Spokane7
55°
January 30, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: Police chief’s comment no help in establishing role of ombudsman
The public knows the shaky history of police oversight in Spokane. It knows that the city used to respond to complaints against officers with intimidating countersuits. It knows that many officers are not pleased with the adoption of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and that this resistance led to that position having lesser powers than in other cities, such as Boise.
The City Council knew that the public was not content with this watered-down approach, so last summer it beefed up the role of the ombudsman, allowing him to be present when officers and witnesses are interviewed.
The intent of all of this was to answer public concerns that legitimate complaints against the department would not be swept away behind closed doors. What’s more, the Police Department itself is cognizant of the history of oversight and the intent of the ombudsman ordinance and its amendment.
Ombudsman Tim Burns has reviewed scores of citizen complaints and the department’s handling of them. In all but three cases, he has certified that they were disposed of in a timely and objective manner. He cannot be written off as some knee-jerk, anti-cop gadfly. So when he has a concern about the objectivity of departmental decisions in a use-of-force case, the police chief should not dismiss him.
Burns recently spotlighted such a decision in a report. The case involved Brian Greear, a 27-year-old man who was arrested in July on suspicion of drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a license. Greear claims he was handled roughly by two officers, including being slammed to the ground, which caused him to lose consciousness. Burns questioned the administrative panel’s rationale to exonerate the officers based on the available information. Some witnesses said Greear was handled violently, but Burns says their accounts weren’t sufficiently accounted for in the police panel’s decision. Based on this incomplete explanation, he declined to certify the internal investigation.
When asked about this, police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick replied, “To me, it’s just a legal question. What is Tim Burns’ authority and is the (panel) part of the investigation?”
This response completely misses the intent of the ordinance and disregards the public’s skepticism about police oversight. While it might seem like a legal question to her, the public still wants to know how the panel reached its decision. It would not be against the ordinance to supply more information about that.
Intent aside, the amended ordinance allows for the ombudsman to be present when officers and witnesses are interviewed. He may ask his own questions. Burns’ report in the Greear case notes that he was not notified of or invited to attend 11 of the 12 witness interviews. So there is also a question about whether the letter of the law was respected.
However, the larger issue is whether the department respects the existence of the ombudsman as the people’s representative. Or, as Burns put it, “If not me, then who?”
To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 30 at 6:20 a.m.
Thank you for your editorial on this most important topic. It is clear after the re election of Mr Tucker, by the apparently apathetic or uniformed majority of this community that Mr Burns is the “last chance” in questions of possible police impropriety. Mr Burns in all of my conversations and interactions with him is a Stand Up Guy, low key and not at all volatile and reactive… but rather introspective and measured.
He is a person we ALL should be paying deep attention to… for although our Ombudsman ordinance does not come even close to the one from Boise it is evolving…. and needs the support of the entire community…. including our police chief and the full city council and the mayor’s office as well as the city attorney’s office.
The million dollar settlements for “unwarranted use of force” that are being settled all over the country will also begin to occur here in Spokane… and we simply cannot afford the furor or the cost fomented by the perception of police favoritism. Gus
Scoutster on January 30 at 8:36 a.m.
What?! We have an Ombudsman in this burg?
hawken on January 30 at 8:45 a.m.
Law enforcement in general has always opposed civilian intervention of any kind into their internal affairs. Police agencies that maintain more open communications and transparency concerning the outcome of their internal investigations, have much less pressure to go along with a “citizen’s review board” or “ombudsman.”
Spokane County law enforcement has too long a history of questionable force to avoid a more involved and authoritative ombudsman.
That…..”Burns’ report(s) in the Greear case notes that he was not notified of or invited to attend 11 of the 12 witness interviews,,,” should be unacceptable.
The failure of the department to notify and invite Burns to attend, exemplifies the common, “passive aggressive” attitude that police have against the ombudsman or citizens review board role.
Much of this attitude on the part of the police is the “them against us” mindset. Longstanding in police agencies across the country. Add to this, the police view that citizen civilians are not qualified to judge police actions, since the public does not have to confront life and death situations,, and make such judgments in seconds.
Chiefs of Police who support such civilian oversight roles typically do not hold a good standing with the troops or the police union.
Personally, I reject the “them against us” mindset. It is systemic in many police agencies and harmful to a healthy poice/community relationship. I also reject the view that civilian citizens are incapable of assessing police behavior. It’s done everyday in the form of juries.
Whether or not any given police agency has a citizens review system in place, should be determined on an agency by agency basis, depending upon the state of police/community relations that exist in any given community.
Citizen’s review is not a cure-all. But, it does add transparency and accountability. In the end, the justice and tort system will continue to be the final arbiter as necessary.
yellowcat on January 30 at 11:02 a.m.
Thank you Spokesman. “When asked about this, police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick replied, “To me, it’s just a legal question. What is Tim Burns’ authority and is the (panel) part of the investigation? ”
When I read the January 25th article with this comment from Chief Kirkpatrick’s, I was taken aback by her response. It is so telling and so unacceptable. She supports the “us vs. them” relationship between the people and the police and obviously wants to keep it that way.
