Here's the link to the PCW full 7-page analysis:
 http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/copwatch_analysis_doj_1012.html
and the DOJ 85 page Agreement that Council will be voting on:
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=50265&a=418205
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:12:35
From: Portland Copwatch < copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org>
Subject: ANALYSIS: Portland Copwatch Says DOJ/City Agreement
"A Plastic Mallet to Hammer in a Problem Nail"
Portland Copwatch
(a project of Peace and Justice Works)
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065 (office)
(503) 321-5120 (incident report line)
copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 31, 2012
PORTLAND COPWATCH SAYS US DOJ/CITY OF PORTLAND AGREEMENT
"A PLASTIC MALLET TO HAMMER IN A PROBLEM NAIL"
Today, Portland Copwatch released an analysis of the US Department of Justice
(DOJ) Agreement with the City of Portland regarding changes to the Portland
Police Bureau (PPB), saying the Agreement doesn't go far enough and calling it
a "plastic mallet to hammer in a problem nail." The accountability group listed
a number of potentially useful aspects of the agreement, but overall noted that
the Agreement does not go far enough and/or is ambiguous enough for the City to
avoid fulfilling the intent of the proposals, which is to alleviate the pattern
and practice of PPB excessive use of force. The analysis supplements comments
released by Portland Copwatch (PCW) on October 28.
Among the positives, PCW notes the Agreement:
--calls for police to de-escalate their use of violence as the resistance from
the subject(s) decreases (paragraph 67-c);
--subjects officers who are found in civil court to have violated someone's
rights to an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation, presuming they are guilty of
misconduct unless the evidence shows they are not (paragraph 132-iii);
--requires Supervisors to be trained to conduct annual performance reviews on
officers (paragraph 85-b-ii); and
--bans officers from using offensive epithets (including "mentals"), a
prohibition that extends to internal communication (paragraph 85-a-v).
Among the concerns, PCW highlights that the Agreement:
--doesn't call for terminating officers for egregious rights violations
(paragraph 136) and even suggests that some excessive force will not result in
discipline (paragraph 67-d);
--does not order the City to change provisions of existing collective
bargaining contracts which are inhibiting effective investigations and
disciplinary action;
--guts the existing Community/Police Relations Committee (CPRC) of the Human
Rights Commission, which is creating a program to educate officers on
institutional racism, to create an oversight body specific to the Agreement;
--creates the new position of Compliance Officer/Community Liaison
(COCL--paragraph 158), but does not give that office power before the federal
court when recommending changes to the Agreement (paragraph 162);
--retains and expands loopholes for excessive Taser use while creating a few
new restrictions (paragraph 68);
--isn't explicit enough about compelling the PPB to provide immediate medical
treatment to suspects;
--prohibits officers with sustained complaints (about use of force or
mistreatment of people with mental illnesses) from serving on the Crisis
Intervention Teams (paragraph 100) or Training Division (paragraph 84), even
though very few such complaints are ever sustained;
--is vague about how to compel officers to testify about deadly force incidents
(paragraph 123) and whether the Independent Police Review Division (IPR) will
be given power to do so (paragraph 127);
--endorses the new PPB policy sending Supervisors head to the scene of uses of
force but doesn't acknowledge those supervisors are mostly Sergeants in the
same collective bargaining unit as the line officers;
--calls for automatic investigation of all use of force complaints unless the
IPR says not to (paragraph 128), but doesn't say whether the complainant can
appeal that decision or compel investigations for lower-level complaints;
--doesn't solve a problem raised in the DOJ's findings letter where the Citizen
Review Committee (CRC) can request but not compel more investigation on a case,
nor address what happens if the Police Review Board (PRB) is refused a similar
request (paragraph 131);
--keeps the PRB meetings closed to the public and the person involved in the
incident being reviewed for possible misconduct, further frustrating attempts
to integrate and make transparent the City's oversight system;
--prohibits appeals to the CRC by people who survive police shootings or the
survivors of a death in custody victim;
--creates optimistic but unrealistic timelines to finish misconduct
investigations including appeals to CRC (paragraph 120);
--enshrines a controversial program that provides addiction treatment only to
people who have been arrested multiple times and has disproportionately
affected African Americans (paragraph 111); and
--jettisons all mentions of race relations that were in the findings letter,
including recommendations to build trust such as tracking all citizen contacts
(DOJ recommendation #9) and creating a policy explaining when it is ok for
officers to move from "mere conversation" to a stop.
Portland Copwatch concludes the analysis stating that its members would not
serve on the community board to oversee the Agreement because of its flaws.
"There are too many people who have suffered too long to see yet another chance
for real change be squandered by compromise," says PCW, repeating concerns that
if these weak changes are locked in place by a court order lasting five years,
the community will unfairly suffer.
The analysis was sent to the Department of Justice and City Council. The full
7-page analysis is on line as a PDF
< http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/copwatch_analysis_doj_1012.pdf > and as a text
document < http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/copwatch_analysis_doj_1012.html >.
|
homepage: 
screenshot picture from city video