Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Lane Morgan and Charles Davis some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

SPD watchdog faults misconduct appeals system

The Office of Professional Accountability auditor proposes improvements for a disciplinary appeals system that has recently come under fire.
Jim Pugel, the interim chief of police of the Seattle Police Department,  meets with the media following a shooting that involved a King County Metro Bus driver on Aug. 12.

Jim Pugel, the interim chief of police of the Seattle Police Department, meets with the media following a shooting that involved a King County Metro Bus driver on Aug. 12. John Stang

The city's handling of a recent police department disciplinary decision threatens to damage public trust and create the impression that politics is influencing decisions about officer misconduct. That's one of the findings in a review issued Friday by a Seattle Police Department watchdog.

The review was conducted by retired judge Anne Levinson, who is the civilian auditor for the Office of Profssional Accountability. Her report found problems with a system that police officers and their unions can use to appeal disciplinary decisions in misconduct cases. The system has been criticized for lacking transparency and documentation. It was at the center of an uproar that began in mid-February when interim-Chief of Police Harry C. Bailey signed “settlement agreements” that reversed misconduct findings in seven cases.

The key case involved officer John Marion, who threatened to harass local newspaper journalist Dominic Holden. A settlement Bailey signed for Marion would have rescinded the officer’s one-day suspension and removed any record of misconduct from his personnel file. But after taking public heat for the decision, Bailey reversed the settlement and reinstated the original discipline. Bailey let the other six misconduct reversals stand.

In her review, Levinson said creating the impression that decisions about misconduct cases could be influenced by factors like media attention has the potential to not only erode public trust, but also could cause department employees to question whether the disciplinary system is fair.

Levinson’s report outlines a number of recommendations for improving the disciplinary appeals process that leads to settlement agreements. Among her suggestions: Creating an enforceable timeline for appeals (some of which remain unresolved for years), opening any hearings for disciplinary cases to the public and maintaining better records.

On the issue of recordkeeping, Levnison notes that the department does not enter information about disciplinary appeals into any kind of computer database.

Documentation for the appeals, she said, is “inconsistent, varies from person to person and from case to case, and is often incomplete, without even the basic information included in case files.”

Levinson also recommends routing all appeals to the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.

Officers and their unions can currently appeal cases to either the commission or the city's Disciplinary Review Board. The commission is required under state law and was formed by a city ordinance. The board was created by the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild. Both the commission and the board have three voting members. Under the terms of the bargaining agreement, two of the Disciplinary Review Board members must be police department employees.

The city ordinance that created the Public Safety Civil Service Commission says that appointed fire and police department employees must elect one of its members. Levinson recommends changing that rule and installing people with the "necessary expertise" on the panel, including a chairperson who is a city hearing examiner. The examiners conduct impartial administrative hearings for the city.

“Having active members of the Police Department hear disciplinary appeals," she said, "creates a real [sic], and the perception of a conflict of interest and does not reflect the values of fairness and public trust underlying the City’s police accountability system.” 

Levinson also proposes changing the municipal code so that it clearly requires the police department to report changed misconduct findings to the City Council and The Mayor.

The review included a footnoted statement from former interim-Chief of Police Jim Pugel. In the statement, Pugel said that he instructed department officials to decline a union request last year to change misconduct findings in six cases that were later settled by the agreements Bailey signed.

Bailey, Mayor Ed Murray and Bernard Melekian, a consultant who advises the mayor on police issues, have all suggested that Pugel bears responsiblity for those six settlement agreements. Bailey told Crosscut earlier this week that he “signed off” on the cases, and that they were “previously endorsed by my predecessor and city attorneys.”


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Apr 7, 4:53 p.m. Inappropriate

DoD study on random polygraphs for personnel. http://t.co/Tr7uafTd

"the polygraph is the single most effective tool for finding information people were trying to hide." - DIA, NSA.

CBP could require current employees to undergo polygraphs. http://t.co/MpPsmq2p

Make policy that polygraphs for all new hires expire every 2-5yrs. http://shar.es/epfm2

Random drug, lie detector tests for Police Officers in Spain. http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Random-drug-lie-detector-tests-221734651.

LAPD body video cameras. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-dodgers-lapd-20131002,0,4237783.story

The honest, brave officers with integrity deserve better.

And so does the public.

Wherever you are in the World, in your own jurisdictions, in your own capacity, you can do something, anything, just one thing. And make a difference.

Break the code. Break the culture.

donalds

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »