constantin Severe, a former defense attorney, had spent time telling community members about the proposed changes, but not really listening to feedback, resulting in some last minute amendments that also helped delay the vote. Although the City spent hundreds of hours and plenty of money generating 41 recommendations in a Stakeholder Report in 2010 (PPR #52), there was no effort to seek the Stakeholders' input. At least eight of the 14 community members of that group testified at the hearing asking for more change. The most important proposed change by the Auditor is for IPR to be able to compel officer testimony, something Portland Copwatch has been calling for since forming in 1992 (when PIIAC was the review body). Much to his credit, Severe lambasted the current set-up as "crazy": that for him to interview police officers accused of misconduct, he has to go through a Police Bureau Internal Affairs (IA) staffer to compel the officer to talk. Because of complications with state law and the existing PPA contract, not to mention the PPA's insistence that such a change is a mandatory (not voluntary) subject of bargaining, IPR's desire wasn't plotted out strategically and was one of the Chief's reasons to delay the effort. PCW put forward the message that if IPR is given this power, they need to use it; the Ordinance has allowed for "independent" investigations since its inception in 2001, but IPR only began its first investigation--on an incident not involving a community member--in June (PPR #60). Other proposals included directing the Chief to put in writing the reasons his findings or discipline differ from recommendations made by the Police Review Board. (Reese demoted Captain Todd Wyatt instead of firing him after the PRB found he'd inappropriately touched female subordinates and engaged in road rage--PPR #59.) The Chief refused, saying that the Police Commissioner (the Mayor) or his staff would be in the meeting where that decision was made so they would know why he made such changes. Severe claimed that most of the changes being proposed were driven by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Agreement with the City (article). He put in provisions for the IPR's Citizen Review Committee (CRC) to expand from 9 to 11 members, and for its members to rotate onto the PRB. However, he left off the important provision: to give CRC the ability to direct IPR or IA to conduct more investigation. Severe tried at the last minute to fix a problematic directive from the DOJ which instructs that "administrative investigations shall be completed within 180 days." Although the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform and other groups pointed out that this would allow officers to say "I'm not guilty!" if the clock were to run out on the investigations, Severe only put in an "escape valve" of sorts with amendments handed to the Council during the October 23 hearing. The same clause indicates that CRC must complete appeals on misconduct cases within that same 180 day timeline, not likely since CRC appeals take between 60 and 90 days. The DOJ also wants to limit CRC's appeal process to a total of 21 days, but thankfully that change is not in the proposed code. Also missing from the proposed code was any change to CRC's deferential standard of review, which limits them to considering whether a police supervisor was "reasonable" to decide the officer was in policy, rather than weighing the evidence themselves. After CRC asked Severe to make this change, he fired off a memo opining that doing so would make CRC into "fact-finders" with equivalent powers to police supervisors, thus changing the entire oversight system. The flaw in his argument is that even if CRC considered appeals based on a "preponderance of the evidence," the finding sent to the Chief would still be a recommendation. Beyond that, if the Bureau disagrees with CRC's proposed finding, it triggers a "conference committee" with the Bureau, and failing resolution there, the case proceeds to City Council for a hearing-- which has only happened once in the IPR's 12 years (PPR #30). Unfortunately, the "reasonable person" standard is in the DOJ Agreement, so therefore the City and the DOJ need to be urged to modify the Agreement at an upcoming "Fairness Hearing" before the Judge (article). The media made a big deal out of the fight between the Auditor and Chief, which escalated when Griffin-Valade released a memo revealing two instances in which upper management skirted investigations, prompting her proposed changes. These were: (1) when the Chief's band- mate/Director of Services Mike Kuykendall was being investigated for making comments about Nazi sympathizer Captain Mark Kruger (PPR #59), IPR was unable to look into his conduct because he was a civilian; and (2) when Kruger was being investigated, then-Assistant Chief Eric Hendricks* tried to stop IA's work. Severe has referred to the remedies as the Kuykendall and Hendricks clauses. The requirement about the Chief explaining changes to PRB findings is clearly the "Wyatt clause." As such, they should offer a "Fred Bryant clause" to allow people who disagree with PRB findings in deadly force cases to appeal to CRC. IPR prohibited Bryant from appealing the outcome of the investigation into his son Keaton Otis' death (PPR #58). (This kind of appeal is also prohibited in the DOJ Agreement.) Equally as pointed, Severe refused to sign off on an investigation supervised by Hendricks, saying "Hendricks' version of events are so fanciful that it has caused me to question his credibility as a witness" (Oregonian, October 30). Hendricks retired in August. While the powers that be duked it out, the media, including the Oregonian's columnist Steve Duin (October 30) and editorial board (November 3), portrayed this as a showdown between the Auditor's desire for reform and the Chief's refusal, leaving the impression that the debate is between the poles of "A" and "B." This leaves out the long list of unfulfilled changes the community has been demanding, "C" through "Z."
The Auditor came back with a watered-down version of her proposal on December 18, calling for
the Bureau to compel officers to testify to IPR. The City Attorney claims IPR can't legally compel
testimony. Despite more voices from the community calling for deeper changes, the Council only
put off their vote until January 8 after the PPA threatened to file an Unfair Labor Practice complaint
unless they got to talk to Council and the IPR. We know where the real power lies in this city.
|
January, 2014
|
|
Portland Copwatch Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.
People's Police Report
#61 Table of Contents
|