Commissioner Randy Leonard has slammed a report on the Independent Police Review, trying to shift responsibility for the review’s problems back to Potter, in an email sent to the mayor, and all elected officials, this afternoon.
IPR: Trust issues…

Essentially formalizing concerns Leonard voiced to the Mercury on January 31, the letter appears to suggest bias on the part of the independent consultant who conducted the report:

From: Leonard, Randy
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 4:18 PM
To: Potter, Mayor; City Elected Officials
Cc: City Elected Officials Exec’s; Raglione, Austin; Rubio, Maria; Doussard, John; Rhodes, Jessi; Kovatch, Ty; Petrocine, Sara; Blackmer, Gary
Subject: RE: Independent Police Review (IPR) Performance Report

Thank you for this memo, Tom.

I will not be in attendance at the February 28th meeting so I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on the IPR Performance Report along with some of my own recommendations.

Early on in the analysis being prepared by Professor Luna-Firebaugh, Auditor Blackmer met with me to discuss some concerns he had with the methodology being employed by Professor Luna-Firebaugh in developing her analysis. Auditor Blackmer also shared with me his concerns that Professor Luna-Firebaugh was restricting her community input to those who are critical of IPR while minimizing contact with those who may have a different perspective. As an example, he told me that while Professor Luna-Firebaugh met in person with various community groups for discussions relative to IPR she only conducted a five minute interview via the telephone with Portland Police Association President, Robert King.

Given those concerns, my office tried to set up a meeting with Professor Luna-Firebaugh, Auditor Blackmer and myself.

Professor Luna-Firebaugh refused to meet with me if Auditor Blackmer was present.

I went ahead and met with Professor Luna-Firebaugh. During our meeting I expressed disappointment that she would not meet with me if Auditor Blackmer was present. I explained that having them both in the room discussing their different perspectives may have allowed us to resolve any misunderstandings that may have existed between her and Auditor Blackmer.

She responded that Auditor Blackmer was not her boss, as she was under contract. I explained that my goal was to clear the air between them so that we could all move forward and focus on the work. As quoted in notes taken at the meeting, Professor Luna-Firebaugh told me that she had to draw the line somewhere as to who she would meet with and that if she had agreed to my wanting Auditor Blackmer present, she would be obligated to meet with all of the other Commissioner’s Offices with Auditor Blackmer present. She said it would be a waste of her time when she preferred to focus on policy.

I really did not know how to respond to that.

That experience has caused me to question Professor Luna-Firebaugh’s ability to employ objective analytical skills. Thus, I have serious reservations about the quality of her report.

Her recommendations notwithstanding, I do want to share with you my thoughts on how we might address the community dissatisfaction she identifies.

It is my view that as the elected official in charge of the police bureau, you and your office are the public’s ultimate advocate for making sure the police bureau interacts responsibly with all members of our community. I also believe the IPR is a valuable forum within which you and your office can manage complaints that inevitably arise given the nature of police work and the occasional misbehavior that occurs on the part of some police officers. Auditor Blackmer has responsibility for complaints but does not hold the authority that the Mayor’s Office does to order the police bureau to cooperate to resolve those complaints.

I appreciate and agree with each of the five recommendations you have made to Auditor Blackmer in your memo. However, I am not convinced that the Auditor is the only office that could oversee the operations of IPR. It is my view that IPR should be transferred to your office so that your recommendations can be fully implemented and the IPR Director would report to you.

I am not sure what caused the IPR to be transferred from the Mayor’s office to the Auditor’s office originally, however, I think it was a well intended move that really does not make a lot of sense.

As the elected Mayor of Portland and the commissioner in charge of the police bureau, it makes a lot of sense to me that you should have all of the forums and tools under your direction that allows you to manage the police bureau in the best way possible, but also gives you complete responsibility for overseeing complaints that arise from interactions the police bureau has with the public.

Thus, each of the recommendations you are supporting would be, if you agree with the transfer of IPR as I am recommending, a directive from you to the IPR director. Additionally, a staff person from your office should attend each of the IPR meetings to ensure that if something is not followed up on by the IPR committee, your office will make certain the issue is followed up on to the satisfaction of the complaining party.

I believe that this transfer should be a topic of further discussion that the council has after we consider the report from Professor Luna-Firebaugh. I am requesting that we schedule a subsequent council informal work session where we can discuss my proposal in more depth along with having the public share with us their insight into the council making such a change.

Thank you for considering my recommendation.

