Scaled-Down Plan for S.D. Police Review Panel Urged

Retreating from a proposal to let civilians investigate police misconduct, a citizens advisory panel on Tuesday recommended that San Diego adopt a weaker plan for police oversight than any model it had reviewed in other cities.

“It is certainly as unobtrusive a system of citizen involvement as I have ever seen,” said Assistant Police Chief Bob Burgreen.

The proposal, which was immediately criticized by minority groups as ineffective, calls for San Diego Police Chief Bill Kolender to appoint a dozen residents to monitor the Police Department’s internal affairs unit. The 12 citizens would serve as “consultants” by observing the investigation of citizen complaints against police officers.

The City Council-appointed Citizens Advisory Board on Police-Community Relations voted, 6-1, to recommend that City Manager John Lockwood adopt the proposal, including six changes in police procedures that were proposed last month by Kolender.

Limited Authority

Under the plan, the citizens chosen by Kolender could question police commanders for clarification purposes only and voice their opinions on cases. However, the citizens could neither help decide police misconduct cases nor conduct independent investigations because the City Charter prohibits any civilian involvement, said Murray Galinson, the panel’s chairman.

The proposal, a scaled-down model of a civilian review plan discussed by panel members last week, was widely criticized by minority leaders, who have been demanding changes in the way the Police Department investigates its officers.

“That is totally unacceptable,” said Daniel Weber, president of the San Diego chapter of the NAACP. “It is nothing more than a sham. All it does is deceive the people of San Diego into believing that they finally have an independent body which is capable of conducting an investigation of those officers whose conduct is called into question.”

One task force member, who asked not to be identified, called the proposal “absolutely a farce.” The member said there was no hope that the proposal “will do anything” to enhance the community’s confidence in the Police Department’s ability to conduct fair and thorough investigations.

Kolender, who appeared at the panel’s meeting Tuesday, declined to comment on the proposal until he has had a chance to study it more closely. He said he will huddle with his command staff and Lockwood before responding.

But Burgreen called the plan “moderate” and said it was something the Police Department could “seriously consider.” In recent months, Kolender and other police officials have said they would not tolerate any form of a traditional police review board.

The single vote against the plan came from panel member Vince Krolikowski, treasurer of the San Diego Police Officers Assn. Krolikowski predicted that the proposal would have a chilling effect on officers who patrol the city’s streets because they would lose confidence in the way internal investigations are handled.

The architect of the panel’s recommendation, task force member Philip Hart, said he believes that the Police Department’s internal investigations are “fair, thorough and equitable” and do not need to be changed.

Hart said of his plan: “It is the lowest level of citizen involvement that I can think of that would still be effective without being an unnecessary burden on the Police Department in carrying this out.”

Last week, the advisory panel’s executive committee considered proposing a joint panel of police officials and civilians to review police misconduct cases and make recommendations to the police chief. Deputy City Atty. John Kaheny concluded that such a plan would violate the City Charter, which gives the police chief sole authority for running his department.

City Law Limits Options

Members of the citizens’ panel also said they wanted the city manager to appoint the 12 citizens, but that city laws prevented anyone except Kolender from making the nominations. Several panel members said that community leaders and citizens would be skeptical of the plan because Kolender would name his own civilian investigators.

“Because of the City Charter, there isn’t much we can do about it,” Galinson said. “I have concerns about the perception of the chief’s involvement, although I have confidence that the chief would be fair.”

The appointments would at least allow the community to determine if Kolender is sincere in his desire to change the public’s poor perception of the department’s internal affairs unit, said panel member Delia Talamantez.

“If he selects people who are rubber-stamped by the Police Department, it will tell the community he is not willing to have an open forum to let citizens know what exactly is going on,” Talamantez said.

If the proposal is not accepted by Lockwood or Kolender, the advisory panel might consider calling for a ballot initiative to amend the City Charter, Galinson said.

The proposal calls for six changes in internal police procedures that were suggested by the Police Department on March 18. These include using the county grand jury to conduct monthly audits of randomly selected investigations; redefining citizen complaints so that allegations such as rudeness and racial slurs are investigated by the internal affairs division, and sustaining a disputed complaint based on evidence of a pattern of prior unsustained complaints.

The panel voted to let Kolender appoint 12 San Diego residents as monitors who reflect the city’s ethnic makeup. The citizens, who must pass a police background investigation, cannot work for a law enforcement agency or serve in an elected public office. The citizens will be paid a minimal fee plus transportation costs and serve two-year terms. The panel urged Kolender to solicit nominations from community groups and leaders.

Under the proposal, two consultants would be randomly assigned to monitor each major police investigation against an officer at two stages--at the time a completed investigation has been forwarded to the commander in charge of the internal affairs unit, and at the time discipline is being recommended by a police captain.

Two consultants would be permitted to comment on the appropriateness of the recommended discipline, according to the plan. They would not have the authority to tell investigators to seek more information or interview witnesses.

Union Repeats Opposition

The San Diego Police Officers Assn. reiterated its longstanding opposition to any citizen involvement and Kolender’s proposals to use the grand jury and to discipline officers based on their previous behavior.

“That’s inappropriate and we’re absolutely opposed to it,” Krolikowski said. “It’s not going to be fair. Right now, officers know the philosophy and attitudes of the people who are going to evaluate them. . . . Now they’re throwing in 12 somebodies that officers have no idea what their philosophies are, how they will judge them and whether they will be fair.”

Krolikowski predicted that many officers will react to the proposal by failing to respond to dangerous situations that may yield complaints.

Galinson said he doubted that officer performance would suffer if the plan is explained properly. Under the proposal, the Police Department would not be required to consider the citizens’ input when recommending discipline against officers.

“You have a group that is going to be appointed by the police chief and is not going to be able to do anything independent,” said Weber, head of the local National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People. “It is no different significantly than what is going on now.”