Spokane7
41°
May 23, 2010 in City
Council to consider plan for stronger ombudsman
Office may be allowed to contact victims, witnesses in police complaints
An effort to expand the powers of the city of Spokane’s police ombudsman may go before the City Council on Monday night.
The proposed ordinance would allow Ombudsman Tim Burns to go beyond simply observing internal police probes and allow him to publish reports on those investigations – with a few exceptions – and contact the people who make complaints against police officers. He would also be allowed to interview witnesses of the incidents that led to complaints.
Currently, Burns can only monitor investigations into police misconduct and judge whether those reviews are “timely, thorough and objective.”
The changes, supporters said, were crafted to avoid a situation where city leaders would have to negotiate them with the Spokane Police Guild.
Burns “won’t be able to go out and punish officers. That is not the intent,” said City Councilman Bob Apple, the ordinance’s sponsor. “We get a lot of complaints with regards to the police department. I’m not saying they are justified. But we need an honest review process to get us the answers to the concerns.”
But Councilman Richard Rush said the effort doesn’t go far enough. He said he and council members Amber Waldref and Jon Snyder had been working on drafts of changes to the ombudsman’s role when Apple proposed the ordinance.
“So now we are left with something that is going to disappoint the people who are supporting it at best, and get us crosswise with the guild at worst,” Rush said. “The thing needs a lot of work.”
The City Council unanimously voted last fall on a resolution calling for Spokane Mayor Mary Verner to push for expanded ombudsman powers during negotiations with the police union. She spoke with union officials about it, but no changes occurred.
Asked Friday if she supports the latest effort by Apple to bolster the ombudsman’s role, Verner said she had no opinion.
“I can’t say I’ve actually read it,” Verner said. City Attorney Howard Delaney had yet to “give me a read about what the implications would be.”
Burns said Friday he had not seen the final version of Apple’s ordinance and couldn’t comment.
The scheduled vote comes the same week attorneys are scheduled to argue the final motions in the federal criminal case against Spokane police Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr., which is set to go to trial on June 2. Thompson is charged with using excessive force and lying to investigators about a fatal confrontation with mentally ill janitor Otto Zehm on March 18, 2006.
Federal prosecutors have alleged in court records that Spokane police covered up some aspects of the case, including leaving out damaging observations by some witnesses, misleading the public for months about how Zehm reacted and failing to point out potential evidence of lethal force to county prosecutors.
“It’s the Otto Zehm case that sparked the chief’s and the public’s demand for a change,” Apple said. “What we need to do is improve our public image.”
Former Mayor Dennis Hession and Chief Anne Kirkpatrick endorsed creating the ombudsman program in 2007. However, they said the details of the job had to be negotiated with the police union.
Under the current system, the ombudsman does not have the power to investigate alleged misconduct independently. If he doesn’t believe police work has been fair, he can ask Kirkpatrick for further review. If she refuses, he can ask the mayor to order Kirkpatrick to reopen the investigation.
But Breean Beggs, of the public interest law firm Center for Justice, has long argued that the ombudsman could conduct independent investigations as long as he or she doesn’t have the power to punish officers.
“Can he interview a victim or not? This (change) makes it clear he can. If someone is Tasered, he can talk to the victim or someone who watched it,” Beggs said. “But he can’t force an officer to talk to him alone. He does get to sit in on the internal affairs interviews of any officers if he’s notified about it.”
The other change would require Burns to make public reports of his reviews, Beggs said, “so the public, the mayor and the chief know what he feels about a particular incident. But the opinion can’t be used for discipline.”
Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane has scheduled a march at City Hall on Monday in support of Apple’s proposed changes.
“We know this ordinance does not bring us all the way home to a true ombudsman model,” said PJALS Executive Director Liz Moore. “But it’s another step on that path.”
Rush said he would prefer to wait and take a bigger step.
“I’m committed to change … but this does not get it,” he said. “I would like the whole enchilada. But it’s going to take more than this ordinance … to achieve that.”
Killing suspect remains at large 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
lewis8457 on May 23 at 6:54 a.m.
So the city council is backpedaling because of the federal investigation. Spokane denied they had a police issue until the feds started calling in cops.
As usual the city is concerned about upsetting the police guild but upsetting most of the Spokane taxpayers is OK.
