Spokane7
67°
February 2, 2011 in City
Shawn Vestal: Ombudsman shows aptitude for his job, however defined
The police chief has an excellent question about the city’s cops watchdog.
What, exactly, is Tim Burns’ authority?
Burns has a pretty good question of his own – though he would never put it this way: Why did police ignore the statements of witnesses who said cops roughed up a wayward motorist last summer?
There may be a good reason, Burns said. But the police department’s Administrative Review Panel failed to account for a “lack of nexus” between some of the witness statements and the decision to clear two officers, Burns wrote in defense of his decision not to certify the investigation into the incident.
“From the Ombudsman’s perspective, it appears as though the witnesses’ statements were not given serious consideration,” he wrote in a letter to Chief Anne Kirkpatrick.
It’s the first time we’ve seen public disagreement between Burns and the department, and the department’s response, in an S-R article last week, was half-defensive, half-dismissive.
Same as it ever was.
Except that Burns doesn’t see it that way. He’s in prime position to feel ticked off by the shrugs that greeted his complaint, but instead he’s giving Kirkpatrick and an internal affairs officer the benefit of the doubt. Kirkpatrick’s quibble was technical and legalistic, focused on whether Burns’ authority allows him to weigh in on the administrative review panel’s decisions, as opposed to just internal affairs investigations. She’s probably right, in a narrow sense, but wrong in the broad sense of the public interest.
I thought it showed bad faith. Burns disagreed.
“I’d say (it was) legalistic,” he said. “There’s clearly a question legally of whether I have the authority to take into consideration the administrative review panel. … I see their response as professional and of a technical nature.”
OK, then. Taking the long view. This kind of oil-on-the-water approach is why Burns is probably the right guy for a job where everyone wants more than you can possibly give. Police critics and those who favor stricter independent oversight – like me – want him to have a bigger stick. Police supporters are wary, if not hostile, toward anyone they deem unworthy of sticking a nose under the thin, blue tent.
And those who file formal complaints are unlikely to be satisfied by the kinds of middling results produced by the process. They like the fact that there’s someone to listen and take up their concerns, but rarely is the result as decisive or punitive as they’d like, Burns said.
But Burns actually might be laying the groundwork for something good, by adopting all the qualities that the debate over police in this town lacks: patience, politeness, respect, modesty.
It’s like nobody gave him the handbook.
Burns makes the case that it will likely take three years to get a “template” in place for handling all the different components of his job: seeking public feedback, taking complaints and reviewing how the department investigates them, making recommendations, compiling and analyzing data, and going out on major incidents as an observer of investigations.
It’s this last arena where police stumbled in July. After chasing down a driver – who had a suspended license and who at the very least appears to have given officers a whole lot of lip – a couple officers faced allegations of excessive force.
On an incident like that, Burns is supposed to be called out to the scene, under the city’s ordinance. He’s supposed to be present for interviews with witnesses, and given the chance to follow up with them himself.
The reasons for this are obvious, and it can only serve to strengthen the case for the officers when they do things right.
But the patrol sergeant did not call Burns to the scene. Eleven of 12 witness interviews took place outside his presence.
Burns declines the opportunity to scorch earth over this.
“I’m not sure the sergeant was familiar with the process,” he said. “I would say it was an oversight.”
Burns has only been on the job for 17 months, after all. They’ve only conducted training sessions for officers on how to involve him in critical incidents. How could the sergeant be familiar with the process?
“If it happens again, I will be less willing to accept that as the explanation,” Burns said.
The internal affairs investigator said witnesses differed over whether police used excessive force in the case, and that police statements were consistent. In a report to the chief, Burns declined to certify the investigation for three reasons: the interview issue, a lack of timeliness, and the administrative review panel’s failure to justify its decision to clear the officers.
Kirkpatrick did not return a call this week. What she told the S-R last week was: “I don’t look at it as a substantive issue. To me, it’s just a legal question: What is Tim Burns’ authority and is the (panel) part of the investigation?”
