Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

• The commission decides to hear because of a conflict between OCC and the chief on a finding. • Involve driving under the influence and domestic vio- lence (most of which are IA, not OCC, cases). The commission holds a formal administrative hearing to redetermine the finding, this time at the hearing level (versus OCC’s investigation level), and to impose pun- ishment if the commissioners sustain the allegations. Commissioners first conduct a factfinding hearing and then receive and review transcripts of that hearing before a penalty hearing. At the final administrative hearing, all parties are present. An OCC trial attorney prosecutes the case, and the union attorney or privately retained counsel defends the officer. After opening statements, there is direct and cross examination of the parties and witnesses. In highly publicized cases, as many as 600 people have shown up to observe. Commissioners, who deliberate in private, make their determination based on a preponderance of the evidence. The commission’s findings often are unanimous. The commission can suspend officers for up to 90 days per offense or terminate them. Officers may request a judicial review to appeal the commission’s decision. Of the 12 commission hearings held in 1998, 2 involved OCC cases. Commissioner hearings are relatively infrequent because, when officers agree to a suspension or resign rather than be fired, the hearing is canceled. Other activities OCC provides the police department with policy recom- mendations, arranges mediation, and assists with the department’s early warning system. Policy recommendations OCC submits policy recommendations to IA and includes them in its annual report to the police commission. OCC’s 1997 annual report provided 15 policy recommendations arising out of citizen complaints. If IA agrees with an OCC policy recommendation, it tries to negotiate a solution with the OCC director—for exam- ple, restating an existing policy or requiring additional training. In 1997, OCC recommended that officers with complaint records be rejected as field training officers (FTOs). Internal affairs and the department compromised on a new policy that includes a review of the number of complaints against a candidate for FTO but excludes complaints from more than 5 years previous to the FTO’s candidacy. The union and police commission both approved the change. Chapter 3, “Other Oversight Responsibilities,” identifies additional policy recom- mendations that OCC has made. Mediation OCC provides a mediation option, but few citizens agree to the alternative, apparently because they feel uncom- fortable with the approach. Of the 22 new cases eligible for mediation in 1997, 16 complainants (and 2 officers) refused to mediate. Twelve cases were mediated during the year (including several cases held over from the pre- vious year). OCC uses volunteer mediators approved by the San Francisco Bar Association. Early warning system Every 3 to 6 months, OCC submits a report to the police department and to every commanding officer identifying the name and badge numbers of each officer who has three or more OCC complaints (excluding unfounded complaints) over the previous 6-month period or four or more complaints within the year. The report for the first half of 1998 identified 78 such officers. The first time their name appears, officers are given a performance review; the second time, getting a promotion and special assignments may be in jeopardy (and they cannot be a field training officer for 5 years). Staffing and budget In mid-1998, OCC had 15 full-time investigators (includ- ing two practicing trial attorneys) and a total staff of 30. Proposition G, approved by San Francisco voters in 1995, requires the city to hire one OCC investigator for every 150 police officers (see chapter 4, “Staffing”). As shown in exhibit 2–17, OCC’s fiscal year 1998–99 budget was $2,198,778. Distinctive features The most unusual feature of San Francisco’s oversight process is that an independent body in effect acts as the police department’s internal affairs unit for citizen com- plaints about police misconduct. C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 60