Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 6: RESOLVING P OTENTIAL C ONFLICTS 120 right has been violated, and monitor how well staff are respecting these rights. Oversight planners can address union concerns about fairness and due process in part by working out a mutual- ly satisfactory arrangement for officer representation at investigatory interviews and hearings that, at a minimum, respects the union contract’s requirements regarding offi- cer representation in disciplinary investigations and hear- ings. The extent to which union leaders may accompany and represent officers at oversight investigatory inter- views and hearings varies considerably. In Berkeley, sub- ject officers may have representation by a union agent or the union’s legal counsel during all investigations and hearings. Union representatives may attend interviews in Minneapolis, but they may not speak during the investi- gation (they may caucus to offer the officer advice). Fairness may always be compromised if political leaders and local officials see oversight simply as a means of placating citizen groups that are asking for a review system. Steve Young observes, “Most union people feel officers are the victim of politics—that city and county officials implement oversight to pander to the complaints of a few vocal citizens and citizen groups. As a result, officials need to articulate nonpolitical, legitimate rea- sons for implementing it.” Highlight shared objectives Unions and oversight bodies share the same concern that internal affairs treat officers fairly. As a result, some union leaders have used the citizen oversight system to seek re- dress for their members whom they felt IA treated unfairly. • In Portland, the union treasurer—over the objections of some rank-and-file union members—filed a complaint against a lieutenant with the oversight body after inter- nal affairs rejected the complaint without investigation on the grounds that it had no merit. The oversight body voted to send the complaint to IA for investigation. • When the union president told the Portland auditor about a case he felt IA had handled poorly, Lisa Botsko asked for the case, saying, “That’s my job, and I’ll audit it.” She did, and reported, “The union was right about how the case was mishandled.” • Although he opposed—and still objects to—having an auditor in Tucson, Mike Gurr, the officers’ association vice president, has since asked the auditor, Liana Perez, to review sustained cases that he felt IA had not handled well, even though the city manager and police department objected to his referring the cases. When police and sheriff’s departments already are doing a good job investigating citizen complaints, another objective that oversight bodies and union leaders share is to reassure a frequently skeptical or hostile public, or certain community groups, that the department is in fact doing a good job. According to Thomas Mack, treasurer of the police federation that represents Portland Police Bureau officers, “The auditor’s review of investigations is good because it opens up the files so people can see the department isn’t covering up. And with community polic- ing, it makes sense to look at what IA did. Many [union] members believe IA’s review is enough, but I feel, ‘Let them take a look.’” Time may help but is not the cure-all Some unions may modify their views about the oversight procedure after they have had a chance to see it in opera- tion and find that its staff are unbiased and competent. At the union’s insistence, the St. Paul City Council agreed to include a 1-year sunset clause in its oversight legislation. At the end of the year, union leaders realized that the review process tended to be more lenient with officers than internal affairs and decided not to oppose its being made permanent. Despite everyone’s best efforts, some areas of disagree- ment are likely to remain between oversight planners and staff on the one hand and union leaders and members on the other hand. Even when union leaders themselves may not regard oversight as a cause for serious concern, mem- bers may still be leery. According to Capt. David Friend, president of the local police union in Omaha: Oversight has a necessary function and its role is important, but my membership is not thrilled because the board is mostly civilians. The CCRB [the Omaha oversight body] finds for the officer in 99 percent of cases, but it’s hard to convince cops the board isn’t out to get them. Their feeling is, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.” So they still have a fear that they could be the first to get skewered.