Fixing police oversight

IN THE WAKE of the Fajitagate police scandal, three reports have identified serious problems with civilian oversight of the San Francisco Police Department. Sup. Matt Gonzalez and Tom Ammiano are both working on reform measures that could be headed for the November ballot. They need to work together to produce a comprehensive measure that can prevent the police chief and brass from blocking effective discipline of problem officers.

The Office of Citizen Complaints, which investigates misconduct charges against on-duty cops, pointed out a number of procedural problems in its April 23 report. In essence, the report stated, senior department officials don't cooperate with the OCC – and they're allowed to get away with it. Even fairly simple, routine requests – for police documents needed to investigate a case, for example – are often delayed or ignored. The City Controller's Office confirmed that and suggested the OCC be given the right to subpoena police documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union's Police Practices Project goes further, charging in a March 12 report that "the system is breaking down." The ACLU offers a six-point plan for reform, much of which makes perfect sense. But we'd go even further. Among the changes that need to be in any charter reform:

• Appointments to the Police Commission, which has been an utter failure in this latest scandal, should be split between the mayor and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and commission nominees should be required to have some experience in civil-rights law or law enforcement.

• The OCC needs to have the explicit authority to take discipline cases directly to the commission, bypassing the police chief, who often refuses to take misconduct charges seriously.

• Any time the city is forced to pay a substantial claim or settlement to someone who has sued because of abusive action by a cop, that cop should be subject to automatic disciplinary action – and if it happens three times, the cop should be fired.

• The police department should be required to cooperate with all OCC investigations, and police officers (and brass) who in any way fail to follow those rules should be subject to suspension.

• The early-warning system to catch problem cops needs to be updated and expanded. Cops who have a long record of misconduct and civil judgments against them should be ineligible for promotion to senior management or training jobs.

There's another, deeper problem with the entire police oversight and accountability system: it's all cloaked in a level of secrecy that virtually guarantees abuse and public mistrust. Much of that is the result of state legislation (the so-called Peace Officers Bill of Rights) that gives cops accused of breaking the rules or harming civilians a level of protection that no ordinary person accused of a crime ever gets. The San Francisco supervisors should be lobbying for changes to that law and should be pushing the state Assembly delegation to amend it to allow, at the very least, public review of all charges against police officers – the same way the public has a right to know of any criminal charges against civilians.

In the meantime, the supervisors should ask City Attorney Dennis Herrera to reexamine all existing laws and suggest ways to open up the review process.

The ACLU is right – a system that is considered a national model for police oversight has broken down, badly. Fixing it should be a big issue in the mayor's race and a top priority for this fall.