Anaheim’s summer of discontent was international news. In July 2012, hundreds took to the streets to protest a string of deadly police shootings. At its height, as many as 500 demonstrators and 250 police were involved in a confrontation that lasted into the early hours of the morning. While most protesters were peaceful, events spun out of hand: fires were lit, windows were broken and an intersection was taken over. Anaheim Police claim that the crowd began to throw things at officers, which they maintain justified the use of tear gas and projectile bean bags. Incredibly, a police K-9 was ‘accidentally’ released from a squad car and attacked peaceful demonstrators, including nineteen-year-old Junior Lagunas and his one-year-old son.
an image Anaheim can’t afford
Mayor Tom Tait recognized the scope of the crisis and called on federal and state agencies to investigate the shootings. Commentators were overwhelmingly critical of Anaheim Police. Conservative and former OC Register columnist, Steven Greenhut, wrote:
Unfortunately, in my view, the city’s police department has embraced the wrong kind of policing methods—ones that are unkind and undermine people’s freedom. I don’t see police officials there using their brains to handle a situation born, in part, of overly aggressive policing tactics and insufficient police accountability and transparency.
The Mayor knew that there was more to the protests than the specific instances of police violence and has received national attention for his outreach efforts towards what the local Rotary Club referred to as Anaheim’s disenfranchised citizens. As part of this effort, Mayor Tait called for more police oversight in the form of a citizen review board. “Accountability, transparency, and independent oversight make any organization better,” he said.
The mere concept of an oversight board drew fierce resistance from Anaheim’s entrenched establishment. Kerry Condon, President of Anaheim’s police union, stated that the city was “nowhere near” needing the board. “There has not been a bad shooting here in Anaheim ever,” he maintained. Former mayor and currently the city’s most influential lobbyist, Curt Pringle, took a public swipe against his successor for proposing the board. In a robocall made to Anaheim households, Pringle accused Mayor Tait of “pursuing a terrible plan” spear headed by liberal activists. One of the most powerful career politicians in OC’s history, Pringle argued against the board because it would be political. “You don’t need activists or politically connected people on a police review board.” For its part, Anaheim Police have spent tens of thousands of dollars opposing the establishment of any oversight board.
Pringle to Anaheim: gangs and goblins support Mayor Tait, families and puppies support the police
Initially, an oversight board was blocked by a majority on the City Council. Councilwomen Kris Murray, Lucille Kring and Gail Eastman expressed early opposition, but eventually bowed to public pressure and, in early 2013, joined the Mayor in a vote directing the city’s staff to draft a pilot plan for a police oversight board. A year later, former city manager Marcie Edwards presented the plan to the public and City Council. The proposed nine-member board will provide recommendations to city officials, issue annual reports and conduct community outreach. It is expected to work with the Office of Independent Review Group when it looks into officer-involved shootings and use-of-force matters. The plan was warmly received by all the Council Members, but two points drew criticism: the lack of subpoena power and a board appointed by the City Manager through a lottery system. While the former is prudent, the later will significantly curtail the influence of the proposed board and raises significant concerns with respect to transparency.
Subpoena power refers to the ability to compel an individual to produce documents or appear and answer questions before a government body. An oversight board able to issue subpoenas could force Anaheim Police to turn-over internal documents and compel its officers to appear before it and answer questions. Activists maintain that the lack of subpoena power is a fatal blow to the boards ability to investigate police misconduct. “What real civilian oversight requires is subpoena power, which this proposal has none,” said Anaheim City Council candidate Donna Acevedo, the able and determined mother of Joel Acevedo, who was killed after a car chase with police. “I say we keep working for something better to build trust.” While generally grateful for the city’s effort, the level-headed Theresa Smith, mother of Caesar Cruz who was also killed by police, expressed similar concerns. The mothers’ valid questions go to the root of the purpose behind the board.
The power to compel testimony would greatly enhance the oversight board’s power to investigate complaints of police misconduct. But would it make the board more effective? After-all, it is the District Attorney’s job (or should be) to look BACKWARD, conduct criminal investigations and punish officers. The board, on the other hand, is to look FORWARD with the goal of creating a better police force through community input. Even if the board has subpoena power, it would not replace the DA’s office. Practically, an oversight board cannot bring down criminal charges or reward monetary damages. As such, the board should not be a forum to litigate because without a remedy the parties’ incentive to litigate is dubious. After the criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit, the interests of the aggrieved would not be significantly furthered by a third layer of legal proceedings. The board will certainly be concerned with instances of alleged misconduct, but its focus will be on preventing misconduct in the future, not the punishment individual officers. In other words: the board should not police the police, it should oversea the police department, a subtle but important difference.