The ombudsman first draft was supposed to be a bridge between the citizen and police, now after the latest fed news they decide to try and give us what we were supposed to get in the first place.
Personally I don’t think the guild will move one inch. Because the call the shots, and they are the low of the lowest.
Pat O'Leary on May 23 at 7:07 a.m.
Mayor Verner has no opinion about this proposal and can’t say she has read it? What in the hell is this woman’s purpose in remaining in office? She apparently needs the city attorney’s input to guide her thru the legislation. She claims to be an attorney….can’t she make her own decisions? It is time for this weak-kneed, indecisive wimp to get out of the way and let a genuine leader take over.
Here we go again….another one-term mayor. Just as well resign now and get it over with.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 23 at 7:23 a.m.
The Mayor has “No Opinion”…. well that is a sad statement, with obvious ramifications. Where is James Craven when we need him. Perhaps he’ll show up at the public testimony tomorrow night. Another voice would be that of Greg Weber who was in the running for the Ombudsman job. Going to be an interesting meeting.
I become increasingly disappointed in Mayor Verner, and too wonder what she is doing during her days when this is the single most important issue facing us in determination of the “texture” of our day to day lives. Maselow’s hierarchy of needs puts “safety” right at the top of the list with shelter and food across populations and time. John
Verbal on May 23 at 9:04 a.m.
How much can they change the current ordinance without having to negotiate with the Guild?
Ron_the_Cop on May 23 at 10:30 a.m.
Verbal,
As long as the Ombudsman is not involved in the discipline of an officer and officers can’t be compelled to talk with the Ombudsman, this is not a meet and confer issue.
Verbal on May 23 at 10:33 a.m.
Ah. thank you very much, Ron
mikeln on May 23 at 11:13 a.m.
This is about the police union wanting to protect their members who have stepped over the line. This issue needs to be voted on by the people of Spokane. If the police union doesn’t want to live by the rule of the citizens who pay them, Ronald Reagan them and put people in there who will look after all aspects of public safety.
Liberty_Bell on May 23 at 3:36 p.m.
Mabey after a few Spokane Cops, spend a few years in a Federal Penal Institution, like the infamous model in Tacoma. Shown best with Pierce County Sheriff George Janovich, and Otto Zem’s lawyers, sue the living daylights out of the Spokane Police Department with that Federal Ku Klux Act of 1871, the voter might think about who he’s voting for?
However, as noted, the Voter is notoriously Clueless! That’s shown best also in the Courts, with Brown v. Owen, Lisa Brown sueing Lisa Brown?
Isn’t it great when you have a PHD in Economics, and flunked basic 8th grade civics class?
And the citizen voter, keep’s on voting? No PHD required!
Liberty_Bell on May 23 at 3:44 p.m.
Then we have Kitsap County Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County Sheriff???
Hire the mentally handicapped, only in the State of Washington could this be legal!
Vote Lisa Brown!
lewis8457 on May 23 at 4:44 p.m.
Mary Verner has no opinion because she has said more then once 8 police officers killing a innocent disabled man in a mini mart is justified.
If that action is justified then the cops can do anything they want, what is worse then cold-blooded homicide?
Mary like so many in our local government is clueless.
Liberty_Bell on May 23 at 8:40 p.m.
What a Classic?
“Spokane Police Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr., accused of lying to investigators over the fatal confrontation with Otto Zehm, unsuccessfully sought Tuesday to get the charge dismissed, arguing that he never “swore to tell the truth” during his interview with detectives.
Although his defense lawyer, Carl Oreskovich, later insisted that Thompson told truth during the interview, the distinction was drawn during a hearing in U.S. District Court as part of an effort to get the lying charge thrown out on a legal technicality.
Oreskovich said the charge should be dismissed because Thompson wasn’t sworn to tell the truth in the interview, and that it was someone else who physically prepared a transcript of the taped conversation with detectives.
U.S. District Court Judge Fred Van Sickle, however, didn’t buy it.”
I wonder if Judge Van Sickle, could also explain Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’s Supreme Court Opinion, known well to every Cop, Brady v. Maryland
The Washington State, United States Supreme Court Justice?
Officer Carl F. Thompson, they said you were a Brady Cop, it’s true, it’s true!
