Police Oversight Board Gets Unanimous Council Push
"It will help to keep the police honest, it will better community relations, and it will cut down on the gross misconduct that has been happening in the city in San Diego."
--Genevieve Jones-Wright, speaking at press conference prior to the City Council meeting
Responding to a years-long effort by activists from all over San Diego, the City Council has taken an affirmative step towards placing a charter amendment on the 2020 ballot allowing civilian oversight of the police department.
You might want to hold off on celebrating, though. ‘It ain’t over till it’s over’ should be the mantra of those who’ve worked hard to make this happen. And history shows that there’s still an uphill struggle ahead.
Our city’s law enforcers were (and are) a protected class, and they’re not really interested in changing that status. Scandals come and go, the city pays out millions in damage claims, and with each incoming Chief of Police reforms are promised but not delivered.
Politicians clamor for the police union’s blessing. When the city ditched pensions for its employees, the San Diego police department was exempted. The electoral process as presently constituted works to ensure that law enforcement concerns come before others; running afoul of the cops interests is considered political suicide.
There are scant checks or balances at work on the political end of things. Nobody with a serious campaign wants the stigma of being called weak on crime. And then there’s the amazing ability of any candidate supported by law enforcement to get their campaign signs plastered all over the city, often in not appropriate places.
The local system of arrests and trials is built around the perceived threat of police non-cooperation for any prosecutor considered out of line. Cops known to lie in court are handled quietly, lest the public learn about the failings of the system of justice.
A couple of years ago the ACLU and others pushed for and got a study quantifying racial profiling of the SDPD’s by researchers at San Diego State. Release of the results was delayed on several occasions.
The final product revealed that black and Hispanic motorists were more likely to be searched and more likely to be subject to field interviews, although they were less likely to have contraband items.
Then Voice of San Diego obtained draft copies of the SDSU study, and discovered some of the harsher language had been softened and some findings were completely removed.
Gone was evidence of racial disparities in police stops that neatly coincided with neighborhoods north of Interstate 8, long considered to be the city’s ultimate economic and racial dividing line. Gone was the finding, via police survey, showing the majority of officers felt they wouldn’t benefit from additional training in fair and impartial policing. It became evident that the delays in releasing the results were actually about controlling the narrative.
Most recently, an unfolding scandal in the way rape kits are tested by the SDPD demonstrates a shocking lack of effort in resolving sex crimes. After years of letting kits sit unanalysed, public pressure force the department to commit to testing its backlog. Then it was learned that the older evidence was being given short shift. Then it was learned that the results weren’t necessarily being recorded. And now we know that more than three dozen of the kits contained DNA evidence linking them to other crimes.
Let’s face it, nobody outside the department learns anything they don’t want known, regardless of its impact on public safety unless there's a lawsuit involved. The existing oversight mechanism is a toothless volunteer committee, whose data collection is controlled by the police department’s internal affairs division.
The Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) on Police Practices, established at the end of the 1980’s after a police shooting to create the illusion of citizen input, has been repeatedly neutered by city politicians.
The executive director position was combined with another city post during the last fiscal crisis.
Positions on the volunteer board went unfilled as vetted candidates languished without being nominated by the mayor’s office. Board members who were considered too inquisitive were not renominated.
Here’s a snip from a 2015 NBC7 News story:
According to two former board members, Lucy Pearson and Benetta Buell-Wilson, the board has a “fixed” and ineffective review process. They said the process subverts the board's intent, something that’s detrimental not just for citizens but for SDPD officers as well.
Pearson was on the CRB for seven years. She was an unpaid volunteer like Buell-Wilson, who served on the board for six years. This year, both women were not reappointed because they asked too many questions about board practices, they said.
In 2016 community pressure brought about Measure G, which passed overwhelmingly. It was renamed the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices, the volunteer panel that reviews Internal Affairs investigations, by changing Citizens’ to Community.
The newly named panel was supposed to automatically review “all deaths occurring while someone is in the custody of the San Diego Police Department and all police officer-related shootings.” The City Council was given a role in overseeing the board’s activities.
A 2018 Grand Jury report found city staff had failed to implement Measure G, and observed that many “do not consider the CRB as currently constituted to be independent from SDPD and do not believe the CRB reports reach fair and unbiased conclusions.”
Not that the board could do much anyway. Before cases reach the board, SDPD’s internal affairs department launches its own investigations. Their findings and recommendations are selectively forwarded to board members for review. Not every board member gets to see those reports; volunteers considered “pro-police” have been handed the more controversial cases.
The board had no independent investigative authority, shared counsel with the City Attorney’s office (which also represents the police), and it’s ultimate actions were limited to offering policy and procedure recommendations.
Activists with Women Occupy San Diego worked to get a charter amendment on the 2018 ballot, allowing for independent counsel and staff, subpoena authority. They thought they’d jumped all the hoops needed to make it happen.
Somehow, the city neglected to fulfill its obligation to gain advice and consent with the police officers association. Although there were plenty of fingers pointed, it’s clear to activists that this setback was, in fact, sabotage.
The election of Monica Montgomery to the City Council in 2018, gave reform advocates a true ally within the system.
On Tuesday, November 5, the City Council voted unanimously to start negotiations with city labor unions over a ballot measure to create a new independent police oversight commission.
Representatives from dozens of organizations sent supporters to the council meeting, armed with pink signs urging a yes vote. And the public pressure worked, they hope.
https://twitter.com/mlatibash/status/1191894967808999425?s=20
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post mailed to you check out the simple subscription form and the right side of the front page.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
Lead image by Doug Porter