The board’s noble purpose, however, is critically undermined by another aspect of the pilot plan: the method for selecting its nine members. According to Ms. Edwards, board members will be appointed by the city manager using a lottery system that selects applicants from different areas of the city. Thus, the board will be randomly selected and will, in all likelihood, be laypersons in the field of criminal justice. A randomly selected board lacking in expertise undercuts its ability to lead the police department in a better direction. To the contrary, such a board will be led by the police department.
Currently, the Anaheim Police Department is the only entity with a seat at the table possessing expertise in criminal justice. Because of this, its pronouncements carry authority that cannot be matched by any other institutional voice. The oversight board should be the force that changes this dynamic. But a board without expertise and/or standing in the community would be handicapped by a learning curve. Anaheim Police will know this and will, reasonably enough, do much to educate the board. As such, Anaheim Police will preserve their monopoly on knowledge, and knowledge is power.
More alarming, there are questions as to whether the city manager will actually use a lottery system to select the board. Will random selection be verifiable? Even if the lottery system is used, could the pool of applicants be filtered with criteria set-out by the city manager ensuring the appointment of desired persons? The lottery system may not be very random at all, and this raises serious concerns over transparency and bureaucratic unaccountability.
Instead, the mayor and respective City Council members should appoint persons qualified in criminal justice; for example: retired judges, defense attorneys and retired police officers. Not only is this likely to increase the sum of knowledge on the board, but it will raise the board’s public profile. Such appointees would likely know the city and its politics. They would know what is being demanded and what is possible. Political appointees would be in a better position to court the press and otherwise leverage their influence. Nobody likes politicians, but it is hard to imagine how a group of random laypersons could navigate Anaheim’s tumultuous political waters. Again, the role of the board should not be confused with that of a jury.
Naturally, no method is perfect and this proposal raises concerns of its own. Activists may be wary of granting the power of appointment to the current council majority, a group that initially opposed oversight, and which has generally been seen as frustrating any change. But this state of affairs reflects the political reality. Ultimately, meaningful reform depends on who sits on the Council. The point deserves repeating: the oversight board will not, cannot, supplement the authority of the City Council.
My proposal is complimented by the switch to district elections for Council Members. District elections will preserve neighborhood diversity among board members present in the current plan. The Mayor’s appointee/s, on the other hand, will act as a check on the Council Members’ local orientation.
Expertise is in the eye of the beholder, but the appointer has a significant interest in appointing someone qualified. An unqualified shill will embarrass, and will be of no help to, the appointer. While this proposal cannot ensure expertise or effectiveness, it does increase the likelihood of both. In the end, an expert board without subpoena power will be more effective than a lay board with subpoena power. A random board will represent the community, but a board of qualified appointees will represent the community AND give that community a voice to compel reform.
it’s coming for you
I don’t see what the big deal is here. If the 5-0 don’t cooperate fully, this board thing is free to assume the worse. A jury can’t do that because what is at stake, millions in a lawsuit or time behind bars. But this is not jury. This seems pretty obvious.
Bingo. Why use an oil drill when all you need is a shovel?
The fact that Pringle got involved at all is because he needs the cop and fire unions to back his puppets in city elections. These unions have become the Praetorian Guard of the Kleptocracy, putting their names on such things as the Convention Center bond sale – a little something for everyone.
I would agree that unions have in fact been very instrumental in playing the role of guardians of the Kleptocracy. I wouldn’t however limit that to the two unions you have, I would be much more inclusive in that statement.
If anyone is curious: Pringle’s swipe at the mayor had absolutely nothing to do with police oversight…
Why did Pringle go to bat for the police?
http://anaheimblog.net/2013/08/13/anaheim-police-association-opposes-cancelling-chambers-ez-contract/
Right. And the union also came out for the Convention Center expansion bonds. Why on Earth?
The Kleptocracy needs its Praetorian Guard, and without the Kleptocracy there is no need for the PG. It’s sort of like the ancient Roman Empire.
No, they really are desperate for jobs, enough to not be finicky about the rules.
I don’t really relish defending them, in light of their actions towards me, but unlike the Kleptocracy they’re not out to make a killing. It really is about desperately trying to generate anything that might create construction jobs. Wrong, in this case, but not evil.
Oh well — back to work on a lawsuit….
I’m talking about the cop union – Kerry Condom, or whatever his name is.
Kerry Condomn (sp?) – the biggest prophylactic standing between reform and the APD.
Aha. Technically not a union, hence my confusion.
To your point about the police having all the expertise, I think it is important to highlight that the Council is part-time. The people’s elected representatives just don’t have the resources to act as a check on a police force as large as APD.
You know…. that is a very good point. Perhaps a full-time council is the answer. But you know what they say: politics is the art of the possible.
Daniel my love, I must (with great respect) disagree with a number of key points here.
The City Council could not have included subpoena power in their Oversight Board mandates, because POBAR excludes that function, making it VOLUNTARY for officers to answer subpoenas for anything other than criminal charges. There was no point, and thus while I understand the mothers were disappointed, it was not the fault of the City this time. It was the law that made that provision impossible.
