Spokane7
65°
August 2, 2011 in City
Council debates ombudsman appeal
Arbitrator’s decision spurs clash of proposals
The Spokane City Council appears headed for a showdown over whether to appeal a decision limiting the powers of the city’s police ombudsman.
The mention of a proposed ordinance accepting the decision of an arbitrator and rolling back the investigative powers approved last year showed a sharply divided council Monday afternoon. The hearing on the ordinance is at least two weeks away.
Council President Joe Shogan has proposed the ordinance to accept arbitrator Mike Baker’s decision that the city had to negotiate new ombudsman powers with the police union. If the ordinance passes, the ombudsman could sit in on police investigations of officer complaints, but not conduct independent interviews or investigations.
Councilman Richard Rush said he planned to introduce a separate ordinance that calls for the city to appeal Baker’s decision to a personnel board, a body which the arbitrator said has the statutory authority to make the call.
“I think an appeal is probably warranted,” Rush said.
Shogan countered that anyone who wants to appeal the decision should come up with the $25,000 that some attorneys estimate an appeal would cost. Courts don’t usually overturn arbitrators’ decisions, he added.
“I read state law a little differently,” Rush said. That prompted Shogan, who is an attorney, to question the legal knowledge of Rush, who is not.
Councilman Steve Corker said he thought the city should listen to its own attorneys rather than “be influenced by the Center for Justice.” That local organization is urging the council to appeal Baker’s decision.
Councilmen Jon Snyder and Bob Apple said they would like another executive session with attorneys to discuss options.
Shogan said they could have more study sessions, but they’ll still have to figure out how the city would pay for an appeal: “When you’re digging a hole … sometimes you have to decide to stop digging. We can’t seem to get to that point.”
Shogan’s ordinance is scheduled to be introduced Monday, with a hearing and possible vote on Aug. 15.
Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 02 at 5:47 a.m.
My Strong view is that there should be an appeal. It is unseemly to do this behind the closed doors of ‘Executive Session” and i do no believe under the State’s Open Meeting laws that this conversation should be unavailable to the public.
The $ 25,000 is a mini drop in the bucket compared to the long term costs of continuing to protect the small but very expensive rash of cases of millions of dollars that will be prevented by an effective and powerful Ombudsman.
Simple to go to Boise and get some Statistics on the likely savings and increased comfort of people with the Police Departments that we hire to serve and protect us.
Come on Mr Corker…. Come on Mr Shogan…step up and do what is the right thing on this issue. John Olsen
lewis8457 on August 02 at 6:33 a.m.
just another smoke screen gee lets get that 100 grand a year ombudsman some powers but guess what the police guild can nix the whole deal.
what they should vote on is giving themselves back some power so they can tell the guild what to do and not the other way around.
DickAdams on August 02 at 7:27 a.m.
Pathetic. Its going to take more than a ombudsman to change the conduct of the SPD with their behavior. I suggest when your out and about always travel in pairs. You may need a witness.
Orphan on August 02 at 7:46 a.m.
Dick is correct travel in pairs and carry a recorder. You may record anyone in public just dont record in a privat situation.
D Statler on August 02 at 8:14 a.m.
It appears the Ombudsman position is nothing more than a waste of our tax dollars.There is nothing that will work to repair the image of SPD and SCPD other than change the way they do buisness. I am embarrassed about the way my union brothers at the Guild conduct their buisness. Their actions as well as in-actions with these less than desirable officers is sad to say the least. An independant citizen review board may help with our problems.It has taken years to create this situation. Our local leaders have kept quiet and allowed things to get out of their control.The term “Protect and Serve” is not just for Police Departments.
brianrbreen on August 02 at 12:29 p.m.
@ChefGus
I have a strong different view. You may remember that at the time the ordinance expanding the powers was enacted the City Attorney’s Office recommended that the ordinance not be passed because it would not pass muster with the PERC. The Police Guild instead of presenting their case to the PERC agreed with the City to allow an arbitrator to make the decision. I would suggest to you that the Guild was confident that they would win regardless of whether the decision was made by the PERC or an arbitrator, and the arbitrator route was less costly for both parties.
I do not see any purpose for an appeal of the arbitrator’s decision for a number of reasons including the fact that regardless of whether or not the Ombudsman is empowered to conduct his own investigations his investigations mean absolutely nothing. There is no requirement for the Chief or the Mayor to follow any recommendations he might make. There are a number of examples of this; one recent one is the case of Jeff Harvey. After Burns certified the internal investigation, (something I would bet he now regrets) he had evidence presented to him from Harvey and his attorney. He then made the recommendation to the Chief that she holds off on any disciplinary action against Harvey until a decision was made concerning the criminal charges. She ignored his recommendation and terminated Harvey any way. Should Harvey be acquitted ignoring this recommendation will come back to haunt not only her but also may be very costly for all of us.