Liberty_Bell on May 23 at 8:57 p.m.
Perjury, obstruction, false reporting, always confuses a Spokane Member of the Spokane Police Guild, a requirement for membership!
And Justice Douglas Chapter IX “Fear Walks in the Woods”
Become a Brady Cop, join Brady and the Guild!
This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 , where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process:
“It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a State to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.”
In Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 215 -216, we phrased the rule in broader terms:
“Petitioner’s papers are inexpertly drawn, but they do set forth allegations that his imprisonment resulted from perjured testimony, knowingly used by the State authorities to obtain his conviction, and from the deliberate suppression by those same authorities of evidence favorable to him. These allegations sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to release from his present custody. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 .” [373 U.S. 83, 87]
18 USC 241, and 242, always confuse the Spokane Police Guild!
Liberty_Bell on May 23 at 9:16 p.m.
The Spokane Police Guild???
Mr. Justice Douglas discussing it in 1960???
It is argued that “under color of” enumerated state authority excludes acts of an official or policeman who can show no authority under state law, state custom, or state usage to do what he did. In this case, it is said that these policemen, ..
The Ku Klux Act grew out of a message sent to Congress by President Grant on March 23, 1871, reading:
A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union rendering life and property insecure and [p173] the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a condition of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate. That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt; that the power of the Executive of the United States, acting within the limits of existing laws, is sufficient for present emergencies is not clear. Therefore, I urgently recommend such legislation as in the judgment of Congress shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the enforcement of law in all parts of the United States… . [n7]
The legislation — in particular the section with which we are now concerned — had several purposes. There are threads of many thoughts running through the debates. One who reads them in their entirety sees that the present section had three main aims.
First, it might, of course, override certain kinds of state laws. Mr. Sloss of Alabama, in opposition, spoke of that object and emphasized that it was irrelevant because there were no such laws: [n8]
The first section of this bill prohibits any invidious legislation by States against the rights or privileges of citizens of the United States. The object of this section is not very clear, as it is not pretended by its advocates on this floor that any State has passed any laws endangering the rights or privileges of the colored people.
Second, it provided a remedy where state law was inadequate. That aspect of the legislation was summed up as follows by Senator Sherman of Ohio…
They should have read about Senator Sherman’s Big Brother, he “Marched to the Sea” and Burnt Atlanta to the Ground!
Merry Christmas to Abraham Lincoln, December 24th 1864!
Of course when you flunked those Sherman Family Values Courses, you really work at the SPD! Or join the morons at their Guild, for you might get Guilded!
Or was Thomas Jeffersons, and Rodger Sherman’s letter to King George still confusing on July 4th 1776???
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment of any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States;
Dazzeetrader11 on May 24 at 2:00 a.m.
Verner took lots of money from the police and fire unions to get elected. I’m afraid she cannot have an opinion of this issue.
She’s done nothing …which should surprise nobody since she’s had little experience outside of tribal work. Certainly nothing in the private sector. So she cannot manage an issue this complex.
She spends and keeps it hidden. She buys buildings but keeps it hidden. Remember when the police proerty bond failed 2 years ago? People voted it down. Now…she’s getting bonds outside the city to circumvent a clear vote of the people.
She’s a corrupt, disengenuous mayor with nothing to show for her time.
And where is that $18 million in river cleanup all you greenies? Well…she’s squandered it and it’s long gone. Didn’t you ever wonder why nothing has been done to clean up the river in two years on the job? She was elected on a greeish platform. Nothin doin. She’s a fake, smiles and shows up for functions at the right time. She shouldn’t be allowed to run again. She’s dealt with the Spokane citizenry in bad faith since she walked in the door.
NOW…no response on the police? Why not? She’s applying for a job with the B. Indian affairs….if she gets that job from Obama, she won’t finish her term. Thank God if she leaves.
She surely shouldn’t be considered from re-election. I do think the police and the unions need to be reigned in. It’s a sad comment when the citizens are afraid of their own “servants”. FBI needs to clean Spokane up. Nicks and the Chief should be sent packing, the union dissolved and law enforcement needs ot be restructured. Nearly everyone knows it. Oh Mary…where are you dear?
ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 24 at 5:32 a.m.
