Citizen Review Committee
September 14, 2011
Date Approved: October 12, 2011
Meeting Location: Room B, 2nd Floor,Portland Building
ChairTroycalled the meeting to order at 5:40 pm.
Introductions and Welcome
Citizen Review Committee (CRC) Members Present:Jamie Troy(Chair);MichaelBigham (Vice Chair), (Recorder),LorenEriksson,Hank Miggins, Andre Pruitt, Ayoob Ramjan,Steve Yarosh
CRC Member Absent:Jeff Bissonnette(excused), Rochelle Silver (excused)
City staff: Pete Sandrock, Assistant Director, Independent Police Review (IPR); Michael Hess (IPR Deputy Director); Antoinette Edwards (Director of Public Safety and Peacekeeping, Office of the Mayor)
Community/Media:Dan Handelman, Portland Copwatch and Flying Focus Video; Regina Hannon, Portland Copwatch; Debbie Aiona, League of Women Voters (LOWV);
Ted Luyben; Kalei Luyben; Ann Brayfield; Stacy Dunn; Lisa Williams; Gahlena Easterly; Kristen Chambers, National Lawyers Guild (NLG)
Approval of Minutes of the 8/10/11 CRC Meeting
Mr. Miggins made a motion to approve the minutes of the 8/10/11 CRC meeting. Mr. Eriksson seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Director’s Report (Assistant Director Sandrock)
Mr. Sandrock referred to the Director’s Report in the CRC packets and available to the public and provided the following update to the Status of Officer Shootings: Referring to the second case on the list, Mr. Sandrock stated that he sent the findings of the Precinct Commander back for more work. The findings came back, and he approved the amended findings, so this matter is now pending before the Police Review Board. Mr. Sandrock offered to answer any questions anyone might have about the Director’s Report.
CRC Chair’s Report (Chair Troy)
ChairTroyhas attended a number of meetings over the past month, which he will discuss under Old Business. In terms of outreach, Chair Troy has been in contact with Ms. Konev for upcoming interviews with the Asian Reporter and KBOO radio regarding the functioning of CRC and CRC recruitment.
Draft Memo on CRC Priorities Recommended to City Council
Chair Troy noted that he has distributed to CRC a draft memo on CRC priorities recommended to the City Council. The draft memo was also posted on the IPR/CRC website. Chair Troy said that he had met with Mayor Adams and discussed CRC’s concern that the City Council has yet to address possible ordinance changes regarding CRC. The Mayor’s feedback was that many recommendations presented to Council in various reports, and he asked CRC to come up with a prioritized list of recommendations. ChairTroythen met three times with Mr. Bigham, IPR Director Baptista, and various members of the public, to review the CRC Structure Review Report, the CRC PARC Workgroup Report, and the Stakeholder Report. The draft memo includes nine prioritized recommendations. These prioritizations do not preclude other recommendations from being brought forward to the Council. Proposed changes that could be effected by protocol changes, and would not require an ordinance change, are not addressed in the draft.
Chair Troy reviewed each of the nine priorities in the draft memo and opened the floor for discussion. A typographic error was noted in Priority 3. It was proposed that the word “majority” be included in the wording of Priority 9, making it read as follows: “Require prompt explanation for decisions that differ from the majority recommendations of the Police Review Board.”
The following public comment was given:
Ms. Aiona asked that CRC take another month to think about the priorities memo before making a decision on accepting the memo. Ms. Aiona suggested that a “second tier” of recommendations is added to the memo, including other important issues in addition to the top nine priorities. Ms. Aiona also suggested that it be specified in the ordinance that IPR conduct independent investigations in certain specified cases, such as complaints involving captains or above.
Mr. Handelman agreed with Ms. Aiona’s comment about incorporating language into the ordinance requiring IPR to conduct independent investigations in certain specified cases. Mr. Handelman suggested that there be language in the ordinance compelling the Police Bureau to conduct further investigation when CRC recommends that further investigation be done. Mr. Handelman expressed concern that if CRC limits its recommendations to the nine prioritized items, recommendations of the Stakeholder Committee and other organizations will not be considered by the Council.
Kristen Chambers stated that the top three top priorities of the NLG are that independent investigations be conducted by IPR; that IPR have the power to compel officer testimony; and that the standard of review be changed from the reasonable person standard to preponderance of the evidence.
Mr. Pruitt made a motion to accept the nine priorities as presented. Mr. Eriksson seconded the motion. (It was agreed to amend Priority 9 to read as follows: “Require prompt explanation for decisions that differ from the majority Police Review Board’s recommendations.”)
Chair Troy offered a friendly amendment to the motion: that a vote be taken on accepting the memo, with the understanding that Priority 5 needs fleshing out.
Additional public comments were accepted prior to the vote:
Mr. Handelman suggested that the document be put forward with Priority 5 written vaguely and with a sentence saying, “We will come back to you with more specific language later.” He also suggested that there be a final addendum to the memo stating that there were other things that were talked about with the public that the Council may want to consider.
Ms. Aiona seconded Mr. Handelman’s comment.
The motion and friendly amendment passed unanimously.
Mr. Miggins made a motion to present the priorities memo directly to Council. Mr. Eriksson seconded this motion, then commented that he does not believe a motion is needed to tell the Chair what to do. Chair Troy clarified that the way he would like this handled is that he be allowed to figure out the best way to get the CRC priorities to Council, with the understanding that there will be a presentation to Council at some point.
Mr. Miggins withdrew his motion.
Appeals Workgroup (Chair Troy): The workgroup last met on 8/26/11. The workgroup began working on revisions to the Appeal Process Advisor guidelines. The next meeting is scheduled for 9/21/11, 12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m., at Mr. Troy’s Law Office.
Outreach Workgroup (Mr. Miggins): The workgroup has not met since the last CRC meeting. The Next meeting is scheduled for 9/21/11, 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., in Audit Services Library in City Hall. The workgroup continues to look for new members.
Protocol Workgroup: (Mr. Miggins) Workgroup continues to be suspended.
Recruitment and Retention Workgroup (Mr. Pruitt): The workgroup last met on 8/31/11. The workgroup is still discussing the role of the workgroup and is working on a plan to collaborate with another organization that is also working on recruitment and retention. The date of the next meeting was not yet set.
Recurring Audit Workgroup (Mr. Ramjan): The workgroup last met on 8/22/11. The workgroup is preparing for its next audit, which will be of IPR dismissals. The next meeting is scheduled for 9/26/11 at 11:00 a.m. in the Auditor’s Conference
Taser/Less-lethal Force Workgroup (Vice-chair Bigham): The workgroup last met on 8/23/11. There was a presentation by Mr. Dave Woboril of the City Attorney’s Office on case law relating to the use of Tasers. The next meeting is scheduled for 9/20/11, 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. in the Audit Services Library in City Hall. A member of the Police Bureau’s Training Division will be in attendance.
Chair Troy said that he spoke with Mr. Bissonnette about the Draft Memo on CRC Priorities, and Mr. Bissonnette was supportive of the memo. Chair Troy also spoke with Dr. Silver, who stated that her highest priority is changing the standard of review.
Mr. Eriksson thanked Chair Troy and Vice-chair Bigham for all the time they spent on preparing the Draft Memo on CRC Priorities.
Mr. Handelman suggested that a cover letter be attached to the CRC priorities memo mentioning that there are additional matters of concern that have been expressed by the public. He emphasized the importance of including specific language in the ordinance to effect change.
Ms. Brayfield commented that better timeliness guidelines are needed for completion of investigations of officer-involved shootings.
ChairTroyadjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.