Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 6: RESOLVING P OTENTIAL C ONFLICTS 116 Oversight Criticisms of the Police Oversight staff raise several concerns about their rela- tionships with the police and sheriff’s departments whose investigations they review. Their most common concerns are that in some cases: • Officers refuse to answer questions. • Departments resist providing needed records—or fail to provide them in a timely manner. • Officers do not understand the oversight system’s mission and legitimacy. • Departments ignore the oversight body’s findings or policy and procedure and training recommen- dations. For example, the Berkeley Police Review Commission was trying to have the police department provide it with the relevant police report and computer-aided dispatch printout regarding radio and telephone com- munications before, not after, the commission gives a copy of the citizen’s complaint to the police department. The Omaha Police Department was providing the Citizens Complaint Review Board with the results of investigations 59 days after receipt of com- plaints, leaving the board 1 day in which to review the findings according to the ordinance. The mayor issued an executive order requiring submission within 30 days or granting an automatic extension for the board’s review. The minutes of the January 1998 Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC) meeting in Portland record a citizen adviser as reporting: An ad hoc subcommittee had met the previous week to discuss policy issues regarding the Chief not accepting recommended findings on contested appeals. The consensus [among subcommittee members] was to not pursue changes to city code or union contracts; that’s not something that could be accomplished overnight. Rather, the recom- mended finding from City Council [acting as PIIAC] is that he personally appear in a Council session to explain his rationale . . . for now, this appears to be the only practical solution. There are philosophical issues involved; if a disturbing pattern develops, this could be a catalyst for change. Some police and sheriff’s departments have attempted to accommodate board members’ concerns. • When the Tucson board complained that the police department’s data were difficult to follow, the chief had the board chairperson meet with the department’s statistical department, which developed a clearer way of presenting the information for the board. The department also offered to provide a photographer for a board project to develop a video for schools designed to improve police relations with the Hispanic community. • The San Francisco Police Com- mission required the department to issue a general order mandating that officers submit to an Office of Citizen Complaints interview because officers had been rendering OCC impotent by not showing up. The department now responds to an officer’s first vio- lation of an order to appear with an admonishment, the second with a reprimand, and the third with a 1-day suspension. When some officers who did not care about losing a day’s pay continued to ignore the sum- mons, the chief told them violations would influence their promotion opportunities. • Some departments also make special efforts to ensure their officers are familiar with the oversight body’s responsibilities and the officers’ obligations to it. — At the San Francisco Police Department’s invita- tion, Mary Dunlap teaches a 50-minute session at the police academy on “How to Avoid OCC.” — The Minneapolis Police Department’s training commander arranged for Patricia Hughes, the Civilian Police Review Authority’s (CRA’s) execu- tive director, to give a 90-minute presentation at When some officers who did not care about losing a day’s pay continued to ignore the summons, the chief told them violations would influence their promotion opportunities.