A month after a sour-grapes complaint to cops accusing the city's Independent Police Review of incompetence in how it's handled independent investigations—a new right enshrined in city code this year and sought by the federal Department of Justice—the president of the city's rank-and-file police union is still pretty steamed about the way things turned out.
How do I know? This month, he's doubled down on his complaints, accusing IPR investigators of breaking the very rules designed to give them the power to do investigations.
In a memo to Portland Police Association members, Officer Daryl Turner is exhorting cops to let him know if IPR investigators come calling—saying the investigators have been directly contacting cops without first running through internal affairs and taking other steps laid out in the city's contract with the PPA and the code change that gives form to the IPR's work.
"It's unacceptable for IPR to have 'off-the-cuff' email requests and other direct communications with PPA members," Turner wrote.
The fresh complaints come, ironically, the same day that a former PPA member, Sergeant Kristy Galvan, won a $50,000 legal settlement from the city in a retaliation case that resulted in discipline only because the IPR investigated it. If IPR hadn't stepped in, according to a report detailed by the Mercury, bureau officials and city attorneys would have let her claims about Captain Mark Kruger drop. (Kruger, in his own settlement, managed to get that discipline wiped away from his police file.)
Turner was supposed to appear at the July 2 meeting of the Citizen Review Committee to address his concerns about IPR's probes. But the CRC pulled the plug after it was decided that the cases he was complaining about were still open and couldn't be discussed, with specifics, in public.
IPR Director Constantin Severe and City Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade weren't immediately available for comment this afternoon. Here's Turner's memo:
It has come to the attention of the PPA that IPR is directly contacting PPA members regarding ongoing IPR investigations without following the procedures set forth in Articles 61 and 62 of the collective bargaining agreement.
This is unacceptable to the PPA and is directly contrary to the IPR Director's multiple representations to the PPA and City Council that IPR will follow the provisions of the CBA. This also violates City Code 3.21.220.
The solution to this issue is for IPR to honor Articles 61 and 62 of the CBA and City Code 3.21.220. That means, among other things, providing advance notice to the PPA member through IAD consistent with Article 61.2.1, along with an interview consistent with Article 61.2.2. It's unacceptable for IPR to have "off-the-cuff" email requests and other direct communications with PPA members.
If you have been, or are contacted by IPR outside of the parameters of the process outlined by Articles 61 and 62 of the CBA and by City Code 3.21.220 contact the PPA immediately.