MINUTES: Police Internal Investigations Auditing
May 10, 2001
Citizen Advisors Present: Charles
Ford, Presiding; Denise Stone (Vice Chair); Ric Alexander; Shirlie Karl; Leora
Mahoney; Robert Wells; Les Frank; Jose Martinez; Dapo Sobomehin;; Robert
Absent: Tou Cha
City Staff : Lt. Steven Bechard; Sgt. Jerry Jones; Sgt.
Sam Pronesti; Michael Hess, PIIAC Examiner
Media Present: Dan Handelman (Flying Focus
This meeting was held in the Rose Room of the Portland City
Hall. Mr. Ford called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PIIAC Citizen Advisors,
City Staff, and members of the public introduced themselves.
PIIAC #00-31 (IAD #00-696). Advisor Wells presented this
case. Appellant was present. Appellant alleged Portland Police officers were
negligent in responding to a 911 call, that they failed to investigate a crime,
and that they lied and deliberately withheld information from the appellant.
Advisors decided by majority vote (9-1) to affirm IAD’s declination of this
case. Appellant was advised that she could appeal this decision to City Council.
(Yes: Ford, Stone, Alexander, Frank, Mahoney, Ueland, Wells, Martinez, Karl. No:
PIIAC #00-32 (IAD #00-378). Examiner Hess presented this
case. The appellant alleged a Portland Police sergeant left threatening messages
on her home answering machine, was discourteous, and refused to apologize. Mr.
Sobomehin made a motion to recommend that Detective A apologize to the
Appellant. Mr. Alexander seconded this, and the motion passed 7-3. (Yes:
Sobomehin, Alexander, Martinez, Karl, Ford, Stone, Mahoney. No: Wells, Frank,
Diane Lane commented that the messages Sergeant A left on the
second appellant’s home answering machine were rude and threatening and her
conduct was unprofessional. She thought that the Advisors’ recommendation should
have been to sustain the allegation. This person also stated that the many
minority community members have an inherent fear of police authority, and that
this should be taught in cultural sensitivity training.
Mary Rooklidge commented that Sergeant A’s threats of improbable
legal maneuvers to be taken against the appellant were not appropriate.
Dr. John Mark commented that the process is flawed buried in
legal complexities. He agreed that the phone messages were threatening, but felt
that the Advisors’ recommendation for an apology was a "cry in the
Dan Handelman commented that the findings on the second case
must be sustained in order to justify recommending that an apology be
Following public comments, Mr. Alexander presented a follow-up
motion to the second case (IAD #00-378) to sustain the inquiry with regard to
courtesy. Ms. Stone seconded this motion and it passed 6-3 with one abstention.
(Yes votes: Alexander, Stone, Martinez, Sobomehin, Karl, Mahoney. No votes:
Wells, Frank, Ueland. Abstention: Ford.)
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Michael H. Hess, D.D.S., PIIAC Examiner