Citizens Police Review Board an Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Some time ago, I read an excellent treatise on the concept of citizen oversight of law enforcement in the City of Santa Cruz. But that work was completed in the early 1990s, before the generalized public policies and ordinances seemingly based on social and/or economic status first gained acceptance and became local law. The review board that ultimately grew out of that concept was hamstrung by the parochial politics that persist to this day and was disbanded amid frustration with the process and a lack of substantive impact. As I read the article, I wondered aloud what relationship that model of citizen oversight had to present-day Santa Cruz, to our common interest in the protection of individual rights and to the pursuit of that most elusive and fluid concept know as public safety. I found some interesting answers.

In my time as a Santa Cruz resident, I have seen a growing concern for public safety, coupled with an expanding public mandate for law enforcement to use whatever means and methods they think best to curb the reported rise in the local crime rate and particularly property crime. Indeed, one does not need to be a social scientist to understand that the dynamic balance between the community's concern for public safety and the operational mission of law enforcement to maintain public safety has shifted dramatically over the past few years. I have watched our elected officials support a marked and noteworthy increase in the number of sworn officers serving in the police department, while evidencing little concerned about the chilling effect that heightened police presence inevitably has on the community at large. But it is not the expansion of the police department or the overarching presence of law enforcement in our city that concerns me most. Rather, it is the lack of citizen participation in the development of these policies and the complete absence of citizen oversight of this ever-expanding aspect of our community that prompts these observations.

It is often observed that police officer training is almost entirely devoted to intelligence gathering, weapons proficiency and police procedure. They are only tangentially trained in nonviolent conflict resolution and community relations. And here I will say that this is not entirely their fault. The officer on the street is only as good as the training he or she receives. And clearly, they are not receiving the kind of training and input that would create not only an enlightened police force with a clear understanding of the challenges of modern day law enforcement, but a more efficient one as well. Every incoming police administration in recent times has called for a policy of positive engagement to bridge the perceived divide between law enforcement and the greater community. In point of fact, if this chasm were not real and existing, there would be no need to call attention to it as a matter of departmental policy. But what the police department has failed to recognize is that we as citizens also know a few things about public safety and the protection of individual rights.

We know that law enforcement alone cannot make the community safe. We know that true public safety can only be developed and sustained in an atmosphere of trust, accountability and inclusiveness. We know that individual liberties are bedrock values that must be honored and preserved. And we know that community engagement is the foundation of wise and forward-thinking public safety policy. So the question becomes: If we accept these statements as true, how are we to actualize them in ways that best benefit all members of our community regardless of social and economic station. I respectfully suggest the creation of a nine-member Citizen Police Review Board composed of representatives of neighborhood groups, advocates for people experiencing homelessness, mental and behavioral health advocates and social service providers who would be charged with review of police policies and procedures and tasked with oversight of our police department.

Understand that when I say “oversight” I do not mean control. Such a board would be committed to ensuring that Santa Cruz has a police department that acts with integrity and administers justice fairly and evenhandedly for all of its residents. However, to insure the independence of such a body, the board would consult directly with the police department and would pass along advisory opinions to the Santa Cruz City Council for informational purposes only. That is the only way to depoliticize the process while creating a clear line of accountability between the community and the police department.

What powers would this new, modern Citizens Police Review Board have? If, as we say, the board is to be composed of citizen representatives, it cannot, for example, be restricted to consideration of already completed internal police investigations into allegations of police misconduct. A truly reformist board must be given the power, within restrictions provided by state law, to conduct parallel investigations to supplement and inform those conducted by Internal Affairs. Although ultimate decisions would continue to be the province of the department and its chain of command, a citizen review board with independent investigative authority would have the power to make recommendations to the Chief of Police concerning disposition and discipline. This model would create a direct and substantive review process that would provide a voice for our community at large while not abridging the statutorily guaranteed rights of peace officers.

On issues of operational policy and commitment of resources, any such board would need to have direct input to achieve any degree of real effectiveness. The obvious benefit of this input would be that resource allocation and policing priorities would more accurately reflect the community’s concerns, providing a more inclusive base of opinion about how best to make safe our city while giving equal weight to the preservation of civil liberties. For example, if the board felt that public safety would best be served by spending more money on gang suppression and less on petty theft investigations, resources could be allocated accordingly. If the board recommended more money be devoted to the investigation of sexual assaults and less to enforcement of the so-called “quality of life” ordinances such as the camping ban that exclusively impact the homeless community, then that policy could drive fundamental reallocation of resources.

These are matters upon which reasonable minds will surely differ and will ultimately be the product of a long public input and review process. But it is a conversation we must have if a truly effective oversight process is ever to become a functional part of protecting the civil liberties of ordinary citizens.

Finally, I will say this. I have always found some considerable fault with the idea that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Rather, I believe that we must let go of the excesses and omissions of the past and make our own history, taking from it the lessons we learn along the way. A citizens police review board and an expanded community policing program, also with citizen oversight, are ideas whose time have come in our community. I believe we are ready to seriously discuss and consider these ideas at the highest level and they will certainly be part of the public debate as we move through the coming City Council election cycle.