PortlandOnline

POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Griffin-Valade Divisions IPR CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2002
July 16, 2002

INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIVISION
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES FOR JULY 16, 2002 (Approved by CRC on 9/17/02)
CRC members present: Denise Stone (Vice-Chair), Eric Terrell, Bryan Pollard, TJ Browning, Hank Miggins, Ric Alexander
IPR staff present: Auditor Blackmer, Richard Rosenthal Director), Michael Hess (Deputy Director), Joseph DeAngelis (Management Analyst), Lauri Stewart (Community Relations Coordinator), Linly Rees (Deputy City Attorney for IPR
IAD staff present: Sergeant Steven Bottcher
  1. Meeting called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Vice-Chair Stone.
  2. Introduction of meeting participants.
  3. Ground rules reviewed by Vice-Chair.
  4. Director’s Report (Richard Rosenthal)

    Mediation program is on track. The contract should be done within a week or so. There will be a four-hour training session for the mediators before they start mediations. We should have mediation up and running by September 1, and there is enough funding for up to 50 mediations in the fiscal year.

    IPR has entered contract negotiations with Merrick Bobb and the Police Assessment Resource Center and we hope to have a contract entered into with this group to review police-involved shootings, also by around September 1.

    The following IPR appeal declinations took place over the past two months:
  1. CRC No. 02-17. Reasons for declination: appellant used another remedy (tort claim) and complaint was not timely.
  2. CRC No. 02-18. Reasons for declination: appeal was not timely and appellant could reasonably be expected to use another remedy for this grievance.
  3. CRC No. 02-19. Reasons for declination: complainant did not appear to be made in good faith and did not respond to IAD’s attempts to reach him for an interview.
In response to a question from TJ Browning regarding definitions of “timeliness,” Mr. Rosenthal responded that there is no specified time after an incident occurs that a complaint must be filed, as this would depend on the nature of each individual case and due process concerns. However, according to City ordinance, CRC appeals need to be requested within 30 days of notification of closure of a complaint investigation.
CRC No. 01-17 (supplemental hearing): The Police Bureau has accepted the CRC recommended changes and has forwarded them to the Review Level Committee since one of the recommended changes involved a finding of sustained. There are now two cases reviewed by CRC that are being considered by the Police Bureau’s Review Level Committee.
Mr. Rosenthal reminded the CRC members to try to get their second ride-alongs done. He stated that there has been a lot of positive feed-back from the officers about the CRC ride-alongs.
Auditor Blackmer announced that the Merrick Bobb group from Los Angeles was chosen to perform the review of officer-involved shootings. Mr. Rosenthal added that one of Mr. Bobb’s areas of expertise is law enforcement early warning systems, which is another area that IPR will reviewing and reporting on.
  1. Workgroup Reports
    1. Internal Process Workgroup (Hank Miggins)

      Protocol issues will be discussed later in the meeting. Internal Process Workgroup suggests that when proposals are brought to the full committee from workgroups, that the written proposals be provided to the members several days prior to the meeting so that they will have time to review them ahead of time in preparation for a vote. Mr. Rosenthal added that the issue of proposed ordinance changes will be an item of business for the Internal Process Workgroup following the selection of new CRC members.
    1. Policy Workgroup (Denise Stone)

      Continuing research for possible recommendations is being done regarding Police Bureau issues surrounding Hooper Detox Center. Captain Schenk spoke to the workgroup about Bureau policies regarding civil holds and community caretaking functions. When research on this and other issues is completed, it will be provided to the full committee in summary form for their determination of future steps. Other policy issues being researched are the issues of officer’s identification, explanations of reasons for stops, and use of profanity. The latter three issues were the subject of previous PIIAC recommendations and are now being researched by the Policy Workgroup. There were no suggested changes to Ric Alexander’s draft worksheet for reviewing IAD files, which he distributed at a previous meeting, so he will move forward on finalizing the worksheet.
    2. Community Outreach Workgroup (TJ Browning)

      Ms. Browning has received comments from other members regarding a form that she has developed for written public comments. She will finalize the form so that it can start being used for CRC meetings. Public forums are being planned in coordination with the Policy Workgroup. The policy issues identified by the Policy Workgroup, as well as citizen-police interactions in general, be the main topics addressed in the public forum.
      Locations for the forums are being explored, with public accessibility in mind.
  1. Schedule for Workgroup Meetings

    Both the Community Outreach Workgroup and the Policy Workgroup will be meeting every other Friday in August. The Internal Process Workgroup will continue to meet on an ad hoc basis. Mr. Rosenthal requested that all workgroup liaisons keep Carol Kershner informed of their meeting schedules, as she is responsible for maintaining the meeting calendar. Mr. Rosenthal reminded the liaisons that agendas need to be provided with the meeting announcements since there is always a possibility that there could be a quorum of CRC members attending, which would make it a “public meeting,” by state definition.
  2. Prehearings
    1. CRC No. 02-22 (IPR No. 2002-C-0143). In this case, the appellant alleged he was a victim of racial profiling when he was stopped and cited for a traffic infraction and that police officers have been harassing him by repeatedly stopping him after mistaking him for his brother. Ric Alexander and Bryan Pollard were assigned to review this case. After their presentation of the case and discussion by the CRC, Pollard made a motion to have a hearing. Browning seconded the motion.

      The motion to hold a hearing carried by a vote of 5 to 1.

      Yes: Pollard, Miggins, Alexander, Browning, Terrell

      No: Stone (preferred for the case to be sent to IAD for a full investigation)

      There was further discussion about how to handle allegations that are made by the appellant in the Request for Appeal or at a hearing that are not part of the original allegations. Mr. Rosenthal stated that if an additional allegation is brought up by an appellant, it will be considered even if the appellant did not bring it up before. CRC concurred.
    2. CRC No. 02-23 (IPR No. 2002-C-645. In this case, the appellant alleged that police officers, paramedics, and Fire Bureau personnel took him into protective custody against his will. TJ Browning and Ric Alexander were assigned to review this case. Browning made a motion, seconded by Alexander, that the CRC go into Executive Session to discuss this case, since the case involved confidential medical issues. The motion to go into Executive Session carried unanimously. After presentations by Browning and Alexander and discussion by the CRC, Browning made a motion to decline this case for a full hearing. The motion was seconded by Miggins. The motion to decline the appeal was based on based appeal declination guidelines no. 1.a. (no act of misconduct would have occurred even if all aspects of the complaint were true) and 2.b. (there is no reasonable possibility that the CRC, after conducting a full hearing, would recommend any changes with respect to the Bureau’s handling of the complaint.)

      The motion not to hold a hearing carried by a vote of 5 to 1.

      Yes: Pollard, Miggins, Alexander, Browning, Terrell

      No: Stone
  3. Discussion of the proposal to modify the protocol on selection of new CRC members.

    The Internal Process Workgroup proposed the motion to change the wording of Item No. 2 of the Process for Appointment and Reappointment to the Citizen Review Committee to read as follows: “The City Auditor, in consultation with the Citizen Review Committee, shall appoint a selection committee which may include CRC members not seeking reappointment.” There followed a lengthy discussion of the selection process.

    The motion to modify the protocol carried by a vote of 4 to 2.

    Yes: Pollard, Browning, Terrell, Stone

    No: Miggins, Alexander
  4. Public Comment: D. Handelman, D. Lane, T. Bonneau, K. Huxford, M. Bonneau, P. Dinan
  5. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.