Replaced Panel Members Question Motive : Police department: Two on citizens’ review board think they were dropped because of criticism of police. Their dismissal raises questions about the board’s independence.

The only two members of the city’s police review board to be removed from the panel said they were replaced because they publicly criticized the San Diego Police Department.

Former board members Don McEvoy and Barbara Schutze, whose terms were not renewed March 1, have both been critical of San Diego police. Although they had not decided whether to serve a third term, neither was asked by then-City Manager John Lockwood to return.

When the San Diego Citizen’s Review Board on Police Practices was established after voter approval in 1988, Lockwood determined that five of the 20-member panel should be replaced each year to keep its makeup fresh. After the first year, five voluntarily dropped out. This year, three chose not to return and Lockwood bumped McEvoy and Schutze from the panel, replacing them with two new board members.

City Manager Jack McGrory said neither McEvoy nor Schutze was singled out, but he could not say why they were removed while others were asked to stay.

“Any number of people on the board are critical of the San Diego Police Department,” he said. “It was a subjective decision in terms of looking at all the members of the board. It was never intended to be critical of those who were replaced.”

McGrory said he, Lockwood and George Penn, then assistant to the city manager, helped decide who to remove.

Last week, McEvoy wrote a controversial letter to several city leaders in which he said the type of beating Rodney G. King suffered by Los Angeles police officers earlier this month “is meted out by officers of the San Diego Police Department with a distressing degree of regularity.”

In his two years on the board, McEvoy a retired director of the San Diego Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, has been critical of police and the makeup of the review board itself, which does not have the authority to make independent investigations or compel witnesses to testify. He said he knew he was being dropped from the board when he got a letter from Lockwood in February thanking him for two years of service.

“We were told by the city manager that, if we didn’t want to serve another term, we should let him know,” McEvoy said. “I had no intention of leaving. I thought I should fight the good fight from the inside.”

Schutze has told other board members that she believed she was replaced because of a critical newspaper item describing her run-in with a San Diego police officer. The item detailed an accident Schutze had in January in which an ambulance backed into her car.

She was quoted as calling a police officer who investigated the accident “aggressive and hostile. I wondered if he was going to pull his gun.” The officer fell silent when she pulled out an identification card that showed her to be a board member, Schutze said.

“Boy, will I ever have this on my mind when I review police complaints in the future,” she was quoted as saying.

After the item appeared in a local newspaper, Schutze received a ticket charging her with following too closely behind the ambulance.

Schutze, a psychologist for the Sweetwater High School District, said this week that she had no comment on her removal from the review board and wanted to put the matter behind her.

But she has told McEvoy and others that she had been one of the department’s greatest boosters until her altercation. Schutze also has said she hadn’t decided whether she wanted to return when she got a letter from Lockwood telling her she was being replaced.

Current board members said they assumed McEvoy and Schutze had decided to leave the board voluntarily and would be surprised if either was removed because they were critical of police.

The allegations by McEvoy and Schutze, both of whom were praised by McGrory and others on the board for their dedication, raise questions about the board’s independence and what happens to those who criticize police.

The panel, called the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices, was approved by voters in November, 1988 and was championed by those who believed the San Diego Police Department needed greater public scrutiny.

Two proposals appeared on the 1988 ballot and, although both were approved, Proposition G--the blueprint of the current board--was put into place because it received more votes. The other proposal, Proposition F, would have given the board broader powers, including the authority to subpoena witnesses.

Among those calling for a new citywide vote on the stronger board is San Diego City Councilman Wes Pratt, who supported Proposition F.

“I don’t know the facts of the removal, but if the perception is that board members were removed because of their criticism of the Police Department, that goes to the weakness of the present system,” Pratt said. “If the city manager is arbitrarily removing members, that’s a cause for concern. This is America. You have to be able to carry out what you think is in your best interests without reprisal.”

Arthur Ellis, a board member and San Diego State University professor, said he would request that the panel look into the allegations at their next meeting Tuesday night.

“I’m interested in finding out if there’s a connection” between the criticism and the board replacements, he said. “I thought they left the board voluntarily.”

Another board member, attorney Paul Pfingst, said Lockwood made it clear that those who wanted to remain on the board should let him know.

“My impression was that, if you wanted to re-up, you told him,” Pfingst said. “If you didn’t, he assumed you didn’t want to stay.”

Board chairman Murray Galinson said he didn’t know the circumstances behind McEvoy’s and Schutze’s removal but said he felt certain it had nothing to do with their comments.

“We’ve got 20 strongly opinionated members, and their opinions range from pro-police to anti-police depending on the issue,” he said. “We have members who are just as critical or more critical than Don. And I don’t remember Barbara being very critical at all.”

Some board members say they are particularly distressed by McEvoy’s recent letter to the city leaders, in which he asserted that San Diego police routinely participate in the type of full-scale beating that King suffered March 3 at the hands of Los Angeles police.

Further, McEvoy said that San Diego’s police internal affairs division “views itself more as a protector and defender of the department against complaints from citizens than as a defender of the citizenry against improper actions by members of the department.”

Although McEvoy praised the department as “one of the best and most progressive in the nation . . . led by a chief of unquestioned integrity and excellent management skills,” he said police typically promote those that are the most aggressive on the force.

“Dirty Harry,” he said, “is alive and well in the precincts, the patrol cars, and many of the neighborhoods of San Diego.”

Police Chief Bob Burgreen called McEvoy’s letter “outrageous” and objected to his characterization of San Diego police officers. Burgreen said he has not talked to anyone in his department who can recall any incident similar to King’s beating by police officers.