POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Hull Caballero Divisions Independent Police Review CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2005
February 26, 2005 CRC Retreat

Citizen Review Committee Retreat
February 26, 2005
Approved March 15, 2005
Facilitator: Donna Silverberg
Co-Facilitator: Charles Wiggins
CRC Members Present:  Hank Miggins, Michael Bigham, Gwenn Baldwin, Lewellyn Robison, Jerry Spegman, Bob Ueland, Irma Valdez.
CRC Members Absent:  Loren Eriksson, Marcella Red Thunder
City Staff Present: Gary Blackmer (City Auditor), Richard Rosenthal (IPR Director), Michael Hess (IPR), Pete Sandrock (IPR), Lauri Stewart (IPR)
Community Members: Mary Ann Armbruster, Dan Handelman (Portland Copwatch), Debbie Aiona (League of Women Voters), Denise Stone   (Comments were accepted from community members throughout the retreat.)
The meeting was called to order by the facilitator at 9:00 a.m.
I.  Introductions and “Two Truths and a Lie” Warm-up Exercise: an exercise giving CRC members and IPR staff an opportunity to get to know each other outside the setting of the normal monthly meeting.  
II.  Listing of issues that CRC wants to address over the next year.
  • Possible meeting with ACLU, public defenders & civil rights representatives
  • Outreach to the public and to the Police Bureau, including outreach to hard-to-reach segments of the community and increasing community involvement
  • Creation of a Citizen Advisory Committee to increase communication with various segments of the community
  • Police Bureau follow-up to the PARC report and other CRC/IPR recommendations
  • Review and improve the public comment process at meetings
  • Understanding the Mayor’s vision for CRC, the police, and the community
  • Increasing CRC’s credibility with stakeholders
III.  Revisiting Protocol No. 5.18 (CRC Guidance for Working Together Effectively)
Gwenn Baldwin suggested adding the following phrase to item #13:  “and to perform due diligence on action items.”  Lewellyn Robison made a motion to add this phrase, and Bob Ueland seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.  It was decided to include further discussion of the protocol at the March CRC meeting after everyone had thoroughly reviewed it and to postpone the implementation of the above change until after that discussion in case there are more needed revisions.
The group agreed that the document is a worthwhile clarification of how it can do good work together.  A suggestion was made that the highlights be captured in bullet format and posted at each of the meetings—to remind each other and the public of the working assumptions the CRC has for its work together.
ACTION:  the group will highlight important issues in the protocol prior to the next CRC meeting and then ask Lauri Stewart to collate the list into bullet points.
IV.  SMART Goals and Benchmarks for CRC Success
Gwenn Baldwin presented the “SMART” concept of developing organizational goals.    SMART is an acronym for Specific, Measurable, Agreed Upon, Realistic, and Time- and Cost-bound. 
A brainstorming session produced the following possible goals:
  • Identify annually the most relevant policy reviews and make recommendations to the Police Bureau.
  • Conduct policy reviews resulting in fewer incidents leading to complaints in that area.
  • Increase stakeholder credibility on the appeals process.
  • Effect positive change in the Police Bureau.
  • Develop measurable goals for each of the seven duties and powers listed in the IPR Ordinance.
  • Create a non-adversarial mediation-based appeals process  (recognizing the equal importance of the three necessary elements that lead to party satisfaction: procedural, substantive, and emotional).
Two principal “SMART” goals emerged from the above discussion.  The group proceeded to identify strategies and tactics for attaining the first of the two goals.
Goal 1:  Increase the credibility among stakeholders of the CRC/IPR program and the complaint process.
Strategy 1. Enhance communication to and from community members and leaders.
Tactics 1.  Create a diverse Citizen Advisory Committee that would meet 2-3 times per year.
Tactic 2.  Hold at least one community forum per year
Tactic 3.  After each agenda item, prior to any decision making, allow time for the public to comment
Tactic 4.  Make certain that all letters or e-mails addressed to the CRC are forwarded to the entire committee. 
Strategy 2.  Increase CRC visibility in the community
Tactic 1.  Hold CRC meetings outside of City Hall throughout Portland four times per year (2nd month of each quarter, beginning in May 2005 in East Portland
Tactic 2.  Hold a community forum at least once per year
Tactic 3.  Revisit the protocol for public comment in CRC meetings
Tactic 4.  Create a diverse Citizen Advisory Committee (see above)
Tactic 5.  Place public service announcements at movies, on cable television, and on the radio.
Strategy 3.  Enhance the complaint process to be more equitable, accessible, user-friendly, and understood
Tactic 1.  Continue annual random audit of complaints
Tactic 2.  Create easy-to-read and easy-to-understand reader boards on the complaint process and post these during meetings.
Tactic 3.  Establish a CRC work group to review and revise the appeals process to increase satisfaction of all parties (include mediators and members of the public).
Tactic 4.  Receive training/meet with representatives from civil rights organizations.
Tactic 5.  After each substantive agenda item and prior to decision making, allow for public comment.  (Agreed to try this concept beginning with the March meeting)
Goal 2: As appropriate, recommend policy changes designed to reduce citizen dissatisfaction with the conduct of Portland police officers.   (Note: the strategies and tactics to achieve this goal will be fleshed out at a future CRC meeting.)
The retreat ended at 2:30 p.m.