NO ON B: PRESENT POLICE OVERSIGHT WORKS WELL
Now, right now, government agencies, including the city of San Diego, are in budget crisis. At the same time, Measure B proposes a new Commission on Police Practices (CPP) to replace the existing Community Review Board on Police Practices (CRB). CRB already embodies significant core elements of CPP. New elements within CPP greatly increase expense. This may not be the right time to embark on a seemingly desirable form of civilian oversight for SDPD given the low cost of CRB, survivor of multiple budget crises.
Currently, CRB is given unfettered access to Internal Affairs (IA) investigation material. Following CRB-developed procedure, CRB considers all relevant material, watches all video, reads all reports and listens to all interview audio. CRB ensures the IA investigation is thorough, fair and complete, and assesses IA conclusions (findings) for consistency with the facts of the situation as proven by the investigation material. Information IA shares includes sensitive personnel data that must be protected. CRB members sign confidentiality agreements and, to safeguard data, have always worked within IA’s secure space at SDPD headquarters where confidential information can be freely discussed.
The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) lists five goals for civilian oversight: ensure accessible complaint process, promote thorough and fair investigations, increase transparency, deter officer misconduct and improve public trust. These goals are achieved through one, or a combination, of three oversight models: Review Model, Investigative Model and Auditor/Monitor Model.
NACOLE rates the Investigative Model as the most expensive and the Review Model as the least expensive. It is no surprise that the Review Model is widely used for civilian oversight agencies across the country. CRB is a Review Model agency. Most, if not all, other Review Model agencies see only closed cases with discipline already administered. Uniquely, CRB is working with cases that are not closed; CRB can advocate to improve investigations with impact on officer accountability.
As a Review Model agency, CRB does not engage in investigation and does not have, or need, subpoena power. CPP is a hybrid, combining Review Model functions with Investigative Model functions. CPP introduces investigation and subpoena power.
If Measure B is approved by voters,
Review Model functions are expected to be fulfilled by CRB, in its current form and function, renamed CPP. This is an extraordinary vote of confidence from architects of Measure B who previously declared CRB has “failed” the citizens of San Diego.
If Measure B is approved by voters, the new Investigative Model functions of CPP would clearly duplicate the effort expended by IA. This new power is expensive and the resulting findings would not impact accountability, which continues to be based on the IA investigation and final report.
As an alternative to new, expensive Investigative Model functions in CPP, consider continuing to rely on IA for thorough investigations, fully vetted by CRB critical review.
The role and influence of CRB has expanded beyond the simple “review and evaluate” mandate in City Charter Section 43(d). For 30 years, CRB has regularly presented recommendations to the chief of police on SDPD policy, procedure, and training; CRB began review of officerinvolved shootings and in-custody deaths in 1990, has developed a full set of operating procedures in the last ten years, and enjoys independent legal counsel since 2018. After years of processing only the most serious (Category 1) complaints, CRB assumed review of less serious (Category 2) complaints in 2019, and this year has started preparing redacted summary reports for publication.
In response to community concerns, CRB could (1) use a private office to create separation from perceived control by the mayor; (2) improve transparency by posting redacted case summaries on the CRB website; (3) dedicate staff to facilitate intake of complaints, coordination with IA, community outreach and policy analysis; (4) secure guaranteed independent legal counsel identical to the Ethics Commission; (5) improve communication with complainants, and (6) plan for a future mediation program patterned after the highly successful mediation program run by the Office of Independent Monitor in New Orleans.
San Diego County has wisely allocated additional funding for its oversight agency Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) described by this newspaper as “dysfunctional.” The expectation is that CLERB will improve performance and become more effective. CRB, already effective, could thrive with a similar allocation from the city. This is a sensible and fiscally responsible alternative to Measure B.
Vaughn