Police union opposes changes to citizen review committee
A city councilor wants to allow residents arrested by Portland Police to serve on a police review board in a proposal opposed by a police union, which worries it would invite biased members.
Councilor Dan Skolnik has proposed broadening eligibility rules for the Police Citizen Review Subcommittee [PCRS] to include groups now banned from the committee, like former city councilors and people arrested by Portland Police. Other revisions aim to improve communication between the PCRS and citizens who have filed complaints.
Lt. Gary Hutcheson, president of the Portland Police supervisors' union, doesn't think aspects of Skolnik's proposal are such a good idea. In a letter to city councilors, he said Skolnik's proposal "would be counter productive" and could invite people with biases against the department to apply.
"In my opinion as union president, allowing such a change presents a conflict in interest and may allow someone to be appointed that has an ax to grind," Hutcheson wrote in the letter obtained by The Portland Daily Sun.
The PCRS was created in 2001 to review completed Internal Affairs investigations of complaints made against officers. The six-member board examines the Internal Affairs investigation to determine if it was conducted in an "objective, fair and timely" manner. On occasions where the PCRS disagrees with the department's findings, they can express those concerns to the city manager.
The board has no authority to punish police officers.
Councilor Dan Skolnik, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, has proposed several changes to the PCRS ordinance that will be introduced tonight at 5 p.m. at City Hall.
He proposes amending the ordinance to automatically send a letter to anyone who files a complaint against police letting them know that the review board exists and that they can request that PCRS review the police departments' findings. Currently, the board automatically reviews department investigations dealing with complaints of excessive force, civil rights violations, and when an officer is accused of a crime. It randomly selects other cases for review.
A second letter would be sent to the complainant letting them know the outcome of the board's review.
The proposal would also loosen eligibility requirements to allow former city staff, former city councilors and family members of former Portland Police officers to serve on the PCRS. Anyone who has filed a lawsuit against Portland Police would remain disqualified under the new system.
Removing the disqualifications for people that have filed complaints against, or been arrested by, Portland Police, is the most controversial aspect of the proposal. Under the measure, applicants for the PCRS would have their arrest record or history of complaints reviewed by the city council's Non-union Personnel Committee, which would weigh those details in deciding whether to appoint them.
In a recent interview, Skolnik said he worked with PCRS members and law enforcement to craft "consensus measures." One goal of his proposals, he said, is to raise public awareness about the police department's robust internal review process.
"If we can raise the profile of the PCRS in the complaint-investigation process, people will have more confidence that complaints are being handled properly, which in fact they are," he said.
Hutcheson, in his Oct. 26 letter, claimed Skolnik "had to" vacate his seat on the police review board in 2007 following an "unsubstantiated" complaint against an officer.
Details on that allegation weren't immediately available, however, Skolnik flatly denied Hutcheson's account, calling it "totally inaccurate."
"I did not have to vacate my post," Skolnik said, declining to discuss the incident further.
Hutcheson's letter also suggested that changing the ordinance governing the PCRS would require a new labor agreement, a claim disputed by the city attorney's office.
In a statement issued Monday afternoon in response to the union president's letter, Skonik expressed "surprise and disappointment" that he got "no heads up" about the union's concerns.
"The purpose of seeking such improvements is not to increase the PCRS’ confidence in the police. The purpose is to increase the public’s confidence in the PCRS," Skolnik said.
Kelly McDonald, a civil litigator who chairs the PCRS, supports the revisions.
"The bottom line with these changes: we're not out to get the police department. We're not out to change what we do, or to hurt the police department or hurt officers," said McDonald, a self-described civil libertarian who's been "impressed" by the department's internal review procedures.
"We see it that part of our mission is helping the police department by helping the public understand the police department a little bit better and trust them a little bit more," he added.
