PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2006
May 16, 2006

 
Minutes
Citizen Review Committee
May 16, 2006
 
Approved June 20, 2006
 
CRC Members Present:  Hank Miggins (Chair), Michael Bigham, Loren Eriksson, Irene Ogouma, Lewellyn Robison, Robert Ueland
 
Excused Absence:  Theresa Keeney, Marcella Red Thunder
 
City Staff Present:  Leslie Stevens (IPR Director), Michael Hess (IPR), Lauri Stewart (IPR), Scott Warner (IPR)
 
Chair Miggins called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
 
I.      Introductions and welcome (Chair Miggins)
 
II.      Approval of 4/18/06 Minutes:  Mr. Eriksson made a motion to approve the minutes as written.  Mr. Ueland seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.
 
III.      Director’s Report
  • Director’s response to Mediation Workgroup recommendations:  The Director’s written response was provided.  IPR is working diligently to implement all the recommendations by the mid-summer.  The Director appreciates the hard work of the workgroup members and CRC’s consideration of the recommendations.  She believes it will help make the mediation program even better. 
  • Appeals Update:  For calendar year 2006 there have been 12 cases where IPR has sent notice that the case is eligible for appeal.  Two appeal requests have been received.  One was the case that had a pre-hearing last month, and IAD has agreed to do the additional investigation that the CRC asked for and is in the process of doing that.  On 5/3/06 a second request for appeal was received, so another pre-hearing needs to be scheduled.  The file is available in the IPR office for CRC members to review. 
  • New PPB Directives:  No new directives have been issued.  
  • Chief’s Forum (Lauri Stewart):  The last Chief’s Forum was canceled due to the police memorial service.  The previous Chief’s Forum, which some CRC members attended, dealt with the proposed changes to the Police Bureau’s tow policy.  Captain Reese made a presentation on this topic. 
  • Community Outreach Update (Lauri Stewart):   Most outreach energy went into preparations for the first CAC meeting and PARC meetings with CRC and community groups. 
IV.      Guest Speaker:  Marian Gaylord, Towing Coordinator for the City of Portland 
Ms. Gaylord made a presentation about the City of Portland ’s towing program and answered questions from CRC, IPR, and community members.  A detailed account of Ms. Gaylord’s presentation is provided as an addendum to the minutes.
V.      Work Group Updates
  • Community Advisory Council (CAC) Workgroup (Hank Miggins, Chair)
Chair Miggins has not scheduled another CAC Workgroup meeting because he had some ambivalence about what the workgroup has to do at this point.  He questioned whether continuing work on the CAC is still “workgroup work” or work of the full CRC.  Mr. Bigham stated that there will have to be continuing CRC presence at future CAC meetings, and this responsibility should not be relegated to the workgroup.
 
Chair Miggins stated that CRC as a whole has a lot to do with what happens with the CAC.  Mr. Eriksson agreed with Chair Miggins and Mr. Bigham, stating that it is up to the entire CRC to be involved at this point.  Mr. Ueland agreed, stating that each CRC member has made community contacts, and they need to continue trying to make contacts and continue to reach the people and organizations CRC is trying to appeal to. 
 
Ms. Robison stated that there might be two remaining roles for the workgroup: 1) to assess the work that has been done and 2) to provide guidance for the other members to take over the work of the workgroup.  She thought that the contacting and outreach should be the responsibility of the whole CRC
 
Chair Miggins summed up that the continuation of the CAC is the work of the whole CRC, but a “steering” element is needed.  He will continue to steer this effort, but there will be the work of the entire CRC to make this a true “Community Advisory Council,” which it is not yet.
 
Chair Miggins asked if it would be possible to have the minutes of the first CAC meeting by the following week.  Director Stevens said she will make sure that is done.  Ms. Stewart asked the CRC members who have not returned their worksheets to do so as soon as possible.  
 
In summary, a consensus was reached to transition the CAC Workgroup to the whole CRC.  The steering committee will consist of the CAC Workgroup members.  The steering committee meeting date was not yet determined, but it will take place prior to the next full CRC meeting. 
  • Appeal Work Group (Robert Ueland, Chair)
The Appeal Work Group met on 5/8/06 and completed its revision of the IPR/CRC Appeal Process Advisor (APA) Proposal.  A draft of this proposal was distributed.   Mr. Ueland would like to get the APA proposal adopted at tonight’s meeting and then review the draft letter to former CRC members inviting them to become APAs.  Mr. Ueland asked for comments about the draft proposal.
 
Chair Miggins asked what was expected with regard to the written report from the APA after pre-hearings or hearings.  Ms. Ogouma responded that she saw the purpose of the APA’s report as providing feedback on the role of the APA that will assist the CRC in improving the process.  She suggested rewording the last sentence to read “for monitoring and evaluating purposes.”   Chair Miggins suggested that the written report would be less onerous and more consistent if it were in the form of a questionnaire that the APA could complete and submit.  The suggested wording in the proposal was changed from “The APA will provide a written report” to “The APA will complete a written evaluation in a form provided by the CRC.”
 
