Editorial : Keep Open a Window to Police

In its four-year history, the Citizens Advisory Board on Police-Community Relations has helped open a window into the San Diego Police Department that should remain open. But the window will close in about another month unless the San Diego City Council extends the board’s term.

The advisory board was appointed by the council a few months after the Sagon Penn shootings, at a time when relations between the minority community and the police were especially strained. Its charge was to review police policies to determine whether they are “sensitive, effective and responsive to the needs of the city.”

At the time, even such a mild form of public participation in police matters was controversial. Police officials were worried that the board might go beyond advice and try to dictate policy.

Instead, the board held community forums, surveyed citizens and officers and recommended that the Police Department revamp its human-relations training, which it did.

Even when the public was pressuring the city to create a board to review misconduct complaints against officers, the advisory board’s recommendation was little stronger than the tepid one offered by former Police Chief Bill Kolender. And recently, the board gave its approval to the department’s decision to use nunchakus, a pain-compliance device, on anti-abortion demonstrators who were resisting arrest.

So the board has hardly been a threat to police autonomy. Police Chief Bob Burgreen recognizes this and supports its continuation.

The Police Officers Assn., however, does not think the board is needed any longer and says citizens get it confused with the new, voter-approved Citizens Review Board on Police Practices.

Such confusion is to be expected because there have been three boards in four years with similar names. But it should be easy enough to clear up. The differences between the boards are significant, and the differences are reason both boards are needed.

The role of the Citizens Review Board on Police Practices, which is appointed by the city manager, is to review Police Department investigations of serious complaints against officers. Its job is to look at specific cases. It is prevented from discussing its findings.

The job of the advisory board, on the other hand, is to look at policies and police-community relations. It’s a public body appointed by elected officials and makes public recommendations.

In 1986, it was instrumental in getting the Police Department to halt its unwarranted practice of detaining illegal aliens who had committed no crime and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. Similarly, it is now studying a proposal by Burgreen to turn over people who have been arrested on misdemeanor charges if police believe the person is an undocumented immigrant.

The functions of both bodies are needed, especially because the review commission has little power and its effectiveness is severely hampered by ridiculous disclosure laws.

The City Council Rules Committee last week recommended continuing the advisory board for at least six months. We urge the full council to make the advisory board permanent when it considers the issue in early September. Whether the board has improved police-community relations is probably not measureable. But a forum for public input into policy-making is bound to make for sounder policies and better policing.