Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman will be on OPB’s Think Out Loud this morning at 9am, along with the director of the Independent Police Review, Mary-Beth Baptista, and Copwatch activist Dan Handelman. I’ll be listening, and doing a softball watch here on Blogtown, like I did when the police chief went on the show in early February. Think Out Loud reaches so many Oregonians, it just bugs the crap out of me when people go on there and simply regurgitate their talking points. So I’m trying to be constructive about the show, and I have just one point to make in the public interest.
To presenter Emily Harris and the show’s producers (and you can read an interview with Baptista here about the proposed reforms before the show) please, please be sure to get the police commissioner on record on one question:
There’s a very limited window for any changes to be made to the way the police bureau holds its officers accountable, because any changes are subject to the police union contract negotiations, which are going on right now, and only happen once every four years. And at Sunday’s Citizen Review Committee hearing citizens were making points about three specific issues: 1.doing tests for officers on drugs and steroids, 2.encouraging officers to live closer in to the city, and 3.ongoing performance evaluation for officers.
None of those three ideas, which are important to the community, are included in these recommendations to reform the Independent Police Review.
Baptista told the Mercury Monday: “We’re not working in a vacuum, either. The union negotiations are going on right now, and that is a forum for a lot of those issues…If the community really wants annual performance review, drug testing, encouraging police officers to live in the city, then they need to make those suggestions during the negotiation process. That’s the appropriate forum for that.”
So, I’d like someone to get Police Commissioner Saltzman on the record—will he push for these three things, that the community is asking for, in the negotiation process with the union, this time around? Because I only saw a representative from his office at the first negotiation session on Friday, and I’ve got to tell you, nobody at city hall has made any noise on these three ideas, apart from the community. I’m not confident we can trust our politicians to push for these things unless we remind them repeatedly what’s expected.
Don’t let him hum-ho this question, either. Is he going to push for these things, or not? If not, what will it take from the community to get him to push for them? Do we need to march? Do we need a petition? Does Al Sharpton need to come out and call for these things? Just name it. We’ll be there.
Here’s why it’s important. It seems to me that there’s a risk that City Commissioner Randy Leonard might get to make a lot of political noise about making these relatively minor, though very important, reforms to the Independent Police Review system, but that the community’s desire for, once again—1.doing tests for officers on drugs and steroids, 2.encouraging officers to live closer in to the city, and 3.ongoing performance evaluation for officers—will be ignored in the political process. Unless Police Commissioner Saltzman feels like the community needs him to pay attention.
Having watched the police deaths of James Chasse and now Aaron Campbell very closely, I’ve noticed a kind of “buy one death, get one token police reform, free” policy. So, is that what’s happening here?
Also, Emily: Keep Dan Handelman on topic. Don’t let him fill endless minutes of your valuable airtime with meandering sentences. He’s a wonderful advocate but his thoughts do tend to wander over the vast range of his knowledge in an almost free associative way. So: Ask him closed questions, and the audience will benefit. Be tough. And ask Baptista, too, about the three ideas. I’ve got a feeling she’d be open to at least ongoing performance evaluation, too, which is important. It would give Saltzman political cover.
The more important issue is eliminating binding arbitration as a “get out of jail free card”, with back pay, in disciplinary cases. The history of incidents is that, except in the case of unquestioned fraud, discipline is always reversed by the arbitrator. The second major issue is the abuse of stress disability for officers that are being disciplined. Were paying our city negotiators well to develop smart and sensitive solutions for each. I agree strongly with police living in the city, creating incentives, even a requirement, for doing so, but realistically everyone outside the city now will be “grandfathered out”.
I agree with two out of three… I don’t think encouraging officers to live closer in to the city is important. I know why you think it is, I just see it differently. If anything, I think it is better to have them live out of town, to get away from the streets they patrol. Then there days off truly feel like time away, and hopefully they can come back to work refreshed, instead of feeling like they are working seven days a week. Again, I see your point, that they should be in town to stay on top of the issues, but I believe they can keep up with major issues and live out of town. But I do not believe they can escape the daily grind of their work life if they live in town. I live in town, and if I was a cop it would be tough to not want to bust the guys that smoke crack around the corner from my house, even when I was off duty…
This is excellent. Good analysis of the weaselling that PPB has done on this critical topic, and a well-chosen moment to encourage Emily Harris to develop some journalistic spine.
@Matt – Do you think the show would be as popular as it is now, if they switched the aggressive questioning you like? Do you think they’d be able to book the same guests? Do you think they’d be able to book the same advertisers?
@Reymont.
All great questions.
1.More so, actually. These aren’t aggressive questions. They’re questions in the public interest. People tend to listen/engage with shows that they feel represent their interests.
2.Yes. I get to ask all these three people questions on a regular basis. The point is, OPB has a broader listenership than the Merc.