Mr. Eriksson asked if an APA would be provided if an appeal should go before City Council.   Director Stevens stated that as far as she knows, the City Council does not have any provision that would prohibit an APA from accompanying an appellant or officer.  Mr. Ueland suggested changing the wording of the first sentence in the first paragraph to “before and during pre-hearings, hearings, and appearances before the City Council.” 
 
Director Stevens noted Council decides how a hearing is presented before them, and it may be difficult for an APA to provide guidance for an undefined process. 
 
 
After discussion, Mr. Ueland made a motion to adopt the IPR/CRC Appeals Process Advisor protocol.   Mr. Eriksson seconded the motion.  Director Stevens said she would have to review the city policy on adopting a protocol to see if there is any city requirement for public notice to be published for a period of time before it becomes effective.  
 
Chair Miggins accepted a public comment from Mr. Alejandro Queral, Executive Director of the NorthwestConstitutionalRightsCenter .  After  further discussion with Director Stevens, a vote was taken on the motion to adopt the Appeal Process Advisor protocol.  The motion carried by a vote of 4-1 with one abstention. 
 
Yes:  Michael Bigham, Loren Eriksson, Hank Miggins, Robert Ueland
 
No:  Lewellyn Robison
 
Abstain:  Irene Ogouma
 
Mr. Ueland then presented the draft letter to former CRC members about their interest in serving as Appeals Process Advisor.   He asked the group if the draft letter was acceptable for sending out.   It was suggested that the date for notifying IPR of interest be moved out from May 31 to June 30.   There are fifteen former CRC members still in the area. 
 
After discussion, the Appeals Workgroup members agreed that they would like her to ask Linly if she could come to the next workgroup meeting to talk to them about the City Council hearings process.  Ms. Ogouma requested that Director Stevens also attend the next workgroup meeting.
  • Tow Policy Workgroup (Michael Bigham, Chair)
The workgroup recognized IPR Scott Warner, who has been working very hard with them.  They have already met twice.  They are spending a lot of time just trying to get a handle on this “very big project.”   The workgroup will be reviewing a sample of complaint cases to see if there are any patterns of problems or areas to look at.  They will also be looking at the Police Bureau’s Policies and Procedures and will be meeting with the Traffic Division Commander and the Planning and Support Manager to look at the current procedures and to see if there are any proposed procedure changes coming up.  There has been a lot of outside interest in the work of this workgroup as reflected by the variety of persons who have showed up at their meetings.
  • Protocol Workgroup (Lewellyn Robison, Chair)
Ms. Robison stated that she, Mr. Miggins, Mr. Ueland, and Ms. Ogouma  are on this workgroup to review CRC protocols.  The first meeting of this workgroup will be on Monday, June 12, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.  Ms. Robison would like everyone to consider protocols they would like addressed and concerns they might have.  Some of the protocols that were mentioned in previous CRC meetings that might need to be revisited are the workgroup protocol and the time frame for changing CRC decisions.  Chair Miggins reminded the group that he would like the Protocol Workgroup to consider the possibility of suspending pre-hearings.   Mr. Ueland suggested that Director Stevens be invited to the first Protocol Workgroup meeting.   
VI.      New Business
Ms. Ogouma expressed concern that the last CRC meeting ended early, and this resulted in a member of the public missing the opportunity to give public comment.  Chair Miggins said that he specifically checked this with the legal advisor and was told that there is no guarantee that every item on the agenda of a publicly announced meeting will happen at the time specified in the agenda.  Times on the agenda are estimated times.   Once the CRC has completed its business, it is not to be expected that the members should have to wait around just in case someone might show up later who wants to speak to them.  Ms. Robison suggested that it be noted on the published agenda that the times are approximate. Chair Miggins agreed.   
 
Ms. Ogouma requested that CRC members be provided more timely information or instruction so that they can move forward more efficiently and do better work.  She gave as a specific example the question raised tonight by Mr. Eriksson regarding the role of the APA in hearings that go to City Council. 
 
Ms. Robison agreed with Ms. Ogouma that it is difficult to remember all the specifics in the protocols when items are being discussed.  Chair Miggins said that the root of the question is that the CRC members need more training on their own protocols, and he would like IPR to do that.  Mr. Eriksson mentioned that the Deputy City Attorney has not been attending all the meetings, and he wondered if the CRC could expect to have her present more often.  Director Stevens replied, “You can certainly make that request, and I will also make the commitment to you to spend more time learning your protocols and helping remind you of them as we go.”  Chair Miggins agreed that all CRC members need a refresher on the protocols. 
 
Mr. Bigham brought up the possibility of having another CRC retreat.  
 
In regard to training, Director Stevens said that the Police Bureau is in their last week of in-service training and Advanced Academy training at Camp Withycomb so she is hopeful that the training staff will be available shortly to provide training for CRC members.  
VII.      Public Comment:
Debbie Aiona (League of Women Voters) reminded CRC that they had agreed to open the floor for public comment before voting on issues, but they sometimes fail to do so. 
 
Alejandro Queral (NorthwestConstitutionalRightsCenter ) urged the CRC to have an evaluation by the appellant to gauge the effectiveness of the APA.
 
Dan Handelman (Portland CopWatch) reminded the CRC that they used to start meetings in community locations at 6:00 p.m. to allow community members more time to get to the meetings.  
 
Chair Miggins adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.