![[Portland
Copwatch - a project of Peace and Justice Works]](/cwletterhead2horiz.GIF)
|
|
Site NavigationHomeAbout us People's Police Report Shootings & deaths Cool links Other Information Contact info Donate
|
Chief Moose Rejects City Council Vote In September, Police Chief Moose overturned a recommendation made by a majority of City Council with regards to specific cases of police misconduct. This was the second time he took such an action in three months. (For background, see PPR #12.) The most recent case, PIIAC case #96-18, involved off-duty Portland police officer Donald Speranza, who wrote a police report complaining about his neighbor's unsupervised children making noise on a trampoline late one night. His report even contained a suggestion that the Oregon's Child Services Division, which intervenes in child abuse cases, get involved. Portland's Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC) cited the Portland Police Bureau General Order at issue here, "misuse of position," pointing out that Speranza was using his position as an officer in a personal dispute. The City Council's vote was 4 to 1 to sustain the complaint. The previous complaint (#96-22) involved a woman who suffered injuries after being dragged across a driveway by Portland Police and the much more serious category of "misuse of force." That Council vote, which was 3 to 2, was also overturned by Chief Moose. Since City Council is the actual body of PIIAC, it is important to note that it was a majority of thirteen Citizen Advisors whose vote brought both cases to the full Council to begin with. This has only happened three times since PIIAC was created in 1982. Shortly after hearing of the Chief's decision in case #96-22, Copwatch asked Council to call for the City Auditor's office to audit the entire PIIAC process. It is our understanding that the Auditor's office will not be taking on this issue in the immediate future. In the best circumstances, such an audit would be available to study all of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system before making any changes. However, it is apparent that something should be done right away, as now two members of the community have been denied justice. We recommend that city code be changed so that Council's vote as PIIAC is binding, rather than advisory. Why would any citizen give their time to PIIAC if they felt their vote had no meaning? To be realistic, it would be a favor for City Council to make the final decision in these cases. Chief Moose now has to weigh the options of ending up in arbitration with the Portland Police Association (PPA) by sustaining complaints, or alienating City Council and the public by rejecting their recommendations. By making Council's vote binding, the pressure is off the Chief. Furthermore, the judgment of elected officials whether or not a City employee has violated the public trust should have more influence than the decision of an appointed Police Chief. While deliberations concerning a police employee should address the possible reactions of the PPA, that should not be the over-riding factor in making the decision. Incidentally, at the December PIIAC meeting, Advisors seemed to be backpedaling on the idea of making the Council vote binding because the City Attorney's office warned them it would mean renegotiating the union contracts. We urge readers of the PPR to weigh the greater good: justice for all, or avoiding a prolonged contract negotiation. You be the judge. What People Are Saying About Moose's Decision "Neighborhood association," an Oregonian editorial on Sept. 29, made the off-duty officer's reporting on his neighbor in case #96-18 sound like a neighborhood problem and seemed to imply that it should never have come before City Council. The editorial wrongfully lauded Moose's decision as one not to discipline the officer. But actually, his decision was not to find the officer guilty of wrongdoing. The Chief has discretion of whether to discipline. In the November 1997 Rap Sheet, PPA President Leo Painton denounces PIIAC for recommending that the chief change findings on "discipline cases." This language is similarly erroneous to the Oregonian editorial. Seeing police misconduct only in terms of discipline ignores the opportunity that a sustained finding brings for retraining, counseling, and creating a better police force. "I commend Chief Moose for standing behind his decision in both of these cases by not changing the original finding," says Painton. For the record, the original finding, recommended by then-Capt. of Internal Affairs CW Jensen, was a sustained finding. That finding was controverted by other members of the Police Bureau. On October 1, Moose was voted "Rogue of the week" by Willamette Week for rejecting City Council's vote. In the August Rap Sheet, Painton reports that "the City Council has sent a message loud and clear about how they feel about community policing and the members of the Portland Police Association." He describes case #96-18 (from the officer's point of view) and concludes that "I dread to think of the criticism the officer would have received had he done nothing and something had happened to the children." This is not the first time we have heard police postulating the theory that there are two options: act wrongfully or do not act at all. Clearly, one of the officer's other options would have been to encourage the on-duty officer to write a report. Leo, Leo, Leo. Do you really believe the stuff you write? In the October Rap Sheet, Commissioner Jim Francesconi defended his vote in this case, noting that he strives not to second-guess officers. He states, though, that "The investigators, not the off-duty officer, should have reported to Children (sic) Services Division for the simple reason of guarding against the appearance of impropriety." (Painton singled out Francesconi for making the motion to accept PIIAC's recommendation of a changed finding.) I would personally like to thank Leo Painton for taking the extra time after October's City Council/PIIAC hearing to point at me and say, "I think it was really shitty of you to print Speranza's name in your little magazine."
From Chief Moose's response to Council regarding the off-duty officer who wrote a police report
on his neighbor: "I will continue to encourage Portland Police Officers to live in the city and to
take an active role in their neighborhoods."
City Council Considers Changes to Police Review Board PIIAC Advisors and City Council members are now realizing that the city codes are not working. In two recent cases, #96-18 and #96-22, the Chief responded to Council's recommendations to sustain complaints of misconduct by saying he disagreed with their findings. Clearly, if a Police Review Board is going to be effective, their recommendations -- especially when coming from a majority of City Council -- should be binding. Furthermore, Chief Moose exceeded his 60-day time frame to notify the entire Council of his decision as required by City Code--he only sent a memo to Mayor Katz, and that was on day 61. In #96-18, while he did send notice to all 5 Commissioners, his reply came 5 days after the deadline. PIIAC Advisors have met with the City Attorney's office to discuss the possibilities of changing or amending current codes. City Council has set an "informal" work session for February 3, 1998. Section 3.21.050 subsection 2b states that the process is to insure it is effective, efficient, fair, thorough, timely, and shows equal concern for the rights of both citizens and police officers. Until city code is changed, it will continue to be one-sided in favor of police officers! ACTION ALERT!!! PIIAC IS COMING UNDER REVIEW. NOW -- PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 3 [1998 -ed.] -- IS TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE PROCESS!!! COPWATCH RECOMMENDS:
1) That City Council's votes to change findings in police misconduct cases be binding.
2) That any deadline set for the City be observed, and late filings be considered void.
Recommendations made but not responded to should become binding. Also, the Chief should be required to appear before City Council/PIIAC for dialogue about recommendations for policies and procedures made in quarterly monitoring reports.
3) That PIIAC be given authority to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings.
While you're writing or on the phone, express support for this idea:
4) That all officers be given the same sensitivity training as the Crisis Intervention Team
(CIT).
We hope that Council and the Police Bureau receive public support to have this plan instituted. (see
Shootings article in this issue for more info)
|
![[People's Police Report]](/PPRHEADER.GIF)
January, 1998
|
|
Portland Copwatch Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.
People's Police Report
#13 Table of Contents
|