Secrecy wins, 4-3

By Tim Redmond

Late last night, after all the debate about surveillance cameras was over, the San Francisco Police Commission narrowly voted down a plan that would have made a strong statement against secrecy in police discipline.

The vote was 4-3,. with the usual pro-cop suspects, Louse Renne, Joe Marshall and Yvonne Lee joined by the swing vote, Joe Alioto Veronese. He should have voted the other way.

Here's what happened: After the state Supreme Court came out with its atrocious ruling in a case called Copley, essentially enshrining all cop discipline cases in a veil of secrecy, Commissioner David Campos proposed an intriguing idea: A lot of disciplinary cases are settled before a formal trial. That's usually to the benefit of the cop, who can accept a lower penalty in exchange for, in effect, pleading guilty. Campos suggested that the commission simply state, as a matter of policy, that no cases would be settled unless the officer involved agreed to waive his right to confidentiality and let the public know about the charges and the outcome.
That would simply continue the way things have been done for the pas 14 years, prior to this horrible court decision.
When the idea first came up, Alioto Veronese supported it, but over the past few weeks, he's backed away. And last night, with a bit of a convoluted explanation, he cast the deciding vote to shoot down the Campos proposal. Not good.

By the way, the meeting ended with Campos and Commissioner Theresa Sparks demanding that Chief Heather Fong explain her rather bizarre statements on police foot patrols.The chief had initially argued that foot patrols would never work, because the department didn't have enough staff. Then she presented her her own foot-patrol plan. Then she was quoted in a TV interview as appearing to say that if the supervisors passed the law, she'd ignore it anyway.

What, exactly, was the chief's position, and how did it change so radically from one day to the next? Fong ducked beautifully. But the commissioners promised to bring the issue back.

Comments (1)

josephv

Tim,
Thank you for your article (Secrecy wins, 4-3). Commisioner Campos' resolution was theoretically a good idea, but in practice it was both illegal (unconstitutional) and impractical. I supported it initially becuase I believed that it was worth saving and worth working out the imperfections. My oppinion on this has not changed. I disagree with your assertion that the Campos resolution "would simply continue the way things have been done for the past 14 years, prior to this horrible court decision." None of the commissioners believed that business as usual would continue given copely. The legal challenge was threatened and a successful defense was improbable given the Copely decision.
I respect Commissioner Campos and his intentions. My experience on the commission (as well as the express assertions from teh officers) tells me that the police officers will assert thier constitutional rights (as they have the right to) and the commision would be stuck holding the perverbial bag. That is not progress and it's not effective government. This great City, the police officers, and the media should expect effective government from its civic leaders.
Instead of the Capos Resolution, I proposed a resolution that was defensable, while performing the important task of informing the public of our disciplinary findings or settlements. Most importantly, I hope that you go back and take a look at the meeting and replay the final vote regarding the Campos resolution. In addition to my resolution, you will notice that I worked closely with Commissioner Sparks to modify the Campos resolution to maximize our defense while making the settlements public, with the exception of standard cases where the penalty falls under 45 days. (It is important to note that almost every case before the commission that has been settled for less than 45 days was for off duty conduct such as drinking and driving a private vehicle.) If you notice from the public comment, both the ACLU and the media attorney (chronicle) supported the Sparks/Veronese ammendment. In practice, it would have been almost identicle to the Campos resolution with greater legal defense success. It would have passed had it received the votes of Commissioner Campos and Dejesus. The result was that no resolution passed and public disclosure took a temporary setback. Notwithstanding, I am committed to finding ways to better inform our public and will continue to seek out suuport to a compromise. I thank you for your letter and I appreciate and invite your criticsm of my performance.
Joe Alioto Veronese
SFPD Commissioner

Posted by josephv | November 28, 2006 10:43 PM

Comments (1)

Post a comment