With all due respect to those seeking some kind of police oversight in my opinion hanging their hat on an Ombudsman system the likes of which are nothing more then window dressing for the public, serves no purpose, and is a waste of money.
The city charter grants authority to the Mayor to “investigate the affairs of the City”. That in and of itself provides a number of options beyond the Ombudsman that could, if set up correctly, not only have some teeth, but also might be fair and equitable to all the employees of the city including police and fire officers.
I completely understand why the Police Guild has little respect for an oversight system that in essence creates more problems then it solves.
Ed Byrnes on August 02 at 3:50 p.m.
Brian is level headed and usually spot on…If the mayor has the authority to investigate the affairs of the city then the appropriate political pressure from us concerned citizens would seem to be on her to create a CRB. We could take just part of the money funding the ombudsman and pay for some part time investigative and legal support for the CRB. We could probably, through a grant, secure USDOJ funding, perhaps from BJA, to train the CRB members in how to use and not misuse their authority, striking the needed balance between being fair to LEOs and civilians alike.
Ed
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 02 at 4:16 p.m.
Brian… thank you for your thoughts and cogent points…. you do seem to have a much better handle on this than most…. many have argued for coroners inquests in the death cases etc…. but the point you made about the Mayor having some level of control and affect is a good one…. I like Mr Burns… but think that his position is more or less window dressing after a couple of years at it… he is severely limited in what he can and cannot do… and my understanding is that the Boise Ombudsman has a much better ability to function… thanks again j
brianrbreen on August 02 at 5:34 p.m.
Ed and John,
I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that in some circles of the local US Attorney’s Office there has been discussion of initiating a preliminary investigation into the Patterns and Practices of the City of Spokane and the Spokane Police Department. I personally do not believe that the City Council has any idea how close they may be to just that. Each time mistakes are made by local leadership in the handling of officer involved cases another bullet is jammed in to the magazine of those individuals who may be advocating such a move. The inability of a city government to provide a mechanism to fairly and justly deal with these issues is just one of the many things the Feds take a good look at. When I say fairly and justly, I mean for everyone, cops included. One might look at Seattle, and what lead up to their current situation.
If I were back on the job, I wouldn’t know whether to laugh or cry about this whole Ombudsman fiasco, probably laugh and then cry. The good people down there are not afraid of oversight they just do not want it to be a joke, and I don’t think there is anyone that would begrudge them that. The people adverse to oversight are the leadership because they ultimately would endure the most scrutiny.
I understand the Boise situation to be very good. It is however costly, and I can hear the “We can’t afford it!” cry already. The only hope for some type of creditable oversight I can see at this point is for local leadership to keep screwing up, keep costing us money, and continue to allow the departments morale and prestige to decline to the point where the federal government has to step in and do something. If I were the folks at the Center for Justice, I would be documenting the long history of problems and begin preparing my case to present to the US Attorney after the Thompson trial.
One would think that at some point an elected local public official might ask why in the heck do we have so many officers with sustained excessive force complaints, or sustained issues of dishonesty still on the force, and what caused it to happen.
When a young officer tells me, “Hey Breen you’re all wet we can police ourselves”, I always respond in the same way, “No you can’t, because it makes your brass look bad”. We share a laugh and then they usually say your right about that.
misjustice on August 02 at 7:14 p.m.
Strange, I saw a job posting for an assistant to the ombudsman. Why does he need an assistant? It’s not like the ombudsman can really DO anything. So now he gets to have an assistant to help him DO nothing? Geez!
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 02 at 8:16 p.m.
He has had a very very effective assistant from the get go. She keeps the office humming and is an integral part of the process. A necessary thing in my estimation. John
brianrbreen on August 03 at 11:36 a.m.
John,
I do not doubt for a second that Tim Burns is a nice person, and I believe that is one of the reasons he was hired. The fact is however; from an investigative standpoint, he is very inexperienced. I do applaud him for his recent recommendation to Chief Kirkpatrick that she not discipline Jeff Harvey until the pending criminal review. Waiting until a pending criminal case has concluded is standard and proper police procedure. There are a number of darn good reasons for that including eliminating any potential bias claims. The Chief completely ignored this “proper police procedure”. Beyond my own experience, I could cite many authorities demonstrating that waiting until the criminal review has concluded is important. Let me call your attention to just one. The consultants report prepared for then Mayor Dennis Hession by Police Practices, LLC (Worley Report) to review the Otto Zehm case, firehouse sex scandal internal investigation, and Civilian Review of the Spokane Police Department, when referring to the internal investigation of Officer Karl Thompson specifically states on page one lines 16,17,18 “Additionally, the internal investigation of the officers conduct in this case has not begun, which is in keeping with proper police procedure in a case with pending criminal review”.