You can read Potter’s memo to the commissioners, which Leonard is responding to, after the jump. It suggests which recommendations council should adopt.

From: Potter, Mayor To: City Elected Officials Cc: City Elected Officials Exec's; Raglione, Austin; Rubio, Maria; Doussard, John; Rhodes, Jessi Sent: 2/11/2008 4:08 PM Subject: Independent Police Review (IPR) Performance Report Office of Mayor Tom Potter City of Portland

MEMORANDUM
February 11, 2008
TO: Commissioner Sam Adams
Commissioner Randy Leonard
Commissioner Dan Saltzman
Commissioner Erik Sten
Auditor Gary Blackmer

FROM: Mayor Tom Potter

RE: Independent Police Review (IPR) Performance Report

I am pleased that the performance evaluation of the Independent Police
Review (IPR) Division is complete. I know the entire Council places a
great value on independent police oversight, which is why this
evaluation was originally requested by the Adams-Sten budget team in the
FY2005-06 budget. This evaluation affords the Council an opportunity to
assess how IPR is meeting the needs of both the Portland Police Bureau
and the community it serves.

I especially would like to thank Auditor Gary Blackmer for his
dedication and hard work in overseeing IPR's work, and his passion for
improving the delivery of city services to all Portlanders. As the
report notes, no model of police oversight is perfect, but Portland has
much to be proud of in the important work IPR has already accomplished.

As Police Commissioner, I am satisfied that this
evaluation was conducted in a thorough and objective manner, and have
reserved a time certain for 2 p.m., Feb. 28, 2008 for a presentation to
the Council by the evaluator, Professor Eileen Luna-Firebaugh. As you
know, Professor Luna-Firebaugh is the co-author of the
nationally-recognized City of Albuquerque Oversight report (with police
accountability expert Professor Sam Walker, who assisted the City of
Portland in the original design of the IPR). Her methodology was
reviewed by the past President of the National Association of Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) and Dave Fidanque, Executive
Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, who stated her
approach is "expansive and comprehensive."

Below are recommendations (condensed) from the Executive Summary that I
believe give the Council an excellent starting point for our review of
IPR. I suggest these recommendations show that we have a good model
that is meeting the policy needs of the Police Bureau, and that IPR has
made major improvements in the investigation process and in
organizational change.

However, they also indicate specific areas for the Council to consider
for improvement:

*The Citizens Review Committee, our community's most direct voice
in police oversight, should have its authority to hear citizen's appeals
reinstated;

*The CRC should request IPR conduct investigations independent of
the Police Bureau where appropriate;

*The division's transparency should be increased by requiring
annual reports and an annual update to the Council by its Director; and

* IPR's services should be as widely known and understood as
possible by the community, with the division providing more public
outreach, education and culturally-specific assistance to achieve that
end.

Some of these recommendations will require additional resources for the
Auditor's budget, and I believe the Council must commit to providing the
resources to implement them. I believe others, such as calculating
sustained rates, are best addressed by the Auditor and his staff, who
have the expertise to further those discussions.

Here are recommendations from Professor Luna-Firebaugh I believe the
Council should give its closest attention:

*The Citizens Review Board should utilize its authority to hear
Appeals. We recommend that the CRC be granted direct authority to hear
requests for appeals, rather than requiring approval by the IPR
Director... We further recommend that the CRC determine in open session
whether such an appeal is appropriate.

*The CRC assertively identify issues, conduct studies and make
recommendations regarding the policies of the PPB. The Board should be
given the authority to direct the activities of (a) staff person in
regard to policy review and Appeals.

*The IPR Director and staff become more active participants in
complaint investigations. The Office of Independent Police Review
should exercise their authority under the Ordinance to conduct
independent investigations where the complaint is one of public import ...
the CRC be given the authority to direct the IPR Director to conduct an
independent investigation where the CRC believes not enough
investigation was conducted ...

*The IPR and CRC immediately develop and undertake an outreach
program to publicize the complaint process. ..."Know your rights" cards
and complaint forms be distributed to community organizations; that a
'user-friendly' poster explaining the IPR process be developed and
posted in Police Precinct reception areas and in community organization
offices; and that a speakers bureau be developed by the CRC to make
presentations and hold discussions in the community.

*Student organizations and law school legal clinics be encouraged
to host presentations by CRC members and IPR Staff and that students be
solicited to assist complainants in the writing and filing of the
complaints.

I look forward to working together to meet the expectations of our
community for this vital service.