Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior

Due to the large geographic area under CLERB’s jurisdiction, modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community involvement and increase board diversity. City of San Diego Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) The purpose of the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices “is to review and evaluate complaints brought by members of the public against officers of the Police Department of the City of San Diego (SDPD) and to review and evaluate the administration of discipline arising from sustained complaints. The Board also reviews and evaluates officer- involved shootings, all in-custody deaths, and all police actions that result in the death of a person.”7 CRB was established in the mid-1980s after a controversial police shooting. Planned as a temporary commission, it proved successful and its existence extended. In 1988, San Diego voters approved Proposition G, which gave the City Manager authority to “create and establish a Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices to review and evaluate citizen’s complaints against police officers and the discipline arising from such complaints.”8 CRB is not incorporated into the City Charter. CRB has twenty-three appointed members and twenty-three prospective members. All members serve as non-compensated volunteers. Members are selected by an interview committee, appointed by the Mayor, and approved by the City Council to renewable one- year terms, to a maximum of eight years. As of this writing, there are no prospective members. Three-member teams review each case; the Chair and the 1st Vice Chair do not participate in review teams. Officials interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed concern over the lack of adequate diversity among current members. This concern is not limited to race, ethnicity or gender, but includes the perception that CRB members have a pro-police bias which may influence their decision making. The 2011/2012 Grand Jury report was also critical of the lack of CRB diversity. Providing CRB members with modest compensation for the 7 http://www.sandiego.gov/citizenreviewboard/about/index.xshtml 8 http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-11/local/me-662_1_police-review 5 significant time and work commitment required of members, such as a stipend, mileage reimbursement, and paid parking, could increase and diversify the pool of nominees. CRB relies exclusively on the investigations prepared by the SDPD Internal Affairs Unit (IA). CRB does not have professional independent investigators, does not have the power to subpoena witnesses, and does not independently interview witnesses or complainants. This complete reliance on the Internal Affairs Unit has generated criticism both from the public and the 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury. Staff and commission members interviewed by the Grand Jury asserted that SDPD has been responsive and forthcoming to CRB requests. They did not see the need or benefit of paid independent investigators, or the need for subpoena power. Interviewed officials expressed dissatisfaction with the legal services provided by the office of the City Attorney, which serves as legal counsel for the CRB. The City Attorney also defends the Police Department, creating a potential conflict of interest. CRB staff has fallen significantly behind in preparing annual reports as required by ordinance. These reports need to be current to improve accountability with the public. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Legal counsel is provided to the CRB by the City Attorney’s Office, which also defends SDPD.

Using the City Attorney as legal counsel to CRB while also defending SDPD represents a potential conflict of interest. Fact: Board members serve without compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

Modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community involvement and increase board diversity. Fact: Required annual reports of CRB activities have not been kept current.

Annual reports provide the public with timely information on CRB activities and increase transparency. National City Community and Police Relations Commission In October, 2003, the City Council of National City established the Community and Police Relations Commission (CPRC).9 The CPRC gives citizens a forum to voice their 9 http://www.ci.national-city.ca.us/index.aspx?recordid=3073&page=111 6 concerns about police conduct, practices, and policies, and improves communication between residents and the National City Police Department (NCPD). Complaints of alleged NCPD misconduct are reviewed by CPRC, which also recommends changes to department policies and procedures. This long-standing volunteer commission does not employ independent investigators but reviews and comments on the investigations by the NCPD Internal Affairs Unit. The commission has complete access to information gathered by the NCPD. CPRC consists of eight individuals appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Seven are voting members, of which five must be residents of National City. The non-voting member is a member of the National City Police Officers’ Association. The make-up of the current CPRC is diverse. Cities without a Community Review Board or Commission Seven San Diego county cities (listed above) have Police Departments but do not have a community review board or commission. Complaints are investigated internally. The Grand Jury distributed a written survey to the police departments in these seven cities. All stated that they have policies and procedures in place for the receipt and investigation of citizen complaints against police officers. None of them have plans to establish an oversight board or commission. One reason given for maintaining the status quo is the low number of complaints received; a second reason given is existing citizen input into complaint resolution. Chula Vista does have a Police Chief’s Advisory Commission (CAC) that includes Chula Vista citizens. The group meets quarterly to discuss subjects of concern with the Police Chief and senior staff. The department provides the CAC with complaint statistics and discusses complaint procedures. In its survey response, Chula Vista stated that the CAC, which has extensive insight into department operations and is in the best position to represent the concerns of the citizens of Chula Vista, has not advocated for or pressed for a citizens’ review board and one is not being considered at this time. This jury has received complaints from citizens in several of these cities who felt there was inadequate resolution of their grievances, suggesting the current process needs improvement. The presence of a review board gives citizens a means to seek justice in dealing with law enforcement; the absence of a citizens’ review board can seriously erode public trust in its police department. If a city decides to establish a review board, there is more than one model available, as this report shows. Extensive public participation in adopting a model appropriate for the specific needs of the community and police will help ensure the board’s effectiveness. It will also comply with California Department of Justice policy that holds local government responsible for dealing with citizen complaints. The size of these cities makes it worthwhile to consider establishing regional citizen review boards through Joint Powers Agreements. This might include one board that oversees complaints in northern San Diego County (Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad), one serving eastern San Diego County (El Cajon and La Mesa), and one serving southern cities (Coronado and Chula Vista, and possibly incorporating National City). FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Seven cities with separate police departments (El Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista and Coronado) do not have citizen oversight committees. Fact: Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential.

Cities without a citizens’ oversight board do not have public review of complaints of police behavior and risk losing the trust of their citizens. Fact: There are different models of law enforcement citizens’ review boards available to local jurisdictions. Fact: California Department of Justice policy states that local government has primary responsibility for citizen complaints against law enforcement agencies.

A review board shaped with citizen input will promote confidence in actions taken by the board.