So, what now? Burns says he isn’t through. After a news report about the dispute last week, the person who initially complained – not the motorist, by the way – contacted the ombudsman again.
Burns plans to conduct interviews with that person and some other witnesses. Those may simply become “closing interviews” for the record, but there’s a chance that a new complaint will be filed.
“There’s clearly more work to do,” he said.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com.
The draw of the unknowable 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 02 at 5:04 a.m.
From first personal contact during the initial interview process, following at all three of the community forums the impression a person would get about Mr Burns is just exactly what remains his locus. He is contemplative and kind and yet persistent in pursuit of the truth and justice. He has the heart and soul of a crisis line volunteer, with great active listening skills… but he also has the guts of a battle hardened military officer. He will not over step his authority, but will foster and enable this County to move forward in the absolutely necessary process to gain confidence and trust the credibility of questions around police or citizen actions.
Numerous personal conversations and email over the year and a half of his tenure have reinforced my view of him completely.
He also is one of the most patient people I’ve ever met. Support him and trust him … he deserves all the time he needs to make this work. John
lewis8457 on February 02 at 7:49 a.m.
What a waste of money. He can’t do anything what good is he? If people need someone to talk to have them go to a priest.
17 months into this and a police sergeant doesn’t know to call him, or maybe the sergeant didn’t want to call him.
So Kirkpatrick is still here I was wondering since Ozzie seems to be the face of the SPD.
3 years to set up a template? Or 300,000 dollars (burns 3 year salary) for nothing. a fancy template still wont do anything if he has no powers.
cpd805 on February 02 at 4:04 p.m.
Dang right there is confusion over the policy. It was always my understanding that Tim is involved in the process once the initial complaint becomes an actual IA investigation. Not all citizen complaints or inquiries become IA investigations. If my understanding is wrong, then some training for supervisors regarding this issue had better be done, and quick.
When a person calls in a complaint about an officer at 3 or 4 in the morning, is Tim going to answer his phone and rush right out and be there? This is not feasible and telling a complainant that “I can’t take your complaint or concern right now because the ombudsman is not available” will just discourage complaints from being filed in the first place. I don’t believe this potential effect was the intent of the ordinance.
bszottlinger on February 02 at 5:30 p.m.
Cpd805:
I’ve read the Ombudsman Ordinance, I believe I understand what the City Attorney’s concerns were regarding the “added Powers ordinance”. I am a bit confused as to at what point the Spokane Police Department makes a decision that the reported incident is not criminal in nature and who makes that decision. In many excessive force complainants the issue of criminal assault has to be a consideration and a judgment must be made at some point whether to proceed with a criminal investigation or an administrative investigation. If in your department the IA unit investigates both criminal and administrative allegations of misconduct then during the criminal phase of the investigation Mr. Burns does not have the authority based on the ordinance (04.32.030) to participate in any way. I noticed this when the ordinance was first passed and kinda chuckled, thinking to myself the only thing the SPD has to do to prevent Mr. Burns from participating along with the investigators in most interviews is by maintaining that the interviews were conducted during the criminal investigative phase. Once the criminal investigation is complete inform Mr. Burns that no criminal conduct was substantiated so there will now be an administrative investigation and we have already interviewed all the witnesses.
I’ve stated my opinion regarding the Spokane Ombudsman and earlier predicted that this type of thing would happen. I am surprised it took this long. I’m wondering if the next move will be an officer refusing to allow Mr. Burns to sit in on his/her Garrity interview. I would if I was an officer, and believe I would have a sound legal bases to do so. It looks to me like this is the beginning of the end for the City Council’s attempt to placate the citizens.
bszottlinger on February 03 at 3:41 p.m.
Cpd805:
I realize that in your position and your task, the best thing to do for you, and your boss would be not to respond to my post above. However, in the interest of transparency, and the SPD, would it not be a good idea to at least comment on my post, and if I’m wrong try and point it out. Keep in mind a lot of people read this blog, including both pro and con, most people however would just like the truth.