Leadership Needed

In the wake of the county Grand Jury’s decision not to go along with Police Chief Bill Kolender’s proposal for the grand jurors to provide token civilian review of police misconduct complaints, it is time to have a genuine, communitywide debate on the issue.

Up to this point, the City Council members, with the exception of Celia Ballesteros, have had little to say about the police review question. They have begged off on the grounds that the City Charter prohibits their interference in running the Police Department. The issue has been left to City Manager John Lockwood, who plans to take some action in the next few weeks. It is doubtful, however, that without a change in the charter even the city manager has the authority to institute the kind of civilian involvement that is needed.

While we recognize that this may be seen as a no-win situation for the City Council members, their job is to show political leadership, and this is a situation crying out for some. The council members should be framing the debate over whether a charter change is indeed a good idea and, if so, what it should say.

As a starting point for what should be a freewheeling and constructive exchange of ideas, we offer these points:

- Many people believe that some type of civilian review is necessary if confidence is to be restored in how the police treat people with whom they come in contact. This attitude may be more intense in the minority communities, but it exists elsewhere as well.

- City Council members--who work day in and day out in the trenches of local government--surely must have doubts that the current system of internal police investigations is working satisfactorily.

- A change in the City Charter probably is required, but with effective political leadership that can be accomplished.

- A referendum would not be the best way to write a sophisticated and delicate law. But if the City Council or the city manager does not act to bring about some type of meaningful civilian review, an attempt may be made to address the issue through that process.

The two basic elements we believe should be included in a new policy are some type of civilian participation in misconduct investigations and periodic, general reports by the civilian panel on the number, nature and disposition of complaints.

It is important that the civilian involvement be in the investigation itself, not as an ex post facto review, and it should include a voice in recommending disposition.

This does not mean a “kangaroo court,” the straw man that the police constantly raise when discussing civilian review. Hearings and their results would still be confidential. Nor does it imply that the police chief should lose his ultimate authority to discipline his officers. Rather, it envisions a system that would be fair to accused police officers while at the same time allowing some citizen input as a way to help rebuild the credibility of the cop on the street.

The civilian review issue is too divisive for there to ever be a consensus on it. While it would be nice if Lockwood comes forward with an imaginative plan that addresses most of the concerns expressed by those with different points of view, that would seem to be asking the impossible. If his plan does not represent a significant departure from the current procedures, however, the council members should begin to discuss a charter change and show the leadership they were elected to provide.