POL Government Elected Officials Auditor Hull Caballero Divisions Independent Police Review CRC CRC Meeting Information Public Meeting Minutes Citizen Review Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes 2001
December 18, 2001

DECEMBER 18, 2001
Members Present:  All  present except for Terrell (excused).  Sign in sheet attached.
  1. INTRODUCTION of the committee and those present.
  2. GROUND RULES of conduct reviewed.
GUEST introduced by H. Lopez.  Police Chief Kroeker.  The Chief made a short welcoming statement and indicated his interest in cooperation and participation in the review process.  He noted that he felt the department is looking towards improvement.  He saw the police as accountable and interested in employee development. He would like the community perception of the department to improve and allow the officers to do their job.  He would like to be partners with the committee.
M. Hess: Noted that officers will be invited to appeal hearings. He also indicated that officers could appeal.  He seconded the notion that the police and the committee would be cooperative and communicative.
R. Rosenthal:  Noted that a focus of the IPR/CRC was independent review but also the development of a good working relationship with the department.
  1.   MINUTES:  12/13/01 minutes were reviewed and corrected by H. Miggins.
  2. OLD BUSINESS:  none
    1. IPR Director’s Report:
      1. Outreach staff will be hired as soon as possible.  5 candidates are going to be interviewed.  Each will be expected to make a 5-minute presentation that will represent their efforts in the community if hired.
      2. January 2002 Schedule: January 4 hearings are assigned.  M. Hess will handout the IPR draft reports.  He is expecting that the final IPR report would be completed 10 days prior to a hearing.  All deadlines may not be met early on.  The final report will go to all members of the committee although the draft will only go to the Member reviewers.
      3. R. Rosenthal would like all Email to go through his office.  If there are problems with a person’s Email then call Carol.
      4. Police shootings: City council is wanting all police shootings and death in custody to be reviewed by the IPR.  The director will have a policy ready for the 12/31 deadline.  He would like the Conduct and Performance Work Group and other interested members to assist by review and discuss at a full meeting.   He will have it ready by 1/4/2002.
      5. Conduct and Performance Work Group: R. Rosenthal would like the group to become a group help frame internal policies for the consideration by the full committee.  Shannon and Miggins who have been the prime members of the group had recommended it be disbanded but agreed that it would be a helpful draft setting.  Other members were concerned that this would become a mini executive group. There was much discussion along these lines.  It was noted that this would be an Ad Hoc group. Anyone can attend any meeting.  The meeting would be very specific in scope when brought into the discussion.

        RECOMMENDATION from C/P Work Group: Conduct and Performance Work Group will become the IPR/CRC Internal Policy Work Group with the specific charge to frame internal policies for the presentation to the full committee.

        IN FAVOR: Alexander, Lopez, Miggins, Pollard, Shannon, and Ueland

        AGAINST: Browning, Stone
      6. IPR/CRC PROCEDURES: These were distributed to members. They included the Appeal Procedures and the IAD Protocols and Procedures.  These will be read and discussed next meeting.  Comments included the fact that the IPR could review any IAD file including a closed file.  Based on current ordinance an officer can not make an appeal regarding department initiated complaints.   A specific job title for the IPR staff should be used i.e. not a person’s former police rank.  This might be confusing and also cloud the issue of independence.
        Rosenthal feels that the IPR is using an audit model i.e. monitor/ review/comment.  In this format the police department needs to have an opportunity to comment on the findings.  Hence the police review opportunity. There was a feeling that the complainant should also get an opportunity to review.   Rosenthal felt the purpose was to really review the investigation. The time limits will be monitored by IPR. The committee will get the draft and the final report.  The committee will determine the final conclusion of the report
    2. Conduct and Performance W/G: See above
  4. New Business
    1. Election:  H. Lopez, interim Chair turned the meeting over to R. Rosenthal. He noted that each nominee will make a 2-minute presentation if he/she accepts the nomination.
      1. Chair:  Ueland nominates Lopez.  Lopez accepted and indicated his interest in being a facilitator.  He noted experience in the past with this type of responsibility.  He noted his friendly and fair approach. 
        VOTE: Unanimous in favor.
      2. V. Chair: Alexander nominates Stone.  Stone accepted and indicated that she is a fair person.  That she has been a vice chair in the past and feels she could assist.
        VOTE:  Unanimous in favor
      3. Recorder:  There was an early discussion of the need for staff to do this.  There is no one.  It was finally decided that an intern would be able to take the notes and the recorder could over see the process.  There is not now an intern assigned.
        Miggins nominated Shannon.  Shannon accepted and indicated that she had done this in the past.

        VOTE:  Unanimous in favor
  5. Other
    1. Conflict of interest: Pollard brought up the issue of conflict of interest.  Rosenthal indicated that any member who felt there was a conflict in an assigned case or a vote should discuss it with him and he will help that member decide the course of action.    It was also noted that a member should have no contact with the appellant.  If one should occur the member should alert the IPR director.
    2. Work Group Assignments: Shannon/Miggins/Rosenthal brought up the issue of Work Group Assignments.  There is the general agreement that any member can attend any meeting of a work group that they choose.  All these meetings are considered public and need to have minutes taken to meet the public meeting standards.  Terrell had sent an Email suggesting that he did not want to be assigned to any one group but rather wanted to be a member at large.  The general discussion indicated that all members could be members at large.  Rosenthal suggested that there be core assignments to assure when an issue arose there would be someone there to manage it on the work group level. 
MOTION by Browning and seconded by Pollard
All members will serve on one work group including the chair. Amended by-------- and seconded by ------------ to say the chair would be x-officio.
Discussion:  This will assure opportunity for a meeting of a specific group.
VOTE: unanimous in favor
      OUTREACH:  Browning, Pollard, and Stone.
      POLICY (EXTERNAL): Ueland, Stone, Browning, and Alexander
      POLICY (INTERNAL): Miggins, Shannon
Chairs/lead member will be chosen by the group and notify Carol.
    CRC meeting rooms for 2002
    IPRRD/CRC Appeal and IAD Procedures
    Hearing Assignments
    1. Outreach meets - 1/9/02
    2. Policy  meets - 12/27/01
    1. Dan Handelman – Portland Copwatch and Flying Focus: Pointed out that the committee is doing hearings without being fully trained particularly in issues related to the community. ---- He noted that in the past the time limits had not been kept---The police shooting should have the independent review. ---There is a need to monitor the committee membership--- MOA and Protocols should be what is wanted because they are not easy to change---each vote needs to be explained---the appellant and IAD should get a draft finding. 
    2. Diane Lane – Copwatch: felt there should be a “police shooting” review -there should be a follow up on declined cases by the IPR---- this is not an audit committee ---- it is an opportunity for a thorough and fair and complete review---errors can be dealt with at the hearing.
    3. Mary Rooklidge: There should be an appeal from a declination by the IPR --- this is a change from the past--- this appeal declination is based on the police/city input---the IAD should be excluded.  A member pointed out that the declinations would be reviewed.
    4. Robert Wells---- All Portland Police should be able to file a complaint--- they are citizens also--- example: harassment.
  4. ADJOURNMENT:  after 9 PM
  5. NEXT MEETING: 1/4/02
Draft: 1/2/02
Submitted by: amshannon