Spokane7
50°
June 18, 2010 in City
Spokane police ombudsman wants to investigate
Tim Burns seeks more independence
Spokane’s police ombudsman has reversed his stance and is asking city leaders for the right to examine allegations of police misconduct independent of the Police Department’s own probes.
When the topic was debated last year, some city leaders, including Mayor Mary Verner and City Council President Joe Shogan, had questioned the need to expand the ombudsman’s powers, in part, because Ombudsman Tim Burns wasn’t requesting it.
But in an interview this week, Burns said he now believes that the ability to gather his own information and conduct interviews would help give his office needed credibility.
The Spokane City Council is scheduled on Monday to consider allowing Burns to gather information on his own, separately from the Police Department’s Internal Affairs division, when Burns disagrees with the police chief’s decision that no further investigation into alleged misconduct is needed.
Other changes would:
•Require Burns to write a report for each case he works on or observes. Currently, he is required to write an annual report and can only decide if police investigations were “timely, thorough and objective.”
•Expand the definition of “critical incidents” to include cases where Tasers are used or the SWAT team deployed. Rules require the ombudsman to be contacted immediately after a critical incident so he can begin observing police investigation. Currently, critical incidents only involve incidents when police use of “deadly force” results in death or serious injury.
The City Council last month tabled a proposal to give Burns even more authority to conduct independent investigations, after city attorneys sent council members a confidential memo about the ordinance. The city refused to release the memo to The Spokesman-Review. In response to the newspaper’s public records request, Deputy City Clerk Laurie Farnsworth wrote that the document is privileged communication that can remain private under state law.
Council members say that the main legal concern regarding changes to the ombudsman rules is whether they are a change in working condition that must be approved by the Spokane Police Guild. They say the new draft is constructed so that the ombudsman’s work isn’t construed as police discipline. That’s why the power to conduct an independent investigation would kick in only after the chief closes the case, said Councilwoman Amber Waldref.
“I believe that the current draft that we’re working on is in a much better position to go through that process (of a union challenge),” said Councilman Jon Snyder.
Attempts made to reach Detective Ernie Wuthrich, the guild’s president, were unsuccessful. In a report that aired this week on Spokane Public Radio, KPBX-FM, Wuthrich warned that the guild will challenge the ordinance if the council approves it.
Councilman Bob Apple, who introduced the measure last month, said he’s concerned the new version is watered down. A coalition of groups, including the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane, helped write the version Apple sponsored. A news release sent this week by the coalition argued in favor of the broader investigative powers in the earlier version.
But Councilman Steve Corker said he believes last month’s proposal would not have survived a challenge.
“What (the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane) is asking for cannot be granted under state law,” Corker said. He added that the new proposal “demonstrates a commitment by the council to do everything it possibly can to increase his investigative powers.”
Burns currently is allowed to monitor investigations into alleged police misconduct by reviewing reports and sitting in on detective interviews. If he doesn’t believe police work has been fair, he can ask the chief for further review. If the chief disagrees, he can ask the mayor to order the chief to reopen the investigation.
Burns said he has been allowed to see the full police investigations into officer misconduct, but if a complainant alleges that police neglected to interview important witnesses, he should have the right to do so. In his first year on the job, Burns declared 18 of 19 internal investigations into police actions to be “timely, thorough and objective.”
Breean Beggs, a civil rights attorney who until recently led the Center for Justice in Spokane, said he believes the ordinance considered last month also was written to survive a possible challenge from the guild. He said he prefers the earlier version but added that both would increase police accountability, especially considering provisions such as the requirement for the ombudsman to write reports about each incident.
“Either way, that’s a pretty substantial improvement,” he said.
MAC faces angry crowd 
Dazzeetrader11 on June 18 at 1:53 a.m.
I believe it’s a good idea to lessen the influence of Verner and Shogan who are beholden to the Guild…and lessen the influence of the Guild who obviously have a problem with truth.
Burns seems to be an honest guy who should have the power to write his own reports…and then defend his findings. Rapidly, the police are seemingly out of control with no accountability except to themselves and the Guild. Time to interrupt the cycle.
It’s a big job Burns has…what’s the point if he’s defrocked to the point he cannot do his job.
Albert on June 18 at 7:39 a.m.
Mr. Burns should carry a portable lie detector and hook up everyone whom he interviews. Truth? “What is Truth” as Pontius Pilate said. Burns will never get the facts, however it sure beats what is in place to investigate our “Non-Finest” in the present.
In the end, we need to change 100% of the City Council, Mayor, and ALL of the SPD, which of course is not possible. Therefore we will read of the ongoing corruption, lies, perversion of justice, violence, and brutality of the SPD - with of course the sanction of the Mayor & Council.
Scoutster on June 18 at 8:16 a.m.
Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with Daisy! OMG. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Albert, I will look forward to your campaign. I assume since you think everyone should be replaced you are ready to put your name forward.
lewis8457 on June 18 at 8:17 a.m.
First this has to get the guilds OK, they are the ones who blocked the duty of independent investigative powers.
I wouldn’t be impossible to clean up the SPD, the sad part is we have no one of authority who cares enough to do it.
JayNW on June 18 at 9:03 a.m.