Another thing that I am concerned about in the Harvey termination is the fact that the City and the Chief released his personnel records including evaluation information to the media without providing him the opportunity to object. I am fully aware that they are not required to notify him it is optional. However, why given the circumstances and the obvious bias defense release them before giving him the opportunity to object in Superior Court? The release of his personnel records was not the result of a PDR someone took it upon himself or herself to provide the files to the press. In my view no one at City Hall or in the Police Department even considered what the ramifications might be.
I know nothing about how the internal investigation by the police department was handled; and although I do not believe it should have begun until the criminal case was resolved, my hope is that they took great care to make sure all the bases were covered including taking steps to carefully evaluate ALL of the witnesses with respect to credibility. Since Burns certified the internal investigation, I hope that he considered that.
I may sound like an apologist for Jeff Harvey; believe me I am not. In fact, I was the one that investigated the criminal assault case in 1987, and I submitted a request to the prosecutor for a felony assault charge against Harvey. That having been said, I try as hard as I can to be objective and even though some people blame the police guild for a lot of the things that have happened and in some cases rightfully so, they have a duty to protect their entire membership from poor standards and practices even if occasionally it involves a case involving one of the members who has no business being a police officer simply in the interest of all the other members. Let me reiterate my view that the majority of the police department wants credible leadership and oversight and frankly they are not getting it.
brianrbreen on August 03 at 12:10 p.m.
Ed and John
Here is a copy of the “Worley Report”, makes for some interesting reading.
http://spokesmanreview.com/docs/102606_report.pdf
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 04 at 12:17 a.m.
Hey out there…the Key to this whole problem is the third leg of the stool…ie the Prosecutor’s office… and it was in spite of a lot of very hard work by a lot of people jammed up with the lock step “R” folks voting for the incompetent incumbent…… as long as this is the case there will be no Justice…it will remain a la Richard Pryor “Just Us” as in “Just us white folks” j
brianrbreen on August 04 at 8:54 a.m.
John,
I agree with you that the third leg of the stool is very important in police oversight. However, I do not envy the prosecutor in the Harvey case. I am guessing Prosecutor Brian O’Brian will be handling it and that’s a good thing, he is a good prosecutor, even though he can’t skate or stick handle worth a darn. What concerns me is that he may have some serious witness problems and even though they should have, did not become known until the defense investigation. If that is the case, he has some tough decisions to make in conjunction with his brass; whether or not to dismiss the case and be subjected to the public outcry that a rotten cop was let off the hook, or take a weak case to trial and let the jury decide the outcome, as was done in the Jay Mehring case. The Mehring case I might add was another example of the Chief of Police acting outside proper police practice and suspending him without pay before his trial, which in turn caused another civil litigation against the city, and if I am not mistaken we are now paying Detective Mehring his full pay and benefits to stay at home and watch TV. The difference between the two cases is that from everything I understand Mehring was a good cop. The other thing that O’Brian will likely have to deal with is a change of venue motion because the Chief or someone in City Government decided they wanted to show the public just how tough they are with bad cops instead of thinking things through and handling the case according to proper police practices. I can’t help but believe the prosecutors office isn’t real happy about the fact the Chief of Police supplied the defense with all kinds of ammunition for a change of venue something that should the case be taken to trial and the defense wins the motion is going to be costly to all of us. I’m sure the prosecutor is also real happy with the Chief’s “Brady cop” remark and what might well come of that.
If the prosecutor’s office decides to take it to trial and wins, that is great. If they decide to take it to trial and there is an acquittal, you will not hear me complaining about the decision to take it to trial. If they decide to dismiss the charges, I for one will understand why and will support that decision as well. We will have to see what happens, but if the overall outcome is that Jeff Harvey is reinstated or walks away with a big chunk of change in his pocket because proper police procedures weren’t followed, I am going to be real PO’d.
brianrbreen on August 04 at 3:00 p.m.
John and Ed,
The last threat I took seriously (there were a bunch) is when Damon Chapple who I arrested for murder way back when, made some threats. It was the first DNA murder case in Spokane County and the prosecutor was a good one Clarke Colwell, a great person, and a good prosecutor, even though we disagreed often. His biggest problem with me was at trial when Damon Chapple was being escorted out of the courtroom and spit a big goober in Colwell’s face. I was standing between Chapple and Colwell and like any good investigator; I was smart enough to see what was coming and duck. He was the typical attorney and could not see what was coming, I could! I will never forget as he wiped the sputum off his face he said to me; “ Where the hell were you”, my response was simple “You aren’t the President, and I’m not a Secret Service Agent!”
I tell that story only to demonstrate, that it is hard to intimidate me, and the emails and conversations regarding my posts (some people know what I’m talking about) don’t have me shaking in my boots. So, Go Pound Sand!
Now that the Chief let the cat out of the bag, and the Chief has released SOME of Harvey’s personnel records, it would be a good idea for someone to look at the whole story. Including the reference to the 1989 reprimand for excessive force and the circumstances surrounding that reprimand. I will offer this, because it is public record and only from the standpoint of providing perspective because, it was documented in the termination letter.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900422&slug=1067785