Both sides of the contentious discussion over the city’s Independent Police Review sat down last night to discuss its future in a foreshadowing of council discussions early next week.

L to R: City auditor Gary Blackmer, Citizens Review Committee Chair Michael Bigham, Copwatch Activist Dan Handelman, Former NW Constitutional Rights Center Executive Director Alejandro Queral.

This issue is complex. It’s not simply a case of the cops being out of control, and the city not wanting to do shit about it. Although of course, that’s how many people feel, and it feels to me like that’s the unspoken accusation lurking behind much of the criticism of IPR, and a big part of why those defending the process are so quick to accuse their critics of bias.

Sadly, the fight is a little more boring than that. It’s really about politics, and about who is willing to saddle themselves with political responsibility when things go wrong with the police bureau.

“What I see before me is a system that’s working,” said City Auditor Gary Blackmer, who is giving up control of the IPR to the mayor’s office. “And the changes being proposed by the report would create an imbalance in the system we have.”

“This is a management problem,” he continued. “It is not a political problem. I share the same goals that Mr.Handelman and Mr.Queral do, but my strategy is to focus on management. Bringing up issues and confronting police officers is not the way to do that.”

But those are political statements, and this is really a political problem, isn’t it? About who is willing to saddle themselves with responsibility for doing just that: “bringing up issues and confronting police officers,” who act out of line.

For example: When a Portland Police Officer threatens to “fucking kill” someone’s boyfriend, next time they see them, shouldn’t they be disciplined for the threat? Not just the profanity? Doesn’t disciplining them only for swearing just rip the fucking piss out of Portlanders?

Bigham, Chair of the Citizens Review Committee, made the point more forcefully than I can. He said “none of the community really understands what we do.” And he expressed regret about the committee’s inability to grapple with the really important cases affecting community trust in the police. “One of my biggest frustrations is that whenever I talk to people about what I do, they talk about James Chasse,” he said. “And I think the CRC is held at arms length from these issues and I’d like to see us get more involved with such issues. Because the system is not working.”

More on the back-and-forth (although again, no punching, sadly) after the jump.

MULTNOMAH COUNTY BUILDING: Discussion organized by the League of Women Voters...

One of the key issues to look out for next week is whether the city chooses to give the CRC more power to order independent investigations into complaints. Blackmer was keen to point out that the IPR "does participate in investigations." "We sit in on interviews, ask questions, challenge findings," he said.

Queral responded that having the IPR participating in investigations being done by the cops' internal affairs division is "not sufficient." He questioned whether the IPR has the expertise to lead an investigation, and wants to see the IPR contracting with ex police officers from other jurisdictions, to carry out the work.

Blackmer accused the activist community of hijacking the discussion. "When Eileen Luna-Firebaugh [the author of a controversial report, issued in January, saying the community can't trust the review process] defines the community...she's talking about the activist community," he said.

"This is not just the activist community raising this issue," responded Queral. "The impact of these issues is felt in poor communities and communities of color in greater numbers. The overall Portland population may feel like the Police Bureau is doing well, but I think the role activists play is to represent the communities that are affected in that way. To box this into the activist community is a little bit facetious."

Blackmer also challenged the activists to "name one city" in which police review is more transparent than it is in Portland. Handelman said "every city has got to have the program that works for them. I think that's where pointing to other cities isn't going to work. We have to ask what's going to work for Portland." Queral said "I think it's distracting to say show me a city where it works perfectly."

Blackmer pointed to a 68% reduction in complaints about officer profanity as evidence of the IPR's success. "It may sound like a minor issue, but a lot of people are offended when officers swear," he said. He also said a 40% reduction is excessive force complaints and a reduction in the number of officer-involved shootings last year were proof that the IPR is working.

Handelman responded by citing statistics obtained this week by the Mercury, showing the city's payouts in cop-related lawsuits have actually doubled since the IPR was started. Officers may not be swearing as often, but citizens appear to be more likely to call their lawyers than trust the review process...

When challenged by the audience to say where the IPR could improve, the auditor said there are issues around public outreach--IPR outreach director Laurie Stewart left earlier this year and is yet to be replaced; and that he would like to be able to contract with an independent investigator to be able to do an independent investigation of complaints as and when he needs to. He'd also like more employees so that the IPR can manage its case load better.

Queral, of the NWCRC, said it's important to discipline officers who are out of line, because that sends a message to other officers that bad behavior won't be tolerated. Blackmer conceded that discipline is an important part of the oversight process.

Thanks to the League of Women Voters for organizing the discussion. It'll be interesting to see where this goes next week.