The City Auditor needs to make changes to stop widespread public mistrust of the Independent Police Review process, according to an independent consultant’s report released today.

“There is widespread community dissatisfaction with the Independent Police Review system,” according to the report. “There is a lack of trust that complaints about police misconduct are being seriously addressed.”

“The general conclusion of the consultants is that the system of civilian oversight, as manifested by the IPR and Citizens’ Review Committee (CRC) does not have the confidence of the community,” the report continues. “The question is why.”

It then goes on, directly, to talk about Portland’s choice of an “Auditor Model” of civilian oversight of police. “In this model, there is one person who, depending on their individual ability and characteristics, seeks to address police policy issues and the enhancement of accountability in a systemic way.”

That one person is Gary Blackmer. The report implies that the IPR and CRC have not been aggressive enough under his direction, and goes on to slam Blackmer’s IPR director, Leslie Stevens, for failing to utilize her authority to conduct independent investigations of complaints against individual officers—IPR is yet to do so, after six years—and instead rely on officers from the police bureau’s internal affairs division (IAD):

The IPR Director has the statutory authority to closely monitor IAD and conduct independent investigations in certain circumstances set forth in the ordinance. However, a number of IAD investigations contain admitted acts of misconduct and/or failures to adhere to PPB policies or procedures, and the officer has not been held accountable. Further, the IPR Director has not utilized her authority to conduct independent investigations, even though conditions exist whereby such authority could be used. The result is that little has been done to increase the sustain rate for complaints against the PPB.

The report makes several recommendations for improving the system, including the more aggressive appointment of independent investigators “where the complaint is one of public import.” It recommends empowering the CRC to force the IPR director to order that, too.

The report also recommends granting more authority to the CRC to decide when to hear complainants’ appeals—that authority was taken over from the CRC by Stevens in 2005. It also recommends that the CRC be more aggressive in taking on Portland Police Bureau Policies, and that a staff person be appointed on the IPR under the CRC’s direction. The report points out, for example, that the CRC has only made three changes to PPB policy in six years, on Towing of Vehicles, Detox and Profanity. It’s just not using its teeth.

Police oversight activists will meet with City Council to discuss how to make some of the recommended changes before the author of the report, Eileen Luna-Firebaugh, presents it to council at the end of February.

“Whatever new system we have has to transcend individual personalities,” says Copwatch activist Dan Handelman. “It has to serve the people of Portland who feel they’ve been mistreated by police.”

Blackmer and Stevens are yet to return a call for comment. Let’s hope we hear from them by next Tuesday’s press deadline at 5pm. Although according to the Tribune, Stevens is in the process of applying for another job—leaving reforming the department to a potential successor. Let’s hope it’s somebody competent.