NEW REVIEW SYSTEM
CONTINUES TO FAIL PORTLAND

"Independent" Police Review Division
ignores citizens, glaring problems, and its own mission

In late May, the Independent Police Review Division (IPR), which reviews the work of the Portland Police Bureau's Internal Affairs Division (IAD), released its first quarterly report for 2002. This is the IPR's first report since it began receiving citizen complaints of police misconduct in January. The report reflects the majority of problems with the IPR's structure: heavy reliance on the police, misplaced priorities, apathy towards the civilians who have complaints, and unwillingness to fulfill its promise to conduct independent investigations.

The IPR simultaneously made progress and lost ground toward police accountability: IPR staff have been screening "experts" to review police shootings and deaths in custody (coincidentally hiring Merrick Bobb of Los Angeles, whose name was brought up as an example when City Auditor Blackmer pitched the idea); selecting mediators for the mediation program (set to begin around September 1); replacing the outreach coordinator, who left after only four months on the job (Todd Gang was replaced with former victim advocate from the Federal Prosecutor's office Lauri Stewart); and seeking applicants for four Citizen Review Committee (CRC) members whose terms expire in October.

The quarterly report confirms IPR Director Richard Rosenthal's informal statements that he will not be conducting independent investigations--by hardly mentioning the IPR's option to investigate complaints. The Director blames lack of staff (although IPR has seven staff members compared to one staff person in the old review system, PIIAC), and stood aside when the case of alleged cover-up by police supervisors about off-duty officers assaulting a citizen landed right in the IPR's lap (see p. 1). It is clear that the "I" in the "IPR" could stand for "Indifferent."

The IPR quarterly report's shortcomings were glaring especially in light of the fact that PIIAC, the generally scorned predecessor to the IPR, put more information in its quarterly reports. The IPR's forty-four page report does not explain or detail any specific complaints of misconduct; provide complete, meaningful statistics on types of allegations and findings; or consider the perspective of complainants who had used the system. Instead, the report uses seven pages to chart the length of time it took to investigate and/or fully close out the complaints in order to emphasize their efforts to improve timeliness. It also completely ignores the fact that the volunteer nine-member CRC, which reviews appealed complaints, found numerous problems with investigations they reviewed, including the use of leading questions, failure to contact witnesses, failure to go to the scene of some incidents, and a condescending tone during at least one witness interview by an IAD investigator.

IPR Director Richard Rosenthal continues to wield his heavy hand with the Citizen Review Committee, which technically has the power to act without the interference of the IPR staff. CRC member Alice Shannon pointed out Rosenthal's behavior during a June workgroup meeting. She told him that he often cuts off Committee discussions "with a loud voice" to state his lawyer-like opinions with enough authority to prevent disagree-ment with his ideas. Time will tell if this attention to his behavior leads to any improvement.

Previously, Rosenthal's authoritarian tactics led the CRC to accept "Conference Committees" that allow Bureau officials a second chance to talk the volunteers out of recommending more severe findings (see PPR #26).

Rosenthal also talked the CRC into tentatively agreeing to broaden the use of the "Service Complaint" category, promising its definition would be changed to eliminate the need for matters to be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. The Director and IAD have been trying to use that category for allegations of "minor misconduct," including certain behavior that violates police directives.

The Director also showed his indifference towards complainants by disposing of dozens of cases. The quarterly report shows that he declined 27 cases in concert with the IAD; he also declined fifteen appeals requests before conceding to the CRC that they should at least help make those decisions. The report explains that the complaints were declined because they were "frivolous or trivial" but doesn't give any other information. In another dubious disposal technique, the IPR also "resolved" 13 cases as "Service Complaints" in the first quarter, which is disconcerting since at least one case was improperly placed into that category (see p. 4).

Rosenthal seems to be slamming shut the "window into the Bureau" which Blackmer, the IPR's creator, promised to open wider. Take, for instance, Rosenthal's failure to share certain information--such as the audit of IAD by a private agency (see sidebar), a workshop on mediation which featured the re-enactment of an actual officer/citizen mediation, and his participation in auditing the case files of the Criminal Intelligence Unit (see "PJTTF," p. 8). Rosenthal also won't give specifics on his "active participation" in the IAD investigation on the alleged cover-up by police supervisors (see "Beatings," p .1).

The IPR also showed inherent bias in its latest report by including a memo from Chief Kroeker (who concluded that the CRC thinks the Bureau is doing "a very good job" since the Committee affirmed so many of the Bureau's findings), and a series of thank-yous mostly to the police, partly to the CRC, but not at all to the appellants or the general public.

Equally troubling, Assistant District Attorney Wayne Pierson told the CRC that Rosenthal "begged" him to provide the members with a training on April 2. While Pierson's presentation was mostly confined to the basic facts of law, it also appeared to be an attempt to offset statements made in a previous "rights" training by ACLU and defense attorneys who pointed out the difficult position the CRC has been put in, that of making decisions with information coming primarily from the police.

Finally, Auditor Gary Blackmer has not released his grip on the IPR. He originally wanted the nomination committee for new CRC members to consist of three people, not including any members of the current CRC. Such a small selection committee would not reflect the diversity of the community. While Copwatch agrees that the CRC should not be the only group choosing its own new members, we support the CRC's efforts to ensure that those members whose terms are not expiring can participate.

Rosenthal is currently studying for the Oregon State Bar. However, we have little hope that he will ever use his skills as a lawyer to challenge the City in a case where the IPR comes into conflict with the City Attorney. We suspect that there will be cases, as in the past, in which the City will try to keep IAD files from the review committee.

In conclusion, the IPR's structure, its staff, and its elected oversight (the Auditor) all contribute to its being a let-down compared to its promised goals.

Call the IPR at 503-823-0146, at your own risk.

Peopl e's Police Report #27 Table of Contents
People's Police Report Index Page
Return to Copwatch home page