Grand Jury Spurns Police Review Role : Proposal to Audit Department’s Probes Called Threat to Autonomy

Concerned about preserving its autonomy from law enforcement, the county grand jury has rejected a joint proposal by the San Diego Police Department and a citizens’ advisory panel that it regularly audit internal investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.

The surprise announcement, which came in the form of a letter this week to City Manager John Lockwood, shoots down the heart of Police Chief Bill Kolender’s plan to provide limited civilian review of police conduct.

“I understand their logic . . . but I wish they had decided to do it anyway,” said Assistant Police Chief Bob Burgreen. “I think it is enough of a pressing issue that the grand jury could have gone that far for us. I’m disappointed they didn’t. It puts us in kind of a new ballgame because that was the backbone of our recommendation.”

Any hopes for a civilian review plan in San Diego were dealt another blow Friday when Burgreen disclosed that police oppose the advisory panel’s proposal for civilian oversight of police internal investigations.

Last month, the City Council-appointed Citizens Advisory Board on Police-Community Relations urged Lockwood to direct Kolender to appoint a dozen residents to monitor the police internal affairs unit. The 12 citizens would serve as “consultants” by observing the investigation of citizen complaints, but would not have any authority to decide misconduct cases or conduct independent investigations.

Despite acknowledging that the police oversight plan was the weakest of any model in the country, the Police Department remains opposed to any form of civilian review, Burgreen said.

“We have traditionally and historically said we were opposed to civilian review of our Police Department . . . ,” Burgreen said. “We have not changed. That is philosophically how we feel. We will carry that kind of feeling to our graves, I suspect.”

The Police Department had hoped to avoid any form of citizen input in March by suggesting six changes in its internal procedures, including a proposal that the county grand jury periodically scrutinize the department’s response to citizen charges of police misconduct. At the time, Kolender acknowledged the need to deal with public skepticism about the fairness of internal police investigations.

But on Wednesday, grand jury foreman Edward Meyer wrote Lockwood that the autonomy and independence of the grand jury system would be “prejudiced by any ongoing relationship with any public agency. While one grand jury may embrace the concept, another may find it anathema and not in their best interests. Thus, a continuing review procedure cannot be guaranteed.”

However, the grand jury is willing to select at its discretion a certain number of complaints to review each year, Meyer said.

Murray Galinson, chairman of the citizens’ advisory panel, said it “was too bad” that the grand jury has refused to regularly review police investigations.

“I’m more disappointed with the Police Department saying they could not accept this minimal citizen involvement, because it appears to me that it would have almost no adverse impact on their process,” Galinson said. “If they are not going to accept what they themselves have described as the weakest and least intrusive form of civilian review, then what they are really saying is there cannot be any citizen involvement. What we are hearing the citizens say is that there must be some citizen involvement.”

The level of civilian input, if any, in reviewing police misconduct cases will be determined within the next couple of weeks by Lockwood, who said he has numerous other suggestions and alternatives from which to choose.

Burgreen was quick to point out that the Police Department will accept citizen involvement in the review process if so directed by Lockwood.

“We’ll carry it out in a loyal fashion if asked with no attempt to sabotage any program,” Burgreen said.

Meyer said the grand jury was surprised that the Police Department and the citizens’ advisory panel had proposed using the grand jury without ever notifying the organization of its intentions.

“Why in the hell (were they) talking about this subject all the time when no one asked us if we could do it?” Meyer asked.

Meyer said he does not want anyone to think that the grand jury is abandoning its role as a public watchdog by turning down the opportunity to review police misconduct cases.

“The grand jury is there to review issues as requested, but it’s not there to be a permanent extended arm on a monthly basis for anybody,” he said.

The San Diego Police Officers Assn. said the grand jury’s decision falls in line with its belief that the city Civil Service Commission is the appropriate agency to review police misconduct investigations. The POA opposed the grand jury’s involvement because of “political problems depending on the mood at the time,” said POA Treasurer Vince Krolikowski.

Each year, grand jurors are selected by Superior Court judges.

The Civil Service Commission is an “entirely unacceptable” alternative to replace the grand jury, Galinson said.

“The history of the Civil Service Commission in this city has been that they have for the most part reversed or weakened the discipline that the chief has recommended,” Galinson said. “Their past performance has been such that they are certainly not going to give the public confidence that they are going to be a watchdog of the public’s interest.”

Galinson said that the citizens’ advisory panel is awaiting Lockwood’s decision before deciding its next move.

“I think it is premature to say we are back to the drawing board, but certainly we’re moving in that direction,” Galinson said.