Police ombudsman plan needs fine-toothed comb

For a city that has never had credible independent oversight of the Police Department, the tentative agreement between the police unions and the city of Spokane to create an ombudsman’s office is a pretty good start. The proposal, which must still clear a vote of the police union next month, offers the public some assurance that the actions of the department are going to be reviewed.

It’s not the expansive system used in Boise, but given the Washington state law that requires such a position be negotiated with the unions, it’s probably the best Spokane can get for now. In Boise, the ombudsman conducts his own investigations. In Spokane, he or she would watch and review those conducted by the police.

Nevertheless, there are three key strengths to the Spokane proposal: It provides an independent office where public complaints can be filed. It grants access to heretofore closed internal affairs interviews and records. It calls for regular public reports that audit the department’s performance. Those three components will go a long way toward resolving the issues of secrecy and unresponsiveness that have damaged the department’s credibility. However, there are areas of concern that could ultimately undermine the independence, credibility and effectiveness of the office.

First, there’s the insular makeup of the five-person committee that will choose the three finalists for the job. The police force gets two selections. The mayor and council president get one selection each. Those four people then pick the fifth person. So the Police Department would have input on three of the five positions. Plus, if the unions don’t like the mayor’s final choice, they can file a grievance. That’s entirely too much control for the entity that is going to be watched. The panel should be more broad-based, with some slots that reach beyond City Hall.

Second, it is not clear whether the ombudsman would have the political protection needed to be effective. The city will have a difficult time finding a qualified candidate if ombudsmen can be hired and fired at will or whenever a new mayor is elected. The city needs to codify that whoever holds the position can be fired only for cause (inability to do the job, incompetence, malfeasance) and that such a process be open to the public. An effective ombudsman will need time to develop relationships, get a feel for the Police Department and earn the public’s trust. Constant turnover based on the whims of an elected leader will hurt the office.

Third, the proposal gives the police chief the power to classify complaints. We’ve been impressed thus far with Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick’s commitment to accountability and oversight, but she won’t always be here. The ombudsman needs a larger role in deciding what will be investigated.

Finally, it’s not clear whether the ombudsman would have automatic jurisdiction when there’s an in-custody death or fatal use of force. Let’s remember that the Otto Zehm case was the key catalyst for this change. It shouldn’t take a citizen complaint before such cases get an independent review.

This tentative agreement is a good start, but the details matter. Before making it permanent, the city and the union should make sure the system doesn’t contain flaws that would renew public cynicism.