Well one place she won’t be likely is at the Council Meeting tonight… seems there has been a large amount of “Backroom Kerfuffel” over Mr Apple’s balsy move to bring this to a head… Mr Rush, Ms Aldref, and Mr Snyder have been working to move a more complex piece forward ( which no one heard about til mr apple popped in)…
There will be reminders tonight that some of the same folks that were not listening when we all complained about the “Watered down” verstion…. which had the faulty legal view that true oversight would have opened up negotiations with the guild, and then Mayor Verner not pushing for more authority for Mr Burns when directed to so by the prior council…. so here we are…..
It will be a most entertaining meeting tonight, and one can only hope that Council President Shogan manages to keep his cool tonight… this police problem is a serious one that affects any person of color or percieved as “other” by the white middle class in this Basin. John
Ron_the_Cop on May 24 at 9:34 a.m.
DITTO Chef Gus,
My sources say the City Attorney’s Office will try to brief the Council in executive session on Apple’s proposed ordinance and keep it’s brief secret from the public by classifying it as a “work product.” As usual so much for transparency by the City Attorney’s Office on matters of importance to the citizens of Spokane.
BTW I would have sworn I had an earlier post in this thread. I wonder if it was deleted because I linked to award winning investigative reporter Larry Shook’s new commentaries that has hard hitting commentaries re the state of Spokane government and the Ombudsman? Or was it because I linked to two pieces of Tim Connor at the Center for Justice?
I didn’t keep a screen print but it is essentially my post on my blog. Here’s an excerpt. Please click here for the full post and embedded hotlinks for Shook’s and Connor’s commentaries.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Riverside PD, CA
Past two-term President Riverside Police Officers’ Assn, Riverside, CA
Thirty-five year law enforcement professional
Economic crimes detective as well as other complex investigative assignments
Past two-term president of the Riverside Police Officers’ Assn.
*****
http://tinyurl.com/27p6zex
ALERT - Spokane Council to consider expanded Police Ombudsman role
By RBT
The Spokane City Council will consider expanding the role/authority of the Spokane PD Police Ombudsman. Tim Burns was hired for this new position after several critical incidents in Spokane rocked the trust and confidence in the police department. The Ombudsman position was not given authority to conduct independent investigations, as the Ombudsman may deem appropriate. The new proposed ordinance will expand the authority of the Ombudsman to include independent investigations (Link to ordinance here in Tim Connor’s article).
There are many important issues that are enmeshed in this important community debate. Please plan to attend the Council Meeting if at all possible this Monday night starting at 6:00 PM, May 24, 2010 (See City Council Agenda here).
Please contact your City Council member by email to express your opinion.
The Council’s meetings are broadcast on Cable Channel 5 within Spokane if you are a Comcast subscriber. The meetings are also livestreamed (See left side rail “Watch it Live“)
Here are several articles/commentaries on the Ombudsman that frame this debate:
An Eye for the Watchdog?
Inside the Ombudsfarce
Here’s the link to Kevin Taylor’s article at the Inlander
WatchMan
The city’s first ombudsman finds himself in uncharted territory
Some of the previous articles by the Spokesman-Review can be found here.
I’ve expressed my opinion in these comments I’ve posted in Larry Shook’s new blog:
Ms. Wilton,
Here’s the reason why it’s so important to have this public discussion that I promised I would comment earlier.
The following is an excerpt of email I sent regarding having Tim Burns the SPD Ombudsman into speak to my college class on Community Oriented Policing.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Ron_the_Cop on May 24 at 10:39 a.m.
ChefGus,
So far so good my comment above survives. I will appear before Council to give public testimony tonight in support of Mr. Apple’s ordinance as an interim step in regaining the trust of the public in Spokane PD. Here’s the essence of my testimony.
I plan to attend tonight’s Council Meeting to give public testimony. I will bring my own egg timer to ensure Mr. Shogan gives me my full three minutes as I’m sure he will interrupt my prepared speech as usual:-) [See previous video http://tinyurl.com/37a92ej]. Perhaps the Mayor and Council should seek the advice of Tim Burns re their implicit authority to compel an immediate inspection of the RPS Park Garage to ensure it is safe for continued public occupancy. Mr. Burns is an expert in this area and has told me the City has the authority to order/compel such an inspection - Mr. Rush.
