Comments on: Civilianizing Internal Affairs

By: Kipper

Kipper — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:50:45 +0000

“The idea is that people will feel more comfortable reporting their problems with the police to someone other than a police officer.”

If comfort is the main issue then I’d be interested to know how many complaints the CPRB accepted last year compared to OPD Internal Affairs. You will find, I am sure, that the comparison will show no problem with the community reporting perceived misconduct to an officer, supervisor, or IAD.

I suspect that for some in the civilian community this transfer of responsibility is nothing but a power grab – not that there is anything wrong with civilian oversight in a free society – but power is always dangerous. Politics and community outrage have no place in police discipline matters, and civilians with such authority are too often guided by these ebbs and flows rather than experience with the law, sound investigation techniques and department policies.

By: MarleenLee

MarleenLee — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:54:11 +0000

This is an extremely complicated and important topic. I know because as part of my job I conduct lots of investigations (including investigations of police misconduct) and also see how the investigations of other organizations get conducted (e.g. government agencies like EEOC, DFEH etc.). One of my observations is that there are very few people out there who are actually good at conducting investigations and writing good reports. Even police officers aren’t necessarily the greatest. So the plan would need to ensure that the people are really qualified and well trained. There are also union issues (is the civilianization of the IA a negotiable item?) Why would we want to civilianize this function when under the NSA it has to be performed by the police themselves? How do other police departments handle IA complaints? (I know the police departments I work with contract out this function to people like retired police chiefs, and they do a pretty good job). Sorry I can’t make it for the actual discussion. Should be interesting.

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:56:17 +0000

For those of us who missed tonight’s meeting, I hope that someone will post a summary of the discussion. What were the substantive arguments for and against? Thanks -

By: len

len — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:50:45 +0000

i’ve heard diametrically opposite opinions whether sworn staff have to perform the review work. one is that the nsa requires it, and that is the police union demanded it.

are you saying the former, or are you just saying that under the nsa the (duplicate/same) work has to be done within the police dept, but can be done by civilian employees of the opd?

btw, rumors of extended nsa is based on statements burris has made or Judge Henderson? is there a line item in the opd budget for nsa compliance?

By: livegreen

livegreen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:58:04 +0000

Don’t we need some plan details? How are they going to ensure that Civilian IA have investigative experience, and are neutral (neither pro- nor anti-OPD)?
What other cities have experiences with this?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:43:27 +0000

Personally, I think this review board should be:

1. Privatized. We do not need more corrupt gravy trainers protecting the system.
2. Contractual with limited duration. “Term limits” if you like. We can offer excellent pay and benefits that terminate after, say, 5 years. It gets too cozy otherwise. I would say that there are about 17% of Oaklanders (currently jobless) that would agree to that. They can be rotated in over a period of 5 years, necessitating only incremental increases in funding.
3. The employees are not unionized. Ever.
4. Here’s that buzz word: transparency. There needs to be real-time *available* documentation. I realize there are privacy concerns but that can all be hashed out. We need to know what type of complaints are being made, at least.

Hats off, V. Only you could describe a detailed 8 paragraph post, with more factual information than most newspapers can muster in an entire edition, as “super bare bones”.