I was encouraged to see Tim Burn’s response, “if not me, then who?”
Another question. Who is the panel? Is that another layer to avoid transparency or taking responsibility?
Full article, Jan 25th, about Greear case: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/25/use-of-force-case-leaves-questions/.
jojogear on January 30 at 12:17 p.m.
Re your editorial on police ombudsman: I note on p. B3 of today’s (Sunday) Spokesman that Spokane police confronted another angry husband Saturday morning who was brandishing a baseball bat, but they didn’t shoot and kill him! I’d like to register a complaint about this, in hopes that this latest confrontation does not mean that our police are suddenly developing a little self-control, civility, humanity, or heart, just when they’re about to break a national record for trigger-happy murders of innocent or basically unarmed but upset citizens! Say it ain’t so, Mr. Burns.
Ed Byrnes on January 30 at 12:58 p.m.
Hawken and I are on very similar pages here.
I have been reviewing the literature on citizen review (I am preparing an op-ed for submission to the S-R on this topic which will get more specific about my sources as space is allowed) and have so far concluded that: (1) Citizen review cannot guarantee better behavior on the part of LLE; (2) Citizen review can assure transparency and accountability on the part of LLE; and (3) Citizen review can be reasonably expected to increase trust for LLE on the part of the civilian community.
A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report states, as I and now Hawken have, that LLE agencies often resist citizen review for the reasons that Hawken cited today and that many of us have cited before. That, aptly put, “us versus them…citizens don’t understand” mentality needs to be overcome for our community to heal,and the NIJ report supports the idea of citizen review being a community oriented process.
Now I am going to take a risk and propose some specifics. Hawken, you and I may depart a bit here though what I hope for is engaged dialogue between us and any other posters who will take the time to be reasoned and cogent, as you and I are demonstrating between us in this forum. There are four overarching typical configurations of citizen review procedures and what I think would help heal our community and bring the kind of transparency that us civilians and our more professional LLE officers deserve: (1) The citizen review board has an independent investigator attached to it, which our ombudsman Mr. Burns could effectively serve as; (2) The board has subpoena powers for evidence and witnesses; (3) The board conducts its business in a open forum with the right and obligation to enter executive session when evidence of previous personnel or disciplinary actions against a specific officer is to be discussed, which protects the officers privacy rights; (4) Although the board cannot institute and should not recommend any disciplinary action against any specific officer or officers it shall issue a timely report of their findings which will be available to the public. These are my thoughts to date, offered in the interest of balancing transparency and accountability with officers privacy rights, and do not yet include how the board will be assembled and convened, which I am still reading more about (my fellow citizens deserve to hear from one who reads more than they write).
In the interest of transparency I am disclosing that I expect the SPD, the guild and the mayor to resist this move to citizen review and am therefore researching how to get this established as a ballot initiative.
I invite fellow posters to share their ideas about what would make for credible citizen review of LLE alleged misconduct and OIS’s.
Ed
Dazzeetrader11 on January 30 at 1:41 p.m.
As with Chef, I agree that Burns is a very good man. As it sits right now in Spokane, there are STILL no checks and balances outside of internal police protocols.
SPokane needs this type of a situation. Burns, instead of bike coordinators or tree specialists who add nothing…should be given a serious seat at the table. His input will be denigrated by Kirkpatrick and the unions but he’s a fair and valuable adjuct to law enforcement. He needs a budget and some staff.
IAD (ever hear them mentioned?) doesn’t spend much time on this type of issue…..as it sits right now, Burns is a figurehead and not much else. He needs some authority and some respect.
hawken on January 30 at 4:19 p.m.
ebyrnes
Considering the current state of affairs relating to the lack of trust the community has in local police, the “citizen’s review process” you detail above is not unreasonable.
Having said that, I would prefer that we first expand and further empower the role of the ombudsman we have in place. If that brings the correction we need, we need go no further. If not, the citizen’s review process you describe could be initiated.
This, seems to me, is the more expedient and cost effective move to make at this time. Moreover, we escape the long, bitter, political fight to implement the more powerful citizens review process, while leaving our current ombudsman impotent during the interim.
The sooner we increase transparency and accountability the better.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 30 at 8:45 p.m.
Hawken, many of us have been working on the “Ombudsman” position and process for Years…. Breean Beggs et al…. Peace and Justic Action League etc …. come on down to the City Council Meeting and speak your piece at the “Open Forum” at the end of the council meeting…. we appreciate your support…. be nice to meet you face to face in a public setting too… best john
greenlibertarian on January 30 at 10:35 p.m.
{} cribbed from here:
“Citizen review is but one tool among many that can be used to promote and ensure accountability. It is neither a cure-all nor likely to promote desired results unless accompanied by a full package of accountability-building strategies. Over-reliance on these mechanisms can bring disappointment to a community.”
http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/ReportsResources/PoliceAccountabilityandCitizenReview/tabid/193/Default.aspx