Abuse of public process

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 9, 2007 - 4:19pm.


Q: When is a public hearing not a public hearing?


A: When the report which is the focus of the public hearing is released one hour prior to the public hearing


********************

Update 1/10/07, 10 p.m. - Hearing postponed until 1/24/07. Report (pdf) now here
********************

When I read the following, taken from a Portland Copwatch e-mail to members of the City Council, I literally could not believe it.

"The Council is set to adopt the second follow-up report on police shootings and deaths in custody on Wednesday at 10:30 AM. After checking with the Auditor, Independent Police Review Division (IPR) staff, and several members of the Citizen Review Committee (CRC) we discovered that the report itself will not be released until 9:30 AM Wednesday, one hour before Council is being asked to adopt it. Obviously, this is not enough time for anyone to be expected to make intelligent and thoughtful comments on this very important issue.

Furthermore, it became clear that not even the members of the CRC, who are expected to be the community eyes and ears for these reports (3.21.070 [J]--"The [IPR] Director and the Citizen Review Committee shall address any policy-related or quality of investigation issues that would warrant further review"), were alerted to the imminent release of the report.

We are asking you to please set another date for the Council to have a full briefing of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) report, whether that means delaying the acceptance of the report or simply setting a date at the Council meeting on Wednesday.

This follow-up report is particularly important to many people in the community because it includes a review of the shooting death of Kendra James in May, 2003. It also will review the case of Eddie Homsombath, who was shot by one of the same officers who shot Jose Santos Mejia Poot in 2001."

So I called the Auditor's Office, and indeed that is the plan. Release the report at 9:30 a.m., ask the Council to accept it after a Public Hearing at 10:30 a.m. "So what is the purpose of having a public hearing, if the public won't have had time to read the report?" I asked. "Good question!" was the reply from the person answering the phone at the Auditor's Office. "We'll post the report on line, and citizens can submit comments in writing."

Do or not do. There is no try. Public hearing or no public hearing. There should be no place for token public hearings in Portland, especially on something as important as this.

»

When I skipped this item on

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 9, 2007 - 4:27pm.
When I skipped this item on my Council agenda preview on Friday, I made the assumption the report had already been released. I figured we would have heard if it was controversial. I never thought that the report would be published the day of the public hearing. And when I called the Auditor's office just now, I expected to hear some rational explanation for the timing. I will still be glad to hear one, if anyone would like to post it in the comments. Sigh.
»

"Public process" indeed. I

Submitted by Matt Davis on January 9, 2007 - 6:54pm.
"Public process" indeed. I got the press release an hour ago—would have been out of the office if this weren't our press day. This is indeed too short notice on such an important issue.
»

Late this afternoon I

Submitted by Randy Leonard on January 9, 2007 - 8:49pm.
Late this afternoon I communicated my concern to the Mayor's office that this report should not be on the agenda until the public has a chance to review it. In a nearly immediate reply, the Mayor's office communicated back to me that the Mayor agreed.
»

Thank you, Randy.

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 9, 2007 - 9:38pm.
Thank you, Randy.
»

You tell 'em, Amanda. There

Submitted by bojack on January 10, 2007 - 9:05am.
You tell 'em, Amanda. There was an interesting moment in my brief jury duty service this week in which three different members of the prospective jury panel expressed out loud their view that members of the Portland police force were mean, regularly brutalized people, and couldn't be trusted. That was sad. The now-aborted attempt to ram this report through (score one for the bloggers) is consistent with an unfortunate culture, in the force and elsewhere in city government, that the current council does not appear interested in even acknowledging, much less changing. It's a real disappointment.
»

I don't know that this

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 10, 2007 - 9:44am.
I don't know that this incident can be attributed to the police or the Council, Jack. It's the Auditor's report, with the timing chosen by his office. The fact that Randy contacted the Mayor, who agreed with concern over the timing, is good. The fact that it took Copwatch to point out the abysmal public process, is not. I agree the comments you report from the jury panel are sad. The vast majority of Portland police officers are not mean, brutal, or untrustworthy. I'm encouraged by police union president Robert King's agreement to participate in discussions on racial profiling*. I'd like to see funding restored/increased for community policing and training. And I'd especially like to see the independent audit of the functioning of the Independent Police Review Board completed, funded in a past budget but never done. * First reported on Blogtown - link added 1:57 p.m.
»

The auditor wasn't pleased:

Submitted by Matt Davis on January 10, 2007 - 5:46pm.
The auditor wasn't pleased: http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2007/01/council_delays_cop_shooting_hearing_by_two_weeks_to_stop_it_being_snuck_through_.php Both he and the IPR seemed adamant they had done nothing wrong. There was an implication that by delaying the release for two weeks, they were responding to the irrational concerns of a few activists. But I don't think that's really how it was.
»

Expecting the Auditor's

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 10, 2007 - 10:05pm.
Expecting the Auditor's office to release a report for public review, prior to holding a public hearing on whether the Council should accept the report, is neither irrational nor something only of concern to a few people. The topic of the report isn't the issue. Although on sensitive subjects, it is especially important to follow good process, and allow people time to think before reacting to a report.
»
Home » Blogs » Amanda Fritz's blog