I like a police review board, which is a group of people, not just one person. Whose to say Mr. Burns doesn’t have his own agenda? I don’t know him, I don’t know his qualifications for this job- but either way I think that something like this shouldn’t be just for one person to decide- we should have a few people from different areas of the community- I believe that is how many agencies oversight committies are- just that- a committee.
yellowcat on June 18 at 9:31 a.m.
The city council has been pushed to give the Ombudsman position investigative authority by the Police Accountability Coalition. The Coalition is made up of many non-profits and concerned people in Spokane. The ordinance giving the Ombudsman investigative authority has not been voted on by the City Council. That will happen Monday night. As you might guess, the Coalition and city council don’t agree on all parts of this ordinance. You can support the Coalition’s efforts at drafting an ordinance that is fair to the people of Spokane at the City Council meeting June 21st at 6 p.m.
horse_feathers on June 18 at 9:35 a.m.
Check out boiseombudsman.org to see how it should work.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on June 18 at 10:24 a.m.
I am not part of any “citizen coalition” except in the fact that I work with/serve the “community of other” in two different official capacities… one as volunteer chef for SHalom ministry and also the House of Charity…. as well as the Odyssey Youth center…
I know it is repetitive of me… but the “big cases” are but the sharp tip of the iceberg…. the other 7/8 of the iceberg IS below the surface… literally hundreds of stories from folks i know personally and trust about being “hassled” by the police… including crossing in a cross walk with other citizens and being the only one’s pulled over by the police for “jaywalking” while the business crowd walks on to their appointment without any delay.. “You are the ones we are after” is the answer to the question “why us and not them too”?
Life of course is not fair…. but it is least fair to those without any position of power in our society… come to the meeting monday nite and speak out…. your small stories of “hassles” by the police to have a damning affect when all seen in one large pile…. john
johnclarke on June 18 at 11:42 a.m.
Sugar Shane, your post is inappropriate and offensive.
spokanesausage on June 18 at 11:54 a.m.
The accountablity of our police force resides in the Mayors office plain and simple. If you’re counting on an ombudsman to facilitate change your wasting your time.
Ron_the_Cop on June 18 at 12:33 p.m.
Mr. Brunt,
I too filed a PDR for the “secret memo” from the City Attorney’s Office that caused the Council to quake in their boots. Will the S-R be filing an appeal for the release of this memo?
Who runs this City anyway? Here’s my previous thoughts on expanding the role of the Police Ombudsman:
I concur with your assessment of the City Attorney’s Office. Who runs this City anyway? The Council is the chief policy maker and can decide what to make public or not. City Council members shouldn’t be cowered by the City Attorney’s Office. There was really no reason for the secrecy of this legal advice. I have no confidence in the City Attorney’s Office for many past stunts like this. I have filed a PDR to make this memo public:
http://tinyurl.com/39xxltq
In short I would have passed the ordinance and then let the Guild sue. It will be cheaper in the long run if another critical incident can be prevented by better management oversight by the Police Command Staff. Trust me I’m very sympathetic to the interests of the Guild and do not say this lightly. In my opinion the Guild does have some legitimate issues with Chief Kirkpatrick but this got lost in the noise with the media spin on their vote of no confidence. There are many fine men and woman at SPD that deserve much better.
Speaking as a former police union president, the Guild’s public image is in the toilet right now. I wouldn’t press a lawsuit now. The grounds for a suit against Apple’s ordinance are tenuous at best re being a meet and confer issue. Apple’s ordinance is crafted such that it doesn’t give the Ombudsman (OPO) specific disciplinary power against any officer but to speak in general terms re police policy, procedure and training in need of change from the OPO’s investigation of a critical incident/complaint.
I would be more willing to negotiate for an enhanced ordinance that would be palatable to my members. I’m aware the Guild is protecting its members from some future ombudsman/chief that doesn’t have the personal integrity that Mr. Burns does. This is especially true when hypothetically there is a vindictive chief that tries to railroad union members so these ordinances must be crafted very carefully. I’ve been in this position.
I spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance at the Council Meeting. You can read my prepared statement here:
Ron the Cop addresses Spokane City Council on Police Ombudsman Ordinance
http://tinyurl.com/2enq3em
mikeln on June 18 at 1:04 p.m.
It seems the police guild is afraid of the truth. You would think the truth would be preferable to the publics distrust of the police. I think police work would be better served in an open environment, rather than being done in the dark.
kennyhuston on June 18 at 3:33 p.m.
I’m with JayNW on this one. The main idea is to have a group who is able to conduct an INDEPENDENT investigation - with access to FULL police investigations. I believe that transparency of police investigations makes for greater accountability, and then might not require the Feds to step in to get to the truth out of the SPD. The story doesn’t mention if Mr. Wuthrich has reviewed the most recent draft of the ordinance. Assuming that he hasn’t, (as it sounds like it will be unveiled on Monday night), I find it funny that he warns, “The guild will challenge the ordinance if the council approves it.”. I completely understand why Mr. Wuthrich, or the guild, would be against an independent review of IA investigations - because I’m sure if the guild could have told the Feds NO to the federal review of the IA findings relating to OTTO’s case THEY WOULD HAVE ! ! !
SugarShane on June 21 at 11:50 a.m.
HaHa someone keeps flagging my posts, feels like I live in China.