3.It’s public radio, but I know what you mean. But I’d up my donation.
“These aren’t aggressive questions. They’re questions in the public interest.”
I totally agree…
Nothing like insulting people in a public forum to get what you want. All class.
Nothing like insulting the general public by telling them you aren’t going to reprimand murderous, deranged cops in a public forum. All class.
How is asking a reasonable question insulting?
These questions have been asked, or muttered in years past. They’re all relevant questions of public servants.
In those past days these sorts of questions could be brushed off as impudent by those public servants, without consequence by electeds. It looked like a conspiracy but it was stupidity.
The difference today is a wide variety of interested legitimate folk have joined together to insist on real, complete answers and a clear explanation of action to be taken to assert change. Their coalition, formal or informal, has created political pressure, and is rapidly drawing attention away from City Hall pet projects.
In private conversations everyone agrees – change must and will come. Oversight protects us all. Cops will do what they’re told. It’s up to us, the public, to make up our minds, create good laws and policies, and enforce them.
Jason for Portland Police Commissioner.
I find it remarkable that people think any of these questions are insulting. It goes to Portlanders’ misunderstanding, I think, of the role of the press in a free society. Perhaps it’s because the majority of the press in Portland has done such a lousy job of actually holding government accountable for so long. I don’t know. But I hear and see far too many softball questions being asked at press conferences.
“Update, 9:34
“The big concern for our organization since we started 18 years ago is, when you have a complaint about the police and then the police hand the complaint over to internal affairs, this doesn’t address that,” said Copwatch’s Handelman.
“Clearly police are policing police, but our response to that is these changes,” said Baptista. “When a situation that arises that we believe the Internal Affairs Division can’t investigate a complaint for whatever reason, this strengthens our ability to seek an independent investigation.”
The show re-airs tonight at 9pm.
I don’t think the questions are insulting at all. Insinuating that someone isn’t a good journalist because they don’t ask the questions you want asked is. Rake the Portland polce over the coals for all I care. But how about leaving the snide remarks about Harris out of the it.
CH: I don’t think this is snide. It’s a fact that Emily Harris tends to ask softball questions on Think Out Loud. And she should be held just as accountable as Lars Larson, Dan Saltzman or any other public figure. As should I. So while I appreciate your perspective, and asking the question, I also know that a journalist needs a thick skin. And Emily Harris can take it. Trust me.
I’m sure she can, though it is snide. I don’t even like the show or Harris’ work, but it’s still an unnecxesarry callout. It also a bit disingenuous when Smirk acts as a de facto PR agent for the Mayors office on anything having to do with bikes or sustainability, or anything else for that matter.
I think that’s unfair on Smirk. She’s a tough reporter. Fair, we don’t perpetuate the “Recall Sam” line at the Mercury to try to win a Pulitzer. We tend to stick to issues that Portlanders are interested in. But for you to criticize me to call out another reporter, and then do so yourself, well, that’s hypocritical. So I’ll call you on it.
Otherwise I think we’ve said all we have to say on Emily Harris. Thanks for your perspective. It may be wrong, but I do listen to criticism and occasionally allow it to inform my behavior.
Well, seems as though we’re a couple of hypocrites.
Nope, just you. At least on this issue.
Nope. If I used the word “fact” as you did, I could make the declaration that it is a fact ms. Mirk takes city halls word as gospel (the bioswale post a few clicks up being exhibit A) then we’d both be hypocrites. Me for making the claim after chiding you, and you for making the claim about Harris when people in your own organization do the same. 2 dudes, 2 hypocrites.
“ms. Mirk takes city halls word as gospel”
Please see ANYTHING she has written on the CRC.
Which CRC? You would know better than I, but it seems like Mr Davis does the heavy lifting on the police CRC.
As for the bridge CRC, Ms Mirk seems in lockstep with Mayor Adams, at least from what I’ve read.
Bottom line: send an email rather than calling someone out in a public blog. That’s all. I’m being unintentionally disparaging here. Sorry.
My Dog I just realized that we have not one but now TWO CRC’s at issue in this town!
Oh, the parallels one could draw on the two…
@CH an email would suffice if this specific issue weren’t so politically important. Police accountability issues in this town will only move forward with maximum transparency, and that means holding journalists accountable as well as the police commissioner.
Believe me, I’ve sent plenty of emails to plenty of reporters about the quality of their coverage of police issues over the years. And I’ve just emailed Saltzman’s chief of staff to arrange to ask him this specific question for next week’s hall monitor column.
Smirk is not lockstep with Adams on the CRC. She called his bullshit when he voted for 12 lanes, and since then as far as I can see, Adams is in lockstep with Smirk on this issue. Not the other way around.
And yes there’s two CRCs. The Citizens’ Review Committee, which has only just become interesting enough to be popularly mentioned, and the Columbia River Crossing.