I do not want the Board appointed, but rather the system used for selecting Grand Jurors should be used and I think that is pretty close to what we got. You apply, go through a background check, and then are selected by lottery. I would like to have a LOT more oversight of the process though just to make sure the hat is not stuffed only with the crony system.
i have no problem with non-law enforcement people serving, I highly doubt we would find enough people who fit your description of retired judges etc willing to live in Anaheim, I am sorry, our own Police force often refuses to live here and when I asked an officer about it during a Neighborhood Watch meeting, he admitted he does not feel safe enough to have his family live in Anaheim.
I agree that the Oversight Board should not, and legally cannot, bring charges or litigate matters. However, you may not that should charges be brought by a DA (who is unlikely to ever try again after completely botching the Kelly Thomas abortion of justice) they will have those charges heard by 12 men and women without law enforcement service on their records, indeed no prosecutor would allow a member of law enforcement to serve on the jury of a cop. If 12 ordinary men and women are seen fit to serve on a jury, why can ordinary citizens not serve on the panel for the Oversight Board?
And I agree, Pringle’s robo-call had nearly nothing to do with law enforcement, and everything to do with raw jealousy that the new Mayor’s popularity eclipses his, and hatred for a man who outed what a contemptible piece of garbage the previous Mayor was, by leaving our City strapped to the last nickel as he headed out the door.
I am not sure what changed to get the other 4 on board for this, perhaps the whole thing IS watered down so badly that they no longer feared it, who knows? My greatest concern is that it will give us a false sense of security thinking someone is watching the Police when in fact they are toothless. But we will have to see. At least we are trying something. Sometimes the perfect becomes the enemy of the possible.
Point of order, there are several cities in CA that include subpoena powers in their COC rules.
Clearly, it can be done. How successfully it’s used is a different story.
Good points all, this is just the beginning of the conversation. I think it is a miracle that Mayor Tait was able to get anything of the type in place. I would like to know what you (Ms. Ward) think of Staff’s idea: a full time council or mayor.
Good discussion.
I have a plan, but it would require first electing a better DA.
Daniel, Cynthia Ward mentioned two of my biggest concerns in her comments, namely, that the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBAR) excludes the possibility of the Citizen Review Board having subpoena powers and that since laypersons serve successfully on juries and Grand Juries, there is no reason they could not serve successfully on the Citizen’s Review Board–as long as the lottery system actually insured a random sample of people. I think a lottery system means that no one actually “selects” the constituents, and that should keep it fair.
Because the problems we have with the biases of our own law enforcement personnel led to the creation of the Citizen’s Review Board in the first place, I think this is the most compelling reason to keep law-enforcement people off of it. We do not want to further enlarge the system we have now, whereby we have to assume that the police continue to police themselves–assume, because we have no actual way of knowing if they do.
Transparency, of course, means that the board would be able to shed light on police actions that led to a complaint being put before them, to see if that complaint had any validity. If it had validity, then the simple publication of police errors might mean that the police would take care not to have those errors happen again. On the other hand, if police behavior were proved to be righteous, then it might help dispel some of the prejudice that now exists against them. This assumes that there is a mechanism in place for the complaints to reach the board, of course. In the document presented at the Council Meeting, there was no such mechanism in place.
At the council meeting where everyone was passionate about yet another killing and the canonization into sainthood of Bruno the police dog, I voiced a couple of my further concerns, but I am an outsider and I don’t think anyone noticed, so I will state them here again: California law gives our police force the strongest protection from repercussions as a result of their rogue behavior than any state in the union. Simply put, we have so many laws protecting them that there is no way any layperson can know when they commit misconduct. An LA Times article also destroys the police argument that they need all these laws because they’d be in danger if their names were revealed, because there is virtually no hard evidence to support it.
Without repeating everything I said, I did mention that despite these laws, Los Angeles Supervisors now have a system to review internal sheriffs’ reports on shootings, so why couldn’t we adopt theirs? You might, in your final article, expand on that. Beyond that, the California Supreme Court was pressing the City of Long Beach to name officers involved in shootings, and maybe you could follow up on that as well. And back now to Mayor Tait’s intent: transparency means that if their bad behavior sees the cold light of day, the police would probably begin to change it. It behooves our citizen review board to achieve this, and if not by using subpoena powers, then by some other means.
Formally, I am not happy with your arguments, Daniel, because you buttress them with far too many suppositions: i.e, that the board with subpoena power would replace the DA’s office; that there would of necessity be a third layer of criminal proceedings; that, barring expertise on criminal law the board would be too ignorant to do the job; that the board, with no “standing” in the community, would be simply ignored. I could go on, but you get the point. For me the bottom line is Mayor Tait’s intent when he called on such a board to provide transparency and with transparency, thereby accountability.
You’ve gotten some great feedback there, Daniel. I hope that you find it of value in refining your thoughts on what is already a good piece.