3 Options Offered for a Stronger S.D. Police Review Board

The San Diego Charter Review Commission on Thursday night moved a significant step closer to creating a new form of police review board.

The commission chairman picked for more study three concepts on how best to investigate police misconduct. The action came after a two-hour workshop at City Hall in which the 15 commissioners debated which proposal should be put before the voters in November.

Commission Chairman Edward T. Butler indicated at the close of the meeting that the group will take a formal vote at its next meeting Monday to decide which of the City Charter amendment options merits placement on the fall ballot.

Butler chose the three proposals, all of which differ in their scope, after they were presented by individual commissioners.

Subpoena Powers

One commissioner recommended a police review board in which civilian members would be armed with subpoena powers and gather evidence against errant officers and also would air in public overall problems within the Police Department.

Another commissioner suggested a review board with just as much authority, but which would conduct business behind closed doors and then release periodical reports judging the performance of the Police Department.

A third commissioner recommended that the existing Civilian Advisory Panel on Police Practices be allowed to continue its work, but that voters in November give the City Council the power to create a tougher review board if the existing system does not work out.

At issue is an amendment to the City Charter that would create a review board supported by voters and is different from the current panel that has received much negative reaction since it was established in September.

The existing panel has been sharply criticized for being pro-police because its members were selected with the participation of Police Chief Bill Kolender and because it lacks real enforcement powers, such as the authority to issue subpoenas. As constituted, the panel simply reviews complaints supplied by the Police Department itself and judges whether the department’s Internal Affairs unit properly reviewed the cases.

Commissioner Neil Good proposed a 15-member group appointed by the mayor with confirmation from the City Council. It would oversee the investigation of all significant complaints by the police Internal Affairs unit and make recommendations on officer discipline.

It would also be empowered to hear testimony, subpoena witnesses and materials and issue quarterly reports on its findings. And the board would hold public hearings on problems dealing with overall police actions and make recommendations to the chief and city officials.

“Let’s give them the full weight of subpoena power and a forum for the community to deal with a lot of problems,” Good said.

However, Butler expressed fear that the public sessions could become an open microphone for disgruntled citizens to criticize individual officers.

“It would create the image of a star chamber,” the chairman said. “We would be creating a sideshow with smoke and mirrors.”

Commissioner John Wertz proposed a similar review board, but one that conducts its business behind closed doors and maintains the confidentiality of errant officers and the types of discipline they receive.

His suggestion would include the board issuing periodical public reports, but would preclude the board from holding public hearings. If the meetings were held in private, he said, “the system would be much less politicized.”

“We need an external review process,” he said. “It is fundamental that a panel of citizens, like those who sit in a jury box, should sit in judgment here.”

But Butler said he had concerns with this idea, too, fearing that the closed sessions could give the panel the perception of being just an arm of the Police Department.

“It opens up the argument that the fox will look very much like a chicken in the hen’s coop,” he said.

Enabling Power

The third option, offered by Commissioner Ronald L. Ottinger, called for allowing the existing panel to continue, with the possibility that public support for its work will grow. In the meantime, the voters in November would give the City Council the enabling power to create a tougher review board should the existing panel “not work out.”

“Then the mayor and the city manager would have the mechanism to move ahead and put in place a new system,” he said.

Again, Butler voiced misgivings. A former judge, Butler said there may be some legal problems with this proposal because it could be construed as taking the power to amend the charter and create a civilian review board away from the public and placing it in the hands of the elected members of the City Council.

“It could give the council the power literally to amend the charter,” he said.