Since the tragic death of Otto Zehm two years ago, there has been no more important issue to come before the city of Spokane than the restoration of public trust in its police.

If anybody held doubts about where Spokane is on this issue, those doubts would likely have been erased at a packed public meeting last September when Chief Anne Kirkpatrick fielded tough questions for more than two hours. As the chief experienced that evening, it’s not just the Zehm case, but a series of episodes where the use of force by officers appeared excessive. The number of deaths and serious injuries make it more than a “perception” problem. Most people agree there is a serious rift between the police and public that one can observe in public forums, news coverage, letters to the editor and the police guild Web site.

The best cause for optimism in healing that rift came one year ago. That was when consultant Sam Pailca, at the behest of Kirkpatrick, presented her 39-page report recommending a new full-time, independently constituted “ombudsman/monitor” office to receive citizen complaints against police officers. On April 23, 2007, then-Mayor Dennis Hession and Kirkpatrick both announced their support for the plan that, as Pailca noted, was driven by “an informed, engaged citizenry with high expectations for accountability and a firm commitment to external oversight.”

City officials said they hoped the steps needed to go forward with the plan would take six months. But the first step – negotiation with the unions – took nearly 12 months.

The results of that step were made public April 9. Unfortunately, the “tentative” agreement that emerged from the negotiations is missing the very essence of independence that Pailca recommended. The new proposal fails to deliver what was promised to the public for the following reasons:

“ Under the new plan, the ombudsperson would have no power whatsoever to conduct independent investigations of alleged police misconduct. Investigations into complaints could be initiated only when police agree that an investigation is warranted.

“ If an investigation is initiated, the ombudsperson’s role would be restricted to observing and, at most, asking questions of officers and witnesses when police investigators are done with their questions. The ombudsperson would have no say whatsoever in the outcome of the police inquiry.

“ If the ombudsperson concludes that a police investigation into a complaint is not “thorough and objective,” the most he/she could do is appeal to the chief or the mayor for additional investigation – by the police themselves.

This is not what Pailca recommended and the mayor and chief endorsed. In her proposal, the ombudsperson/monitor would always retain the right to conduct an independent inquiry when dissatisfied with a police investigation.

There are other serious shortcomings in the new plan, all of which allow the police to hold so much power that it may deter any professionally qualified candidate with integrity from applying for the new position.

The flaws begin with the selection process wherein people chosen by the police unions would have two of the five seats on the selection committee and then have veto power over who gets the fifth seat. Even then the unions reserve the right to go to arbitration to seek to remove the ombudsperson. Thus, the police unions seem to have more power in selecting and replacing the ombudsperson than the elected mayor and City Council.

News accounts err when they accept as fact that collective bargaining rules prevent any independent oversight without the consent of the unions. That’s a broad leap from any current Washington court decisions. Unions have the right to bargain over how discipline is imposed and privacy protected. Pailca and the chief wisely avoided those issues – and arguably any bargaining requirement – by recommending a proposal that preserves employee privacy in unfounded allegations and independent oversight that is separate from any disciplinary action.

The problem with the police unions demanding virtually all the power in this relationship with the public is that it’s not even in their best interests to possess it. A powerless public ombudsperson will only increase public cynicism and frustration. If that happens, then nobody wins, especially not the police, who will continue to lose public support and, consequently, face even greater risks in doing what is an important, difficult and dangerous job.