By Gus Herrera
On Monday, April 18, the Pasadena City Council held a special joint meeting with the city’s public safety committee. The council and committee were presented with a final report recommending a form of police oversight, which city council and Mayor Tornek ultimately rejected.
This process began in October 2015 when the city issued a Request for Proposals for an analysis of police oversight models, in order to determine whether or not the city should establish civilian oversight for the Pasadena Police Department (PPD). The city subsequently entered into a $50,000 contract with the firm Change Integration Consulting to carry out the analysis.
Kathryn Olson of Change Integration Consulting and Barbara Attard prepared the report presented during the meeting, which summarized their findings. Both Olson and Attard have years of professional experience with respects to oversight. According to city staff’s report, the two “have been active in the National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, each previously serving as president.”
This analysis was not intended to be an evaluation or assessment of the police department or any specific incident, according to the report. It was important to recognize this fact because civilian oversight is typically in direct response to a police incident, which is not the case here in Pasadena. According to the report, “the focus of the project was on how oversight could improve police-community relations in Pasadena.”
The consultant’s task included three fundamental steps. Firstly, they met with stakeholders in order to identify particular issues of concern which oversight could potentially address.
Secondly, they analyzed 23 different existing police oversight models from similarly sized cities around the country, 19 of which were in California. Lastly, they were tasked with identifying an oversight model which they feel would best address the stakeholder’s concerns, based on findings from the two previous steps.
According to the consultant’s report, civilian oversight is, “an evolving governmental function designed to provide the community with a means to influence police practices and help ensure that law enforcement is conducted in a manner that is constitutional, effective, and responsive to the standards, values, and needs of those served.” Oversight models throughout the US are all distinct, each structured differently, tailored to their specific circumstances.
Meetings were held with: the general community; the Northwest Commission; the Coalition for Civilian Oversight of Pasadena Police; the mayor and members of the city council; former City Manager Michael Beck; Pasadena Police Chief Phillip Sanchez and members of his command; the Pasadena Police Officer Association; and the Pasadena Sergeants Association. Additionally, consultants received several public comments and complaints via email and a web portal.
From this outreach it became clear that there was a large sense of support for the PPD, yet there still existed a rift between portions of the population, “Community members of color … often reported feeling under siege in their neighborhoods and alienated from the PPD, and strongly recommended independent oversight. In distinct contrast, those from other areas of the city for the most part stated unwaveringly that Pasadena did not have issues with policing …” according to the report. Themes in support of the PPD spoke highly of Chief Sanchez and argued that there is already sufficient oversight from the public safety committee. On the other side of the spectrum, those in favor of oversight, predominantly Hispanics and African Americans, brought forth story after story detailing examples of police misconduct.
Ultimately, the consultants recommended a twofold civilian oversight model, incorporating an independent police auditor and police accountability commission, similar to the approach taken by the City of Anaheim, which has seen recent success in responding to critical incidents. According the report, the auditor would provide extensive expertise in, “examining public safety practices,” and the committee, made up of a board of citizens, would help by acting as a liaison between the police and the community, hopefully resulting in a newfound respect and channel of communication between the two. The consultants felt that these two aspects would create a balance, providing both the expertise and community mechanisms necessary to hold the police responsible for their actions. Furthermore, they believed that this twofold approach would satisfy the public outcry which boiled down to two main themes: community involvement and the need for a professional independent authority.
After hearing the lengthy public comments, which carried Monday’s meeting well into early Tuesday morning, the council deliberated amongst themselves and decided not to proceed with the consultant’s recommendations. Council was hesitant to allocate resources towards an issue which still harbors such great divide amongst the population. Moreover, the report did not provide any tangible sense of how much fiscal support the proposed oversight model would require. In the end, there were just too many questions, so the issue will return to the public safety committee for further exploration.
For more details, visit: http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2016%20Agendas/Apr_18_16/PSC%20Special%20Agenda.asp.
