Panel Reduces Scope of Police Dept. Probe

The San Diego Civil Service Commission scaled back its investigation of the Police Department Thursday by dropping its earlier request for an independent attorney and postponing--perhaps canceling--a plan to send elaborate questionnaires to 2,000 current and former officers.

In November, the commission voted to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that Police Department supervisors improperly intimidated and retaliated against officers who had filed disability claims.

After receiving a 20-page opinion Thursday from City Atty. John Witt that limited the commission’s investigative powers, the Civil Service board decided to reevaluate the scope of its inquiry.

The commission had sought an independent attorney to provide legal advice throughout the investigation, but agreed Thursday to work with Witt’s office--even though the city attorney also represents the Police Department.

On Wednesday, Police Officers Assn. attorney Patrick J. Thistle filed a complaint with the State Bar of California accusing Witt of violating rules of professional conduct by insisting on representing parties on both sides of the investigation.

“I believe that currently a conflict exists,” Commissioner David Lewis said after Thursday’s meeting. “However, I am going to put that aside temporarily and continue with this investigation utilizing the city attorney until we reach some point where we have a very specific reason for asking for outside counsel. Then we’ll reconfront the problem at that point.

“I think that the action today is an effort to end the impasse and get on with this investigation and demonstrate a spirit of cooperation on the part of the commission to the attorney.”

Thistle expressed concern that the commission’s action could lead to an incomplete investigation.

“But I haven’t given up hope yet,” Thistle said. “It appears that the city attorney has prevailed in his attempt to narrow down the scope of the investigation and the type of information that these people will be allowed to receive. I don’t think it portends under present circumstances a wide investigation that will uncover the entire picture. The city attorney wants the left-hand corner clear but the rest of it kind of fuzzy.

“(The commission) won’t be able to reach a good conclusion without all the facts. I think that is the big problem here.”

Lewis said commission members will discuss with the city attorney his objections to the confidential questionnaires before deciding whether to mail them. The survey is designed to help determine whether officers are “damaged” by the Police Department’s handling of disability cases.

But Commissioner Margaret Sellers said the board has decided to abandon the questionnaires and conduct interviews with officers instead.

“We feel that maybe the information we’ll get will be more factual,” Sellers said. “We’ll be straightening up any issues we see on pieces of paper. We’re going to send letters to 2,000 people and ask those people to respond to us face to face.”

Sellers could not estimate how long it would take the commissioners to conduct the interviews. She said the investigation will be further delayed by the sudden illness of Commissioner Dale Cobb.

The commissioners had also hoped to grant immunity from disciplinary action to police employees who testified during its investigation. But Witt ruled Thursday that the commission has no such authority.

In his opinion, Witt also said the commission could not “direct, initiate or recommend” discipline based on testimony or evidence obtained during its hearings. Witt said the commission’s sole purpose is to gather facts and present findings.

Witt also suggested that Thistle has a potential conflict of interest because his firm represents former Police Officer Charles Battle, whose firing was upheld by the commission and forms the basis for many of Thistle’s complaints against the Police Department. Battle has filed a lawsuit contesting the firing.

The city attorney’s office contends that Thistle is violating the State Bar’s rules for professional conduct by appearing before the commission’s investigation as a private citizen while at the same time representing Battle.

“I’m only one party representing one client here,” Thistle said. “I’m not like the city attorney. I don’t think I’m disqualified from giving the Civil Service Commission information.”