Site Navigation

Independent Police Review Cut Loose by Auditor

The reason Portland Copwatch (PCW) puts the word "Independent" in quotes when referring to Portland's oversight system, the "Independent" Police Review (IPR), is that the body does not have the ability to compel officer testimony in order to investigate misconduct. Therefore, it is still dependent on the police. In late January, the word took on new meaning as the elected City Auditor, Mary Hull Caballero, announced her office would no longer run the nearly 21 year old division, due to a dispute with Portland City Council about how to transition IPR out of existence when the new oversight board created by referendum is in place (see the Police Accountability Commission article in this issue). The City's plan, released a month and a half later, shows IPR not attached to any City office, which makes the office independent in another way. In early April, IPR released a report about the use of force at protests in 2020, generally repeating information that was already published elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Citizen Review Committee (CRC), which is housed under IPR, was set to hear an appeal about police misconduct at a protest action at its February meeting, but hours before the meeting started IPR Director Ross Caldwell announced that because the appellant's attorney had new evidence, the hearing would be postponed. PCW believes this decision should have been made by the community members on CRC. The CRC's only other activities have been through their Work Groups, both of which have been looking at recommendations about police body cameras, while the Policy Work Group also talked more about improving CRC's guidelines for hearings.

Auditor Washes Her Hands

The history of Portland's oversight system resembles a "hot potato." The first board, the Portland Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC), was technically the City Council, but its citizen advisors answered to the Auditor's office. PIIAC's shortcomings became a liability after the shooting of 12 year old Nathan Thomas in 1992. Mayor Vera Katz took over supervision in 1994, despite also being the police commissioner (PPR #11). After several cases where the Police Chief rebuffed City Council's recommended findings and a violent crackdown on May Day protestors, Mayor Katz organized a Work Group to design a new system (PPR #21). Rather than implement that system, she kicked the responsibility back to the Auditor's office, where Gary Blackmer drew up plans for what became the IPR (PPR #24). IPR was placed back into the Auditor's office. The introduction of Ballot Measure 26-217 by City Council in 2020 led to an ongoing dispute between Hull Caballero and Council about the future of IPR, culminating in the abdication.

While the idea of IPR being an actual independent agency not answering to an elected office is intriguing, it must be noted that the new Board envisioned by the ballot measure is made up of community members who will hire and fire the director. The City's plan now leaves Caldwell without a supervisor at all. The transfer away from the Auditor also means that Council is free to make changes that Hull Caballero and her predecessors opposed, which might include fixes to the CRC and granting IPR its own authority to compel testimony. These and other powers could be used to "test-run" elements of the new system.

Case 2022-x-0001: Protestor Dropped to the Curb

The appeal delayed from the February meeting (#2022-x-0001*) revolved around a person who said they were passively resisting the police during a protest in 2020 and got picked up and carried, then dropped on the street. They also say the police took $30 from their wallet. All the findings were "Not Sustained," meaning there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove them. When the appellant's lawyer provided new video on the day the hearing was to take place, CRC's protocols say they should have held their Case File Review to determine whether there was enough information to hear an appeal. If they felt the video would change the case, they could have sent it back for more investigation. Instead, Caldwell appears to have made that decision for the volunteer community members.

Despite Portland Copwatch pointing out that the case of former PPB Sgt. Liana Reyna (PPR #82) should have returned to the CRC for a supplemental hearing once additional investigation was completed, that appeal was dropped. The Compliance Officer for the US Department of Justice, who should at least have taken IPR to task for taking 10 months to return the new investigation rather than the DOJ Agreement's proscribed 10 days, claimed they were satisfied the appeal was handled properly. No new information turned up in the additional investigation.

IPR Protest Report Not Shared with CRC

The IPR's report on protests came as a surprise, as Caldwell never told CRC or the public he was working on it. This is the second time IPR has released a report about crowd control while CRC has had an active Crowd Control Work Group, but the professional staff did not seek input from the community group set up to advise them (see PPR #75). The basic conclusions were that the PPB didn't document uses of force properly, making it difficult to identify officers accused of-- or seen on video using-- excessive force. One key finding is that many community member complaints about officer misconduct were about tactics being used which are allowed under Bureau policy. IPR suggests rethinking the policies.

CRC Talks Body Cameras, Standard of Review, Candidate Protocols

As noted in previous issues of the PPR, the CRC's Policy and Outreach Work Group has been holding meetings about body worn cameras, including inviting guest speakers from other agencies to discuss their policies. In February, the CRC's Crowd Control Work group also took up the issue, pledging to look at the intersection between the use of bodycams and protest actions. At their March meeting, they went over a lengthy document outlining ideas for analysis and recommendations. It is not 100% clear why the two Work Groups did not coordinate on this matter.

At the February meeting, which ended early due to the lack of an appeal, PCW member Dan Handelman urged the Committee to engage in conversations about ongoing issues, which led to their re-focusing attention on the standard of review. The current City Code says CRC has to recommend a finding based on whether a "reasonable person" could agree with the police supervisor who attached the original finding to the case. For many years, they have sought to be able to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is less deferential, more widely used and more easily understood. The Policy Work Group was set to approve a one-page document outlining the CRC's concerns at their March meeting, but neither co-chairs Shaina Pomerantz nor Vadim Mozyrsky showed up. The whole CRC adopted the document at their April meeting.

Mozyrsky's candidacy for City Council led to a long discussion at the CRC's March general meeting. In short, several years ago CRC member Neil Simon had sought to be appointed to an elected seat but was still allowed to participate in appeals hearings (PPR #77). When current CRC Chair Candace Avalos ran for City Council in 2020, Auditor Hull Caballero asked her not to take part in appeal hearings, which Avalos respected. Similarly, Mozyrsky agreed not to hear appeals. CRC discussed making a policy for people to take a leave of absence while running for office, but did not come to a conclusion. At the April meeting, Pomerantz, Avalos and Mozyrsky said they had talked privately to resolve the issue but it was unclear what CRC as a whole will do next.

Contact IPR at 503-823-0146

Also at IPR/CRC:

--In April, CRC voted to keep Candace Avalos as Chair, and elected Yume Delegato as Vice Chair when Pomerantz stepped down and resigned her membership for health reasons. Gregg Griffin was elected to be Recorder, giving CRC a full contingent of three executives for the first time in over a year.

--At the January meeting, Griffin gave a brief report on his attending the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement conference.

--Auditor Hull Caballero made a public statement defending IPR's reputation the day the Oregonian ran an article (January 21) in which Caldwell said it was hard to hold individual officers accountable for their actions at protests (see the Protests article in this issue).

*- Note, IPR did not use its traditional numbering system on the paperwork for this appeal, only using administrative investigation number 2021-C-0056; PCW has used the appeal number for consistency's sake.
Back to text.

May, 2022
Also in PPR #86

Portland Copwatch
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065/ Incident Report Line (503) 321-5120
e-mail: copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.

People's Police Report #86 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top