Giving Due Process
In a move which I find hard not to characterize as deliberately antagonistic, Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard and City Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade are pushing for a vote this week on a resolution to strengthen the citizen police oversight board while Police Chief Rosie Sizer is out of town. This would be the first major overhaul of the citizen review board since 2001. After only 5 days of public process, minus the Chief’s input, Leonard and Griffin-Valade are demanding an immediate vote. Leonard characterized a request to delay the hearing until more public input and the Chief’s return from her overseas trip as a strategy of delay under the guise of ‘public process’ [which will] defer to those who will go to any length to resist transparency at the Portland Police Bureau.” http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/03/randy_leonard_portland_auditor.html
An empowered citizen police review board is vital. But due process works in both directions. The Police Chief’s complete participation in the process will only serve to strengthen the review board. Chief Sizer has gone to great lengths to make the force more accountable and transparent, from revising the training of Police Officers in the use of force to instituting processes to review racial profiling. Under her tenure deadly incidents have decreased 40%. There’s no doubt more work needs to be done, but I can’t help viewing this through my lens of conflict resolution facilitator. Leonard’s escalatory style, while it may serve to push through a resolution, will not ultimately provide the City of Portland with what it needs most: a better relationship between members of the Police force and the city of Portland.
In the ideal world, Julie, you would be right. Unfortunately, the reality is that the current police chief has resisted the IPRâ??s efforts under its current watered down authority to investigate police incidents of misconduct.
For an example, the police bureau initially denied entry to the IPR director to a â??performance review boardâ?? hearing regarding the conduct of an officer in pursuing sexual relationships with underage women the officer met in the course of his duties.
When Auditor Griffin-Valade reminded the police chief that she (Chief Sizer) wrote the directive requiring admission of the IPR director to all â??performance review boardâ?? hearings, the chiefâ??s response was â??I wrote the directive and I can rescind it.â?? When asked the same question at the Citizen Review Committee (CRC), the citizen oversight body to the police bureau, the chief was even more direct. Her response there was â??I am the directive. I wrote the directives and I can change them.â??
Those responses by Chief Sizer betray the police bureau’s true position about transparency and actual oversight.
I hope that explains why I believe true oversight needs to pass this Thursday and happen now whether the police chief agrees or not. Too many of our most vulnerable citizens need the kind of transparency and oversight within the police bureau that this ordinance will require without delay.
Thank you.
Thank you for your reply, Randy. From what I’ve read I don’t believe Chief Sizer is against police oversight. My hope is that her participation in this process now, even if it takes longer, will lead to a stronger oversight board in the future.
“From what Iâ??ve read I donâ??t believe Chief Sizer is against police oversight.”
We are left with agreeing to disagree.