![[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
|
Rapping Back: PPR 3 In May, Rap Sheet editor Jeff Barker, with his usual even-handedness, gave updates on activities of PIIAC citizen advisors. He points a finger at PIIAC advisor Ingrid Slezak, who apparently had some official contact through the Attorney General's office with the former advertizing manager of the Rap Sheet. After the PPA objected to the investigation, Attorney General Ted Kulongoski assured the PPA that Slezak would, in the future, not be allowed to use her position to go after the Rap Sheet. While that is sort of good news, her bias apparently will be allowed to roll along with her membership on PIIAC. For most people, common decency would call for them to admit a conflict of interest and step down. For some, any excuse to stay around and pursue their personal agendas will do. But one must wonder about personal agendas within the PPB. What was this scandal all about? Furthermore, why is it that while some PIIAC members wanted the Internal Investigations Division to advertise to complain-ants that they were allowed to bring an observer with them to IID, Barker reports, IID "did not appear to be too enthralled with PIIAC's suggestion that it advertise and encourage observers at every interview"? Barker ignores the key question: If IID doesn't let people know they have the right to bring in an observer, then who will tell them?
Whoa, These Guys Are Really Anti-Police. In case 94-05, however, PIIAC Chair Todd Olson requested that City Council consider sending the case back for review, because the witnesses to the incident were never interviewed by IID. While the Citizen Advisors had voted to uphold the IID finding, Olson expressed this concern at the Advisors' meeting. Nonetheless, Barker picks on Olson for his recommendation to Council: His switched vote might signal an attempt to scuttle the successful workings of PIIAC in a back door attempt to bring about the changes he has advocated in the past [giving PIIAC full Civilian review board powers]. Considering that PIIAC rubber stamped all of the cases, and that it is actually within the confines of its power to recommend sending cases back for further investigation, Barker's comments are way off base.
Changes in Policing. His most interesting comment is that in the 50's, no police officer "would have believed that a police union could actually become a strong political influence in the community." There are multiple facets about this statement to think about: 1) Somehow, in the 50's, the police were not a strong political influence. 2) Today, the PPA is a strong influence, a fact generally acknowledged by those who move in political circles but not overtly stated in mainstream press or in the general public. 3) One of the unstated reasons for this political influence is that the police have, for many, become the only solution in our society to security needs, and people are afraid to render criticism or get on the wrong side of police. In his opening remarks, Taylor makes reference to the ongoing coverage of PIIAC in the Rap Sheet. A few months after he retired, Taylor sat on the Storrs commission, which first created PIIAC in 1982. "We did a lot of research and one thing that we determined was Portland would be ill served by a POLICE REVIEW BOARD with powers to subpoena and mete out punishment [emphasis Taylor's]." Then he goes on to describe all the changes. He notes, among other things, the use of telephone systems to take felony reports, women on patrol and a woman police chief, record checks done by computer, DNA identification, and the implementation of com-munity policing. Since most of these significant changes occurred within the last 12 years, one might conclude that the work of the Storrs Commission also needs to be rethought. Taylor also notes a phenom-enon we at POPSG have been curious about: "The President and Vice President of our country [can] not visit Portland wihtout having an army of officers present to protect them against physical attack from mobs." How true is this statement? The last visits of Dan Quayle, George Bush and Bill Clinton were greeted by crowds of demonstrators, some of whom were arrested for crimes like "malicious littering"; some were thrown to the ground by police, handcuffed, and then maced in the face. Which group more regularly exercises force without restraint? Not all of Taylor's findings are not based in hard facts. For instance, he cites "That hiring and promotional procedures [have been] rigged by the City to favor certain groups of candidates." More curiously, this retired police captain states that "Almost every law designed to allow police to keep peace and order in the community (dis-orderly conduct, vagrancy, after hours, etc.) [has been] stricken from the books." We hope that all the demon-strators who have been arrested for disorderly conduct at protests, homeless people who have been arrested for camping on city grounds, and teenagers who have been carted off due to curfew laws will write to Taylor at:
The Rap Sheet c/o Porltand Police Association
|
![[People's Police Report]](/PPRHEADER.GIF)
Third Quarter, 1994
|
|
Portland Copwatch Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.
People's Police Report
#3 Table of Contents
|