As a former two-term president of a 350 member police union I would normally be opposed to the expansion of the authority of the Ombudsman. We went through our own similar experience after a tragic OIS shooting and a police review commission was created to monitor the activities of my department. I believe the Spokane Police Guild does have some valid issues with Chief Kirkpatrick in their recent vote of no confidence. These are procedural issues involving discipline that the Guild is alleging Chief Kirkpatrick has not followed not followed established law and practice. The Guild has not taken issue with the actual discipline Chief Kirkpatrick has given in most of the recent high profile case. The Guild’s issues were lost in the S-R spin on the vote of no confidence. The Guild did itself no favors in the manner this vote was taken.
I’ve met Tim Burns several times now. In fact I had him in to speak to my Controversial Issues in Law Enforcement and Community Oriented Policing criminal justice classes In a environment Mr. Burns would be fully capable of monitoring police IA investigations. Spokane is not a normal environment. The Catch-22 of the current Ombudsman ordinance is that the Ombudsman is dependent on the Internal Affairs Unit, the Police Command Staff, the Chief, and the Mayor to carry out the Ombudsman duties. In my opinion Mr. Burns if he remains to true to his duties/responsibilities is well qualified to determine if an IA investigation of a critical incident and/or complaint is a sham or cover up.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on May 24 at 10:39 a.m.
[Continued from above]
The ordinance however provides no formal authority/direction for Mr. Burns when a complaint has been lodged against the Command Staff, the Chief, the Mayor and or in essence the City Council for failure to act as have former Sheriff Bamonte and I have recently alleged. Sheriff Bamonte’s complaint involves Chief Kirkpatrick’s refusal to even take an initial police report on Sheriff Bamonte’s criminal complaint re preferential property tax appraisals by the County’s Assessor’s Office. Chief Kirkpatrick simply returned his complaint to “return sender.” Whether this complaint has merit or not, Chief Kirkpatrick’s action were unprofessional and potentially illegal. My complaint involves Spokane PD’s refusal to do the complete and thorough criminal investigation that was necessary into the death of Jo Ellen Savage in the RPS Parking Garage after repeated letters and warnings by both Sheriff Bamonte and me.
As we’ve had just seen with the federal criminal investigation into the Otto Zehm death police testimony and statements to the media have change over time when faced with testifying before a federal grand jury. This extends to high ranking members of the Police Command Staff in particular Asst. Chief Nicks who Mr. Burns directly reports to. What is Mr. Burns to do in these circumstances to carry out his mandate to the people? To regain the trust of the public in Spokane PD, must have the confidence in the Police Command Staff to carry out its duties to ensure police policy, procedure, practice, and training are changed should a critical incident like Zehm occur to prevent repeat occurrences. With the City’s dragging in of its feet on the Zehm case, the public has no assurances that such review and change has been implemented.
Further Mr. Burns must seek legal counsel of the City Attorney’s Office. With Mr. Treppiedi’s actions that the US Attorney’s Office was outraged by as outlined in their recent motion, it is clear the City Attorney’s Office is not acting in the best interests of the citizens of Spokane. Mr. Burns should have the discretion of seeking outside legal counsel when he feels it is appropriate particularly when it involves issues of malfeasance of the Police Command Staff.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Dazzeetrader11 on May 24 at 7:13 p.m.
I met Mr Burns. He seems to be a good and honest man. I trust him…I’m not sure he’ll be given power beyond what he has. The Unions won’t tolerate the police being scrutinized. This is SO wrong. I hope the Council opens things up for Mr Burns and those who might following his footsteps. It’s the structure Spokane needs.Unless and until there is balance in law enforcement, there will be no trust. Citizens pay the salaries of all those people . As of now , there is no accountability. There needs to be. A big step would be to help Burns. He won’t be taken seriously unless that happens.
Don’t look for Ms “Iron Pony” ( Verner’s nightclub rap name) to step into this. That would take leadership. She has none.
Ron_the_Cop on May 25 at 12:23 p.m.
There is a new thread started under S-R Reporter Craig’s story on the Council Meeting last night. There are some comments under Doug Clark’s column today and Community Comment Blog:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/may/25/council-delays-oversight-decision/
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/commcomm/2010/may/24/show-hands-if-you-will-please/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/may/25/ombudsman-cant-polish-police-image/