portlandpolicebureau72016.jpg

City officials are considering adding more citizen members to review complaints of alleged police misconduct as part of the Police Review Board, and discontinue appeal hearings before the Citizen Review Committee. People who file complaints against police would have the chance to address the Police Review Board and recommend discipline to the chief, but the board hearings would remain closed to the public. (Maxine Bernstein|Staff)

Oversight of Portland's police force would change dramatically under a proposal being considered by city officials that hasn't been vetted publicly.

The biggest change would strip the 11-member Citizen Review Committee of its ability to hear public appeals of the Portland Police Bureau's findings stemming from complaints of alleged officer misconduct.

Instead, residents who file police complaints with the city could challenge a police supervisor's findings and make their concerns heard at the front end, before a Police Review Board. The board recommends to the police chief whether to sustain a complaint and, if so, suggests the level of discipline that should be imposed.

The Police Review Board, which ranges from five to 7 voting members and includes an assistant chief, peer officer, the officer's commander or captain, the Independent Police Review Division director and a citizen member, now meets behind closed doors at the Police Bureau. It would add more citizens as voting members and likely continue to meet out of the public eye.

"Council asked the Police Bureau and the Auditor's Office to draft a plan for a consolidated model that keeps the best of the Citizen Review Committee and the Police Review Board,'' City Auditor Mary Hull Caballero wrote to committee members this month.

The idea took form after seven meetings over a four-month period by staff in the mayor's office, the city attorney's office and selected community members. The meetings of this so-called focus group were held in response to the U.S. Department of Justice's finding in May 2015 that the city needed to improve its police accountability system, or it would be out of compliance with a settlement agreement reached in court.

The proposal hasn't been discussed publicly, and any changes would require City Council approval as well as potential city code charter changes.

But city officials, including the city auditor, are pushing for changes to be adopted quickly, noting that the U.S. Department of Justice is scheduled to provide a written progress report on the city's police-related reforms in September. In October, all parties to the settlement agreement are set to appear before U.S. District Judge Michael Simon for an annual status conference.

The city's effort comes as another committee, which has met publicly, also is recommending substantial changes. The Community Oversight Advisory Board's accountability subcommittee wants the city's Independent Police Review Division to conduct all investigations into police use of force, removing that work from the Police Bureau's internal affairs division. This committee also is advising that the city hire a police auditor, who will regularly analyze and report on police stops, use of force, arrests and other public safety data.

There's little dispute that the current police oversight system isn't working. Federal justice officials described it as byzantine and difficult to understand.

"The process as it exists, all be it well-intentioned, is not being fair to officers and unquestionably not being fair to citizens,'' said James Young, who was one of two community members who participated in the focus group and who serves on the Citizen Review Committee.

Some focus group members expressed dismay that the city would lose the "community piece'' of the meeting, and that holding all the citizen complaint hearings before a Police Review Board would eliminate what's been a "relatively open process,'' according to meeting minutes.

Young said he advocated for a revamped Police Review Board to meet in public, "to the extent that the law allows.''

Officers and community members who have sat on the Police Review Board have praised how the results of an investigation are presented, how officers whose actions are under review are allowed to provide input, and appreciate the training division's analysis of the incident.

"The problem is the public never gets to see it. How do we take that very good approach and craft it so there could be meaningful public involvement? That issue needs further development,'' Young said.

The model city officials are pursuing, however, would keep those Police Review Board meetings closed to the public. Yet the city auditor has argued for greater transparency, possibly through more frequent reports on action the board takes. The board currently issues reports twice a year, but they're difficult to understand, leaving out specifics of each case and officers' names.

"There could be some immediate reporting out of what occurred as close to the hearing as possible,'' the auditor said.

Hull Caballero also suggests that the number of community members on the board be increased, and that their votes outnumber those of police officers on the board, "given that the Chief makes the ultimate decisions about discipline.'' She wants to find some way for board members to report concerns that might arise about the integrity of the process, as long as it doesn't compromise an employee's right to confidentiality.

"As the City Auditor, my goals for the new entity are that it strikes a balance between confidentiality and transparency,'' the auditor wrote in a July memo.

"The system has to work for officers and the public,'' Hull Caballero added. "There's no perfect solution.''

Under the proposed model, members of the Citizen Review Committee would have the opportunity to sit on the Police Review Board. But as a committee, its members would no longer hold public hearings for citizen appeals of police findings on misconduct complaints. The committee, though, would continue to discuss and recommend police policy changes.

Those who participated in the focus group meetings include Mark Amberg, deputy city attorney; Constantin Severe, director of the city's Independent Police Review Division; Deanna Wesson-Mitchell, the mayor's public safety policy liaison; Police Capt. Derek Rodrigues, then- head of internal affairs; Internal Affairs Lt. Erica Hurley; Officer William Ollenbrook; Young and the Rev. T. Allen Bethel, board member of the Albina Ministerial Alliance.

Though city officials appear to be pursuing an expanded Police Review Board model, the focus group that met with the mayor's staff came to agreement on some matters but really didn't propose a specific plan to pursue, Young said.

They did agree on some general changes: All citizen complaints should be investigated. Some low-level allegations that would not necessarily draw discipline should be funneled to a police supervisor for investigation, such as complaints about officers' rudeness or lack of courtesy. Findings on allegations of misconduct should be limited to either substantiated or unsubstantiated, or founded or unfounded complaint, according to written minutes of the group's meetings.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian