Citizens Give Views on New Police Review Board

Local citizens told members of a police-community relations board Tuesday night that a new police review board should represent all segments of the community and more closely monitor citizen complaints.

For instance Charles Clark, an associate pastor at St. Stephen’s Church of God in Christ at 5825 Imperial Ave., said a good number of the new board’s members should come from the “lower echelons” of society, where he said most of the complaints against police are generated.

And he said the review board definitely should not be composed of idle, complacent members who rubber-stamp police policies.

“A wise man once told me that boards are made to sit on,” he said. “I’d hate to see that happen here. We need a board that is active. We need a board that represents not only the City Council but the community, too, so we know the board is actually doing something.”

Preparing Recommendations

The comments were solicited by the Citizen’s Advisory Board on Police-Community Relations. The panel is preparing recommendations to City Manager John Lockwood on how to create a police review board as approved by voters last fall in Proposition G.

Murray Galinson, chairman of the advisory committee, told the audience at City Hall that his panel is only concerned with how to form a review board under Proposition G.

But the issue is somewhat muddied because a second, stronger police review board under Proposition F also received a majority of votes in November, but slightly fewer than did Proposition G.

The city attorney’s office has recognized only the Proposition G board, which has as its major component the removal of the police chief from the selection of its members. The Proposition F board would hold hearings and could issue subpoenas, and the ACLU has filed a lawsuit seeking its implementation as well.

Some of the speakers Tuesday night said they favored toughening the board under Proposition G to grant it more investigative powers.

Some of them said a stronger police review board “would make the police more answerable to the community,” and others said it would ensure that “we get an honest answer to our complaints.”

Eva Curtis of East San Diego said the board members should include a minister, a psychiatrist, a doctor and “four or five community people.” Steve Wittman, a lawyer, agreed that the panel should reflect a cross-section of the community.

“That is the single most important thing,” he said. “Who you pick on a jury often determines what the outcome will be.”

Tom Skelley of North Park, who said he was once assaulted by San Diego County sheriff’s deputies in the jail, said the new board should flex its muscles and try to monitor abuse by jail guards.

“You may be treated well by the San Diego Police Department, but not by the sheriff’s office in the County Jail,” he said. “When I was handed over to the Sheriff’s Department, well, I joined Amnesty International right after that.”