Site Navigation

A Police/Sheriff Merger: What About Accountability?

The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and Portland Police Bureau (PPB) have long shared local law enforcement duties. However, as the unincorporated por-tion of Multnomah County has diminished, so has the pa-trolling role of the Sheriff's Office. The number of deputies assigned to the street has shrunk to 39 (from 134 as recently as 1984 [WW]*). Today, the Sheriff's primary responsibility is to staff local correctional facilities.

In light of these changes and in the name of reducing the replication of services, many people are calling for a merger of the two agencies. Two years ago, the Governor convened a task force to study the issue. Mayor Katz has said she favors a merger, although she has not been specific on what it would look like. In Willamette Week, Chief Moose argued for merging the patrolling Sheriff's deputies into the PPB. An attempt to get an alternative merger proposal onto the May ballot -- which would have transferred all PPB budget and staff over to the County -- fell short by only several hundred signatures.

For citizens concerned about police accountability, the possibility of a merger raises a number of important quesions. First, is it even a good idea to have only one police force responsible for law enforcement in our community? In WW, Sheriff Skipper pointed out that having two agen- cies creates accountability. As long as there are two agencies there can be competition among them to be the best provider and to have the best public image. At this level, they hold one another accountable and may even be inclined to share the other's shortcomings with the public.

While it might be best to avoid a merger altogether, it is likely that one will occur in the near future. If so, which of the two police forces should take over sole responsibility for law enforcement in Portland? Sponsors of the in-itiative to merge PPB into the Sheriff's Office argued that, unlike the Chief of Police, the Sheriff is an elected official and therefore directly accountable to the public. But the general public has enough trouble holding politicians, whose actions and votes are a matter of public record, accountable. Police forces are insular organizations which avoid, resist, and deflect scrutiny from the general public, unless involved in an indisputable incident (like the LAPD in the Rodney King beating).

Even an elected Sheriff, as the head of an insular or-ganization, can resist having to justify his or her department to civilians. Borrowing from national police forces, he or she can adopt a non- explanation similar to "it's a matter of national security." Furthermore, as an elected official, the Sheriff is not particularly accountable to other political representatives at the County level. The County Board does have say on the Sheriff's Office budget. But if the Sheriff is a good politician who creates a positive public image, elected Commissioners will hesitate to use the budget axe as a way of holding him or her accountable. As Sheriff Bob Skipper said, "I am an independent, elected of-ficial, I answer to the public. I don't answer to other polit-icians." (WW, p. 20). The politicians he won't answer to are the Multnomah County Commissioners-- "the elected officials who should ask Skipper the tough questions." (WW, p. 20)

The Mayor and other elected officials of the City of Portland do have some power to hold the Portland Police Bureau and its Chief accountable. The Chief, of course, does not have the threat of being ousted by angry voters, since he or she is appointed by the Mayor. Community policing advocates argue that the PPB is also held accountable through institutions like the Chief's Forum and Community Policing Liason Officers. Additionally, the PPB is subject to limited oversight by the Citizen Advisors to the Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee. For its multiple faults, the committee does provide a very small window into the operations of the Bureau.

The MCSO has no civilian review process. Investigations into misconduct claims are reviewed by a complaint board made up of Sheriff's deputies. Some argue that the MCSO is extremely hard on itself in terms of internal af-fairs and that it does not need civilian oversight. We at POPSG have no way of knowing if this is true. We have, however, received several Copwatch complaint calls about Sheriff's Deputies in the corrections facilities. So while they may be rigorous in their internal investigations today, without civilian participation in the process, we have no way of knowing whether they will be tomorrow.

From the perspective of accountability, the civilians of Portland and Multnomah County may be best served if no merger of the MCSO and PPB takes place. We benefit if the two agencies are competing with one another for our trust. But in any case, to achieve real accountability the public must continue to work toward better civilian over-sight and a more meaningful community policing partnership, whether it is with the PPB, the MCSO, or both.

* figures and quotes in this article marked WW or Willamette Week are from "High Noon," by Mark Zolton, Willamette Week, March 23, 1994.
Back to text.

Second Quarter, 1994
Also in PPR #2

Portland Copwatch
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065/ Incident Report Line (503) 321-5120
e-mail: copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.

People's Police Report #02 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top