Police review board members feel muzzled

For months, the citizen board that reviews Seattle Police discipline has been studying cases in which Chief Gil Kerlikowske reversed recommended action against officers.

Some of those cases raise questions about the chief's decisions, said Peter Holmes, chairman of the three-member panel.

But the board won't report on this issue — or any other — until the city addresses its members' longstanding concern that they can be sued by the police union, individual officers or others who might take offense, Holmes said.

"Right now the board cannot issue reports," said Holmes, a lawyer who left his practice to do community service for several years. "The status quo is a muzzled board."

After growing increasingly frustrated over the past year, the board has gone public in the past month, assailing the police union for insisting on the right to sue and accusing Mayor Greg Nickels of dragging his feet when asked to help.

In a sharply worded letter, the board asked the City Council for legislation protecting panel members against lawsuits. It also asked the council to require the Police Department to provide more detailed information on internal investigations. The board reviews one of every 10 internal investigations conducted by the department, but the names of officers and other details routinely are blacked out.

"A civilian board forced to operate under the cloud of potential liability and without full access to the Department's investigative files is a sham," Holmes wrote to the council.

The board, which was established in May 2002 to bolster police oversight, is supposed to judge how the police are policing themselves, then report its findings to the City Council. But the board contends it can't adequately do that without being given the same protection against personal liability typically given to public servants.

When the review board was created, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild filed a labor complaint, objecting to giving the board that protection. In negotiations with the city, the guild prevailed. It also won a promise from the city not to give the board misconduct findings that contain the names of officers or other identifying information.

Both provisions were included in the latest contract between the city and the guild, signed in December.

Holmes said reports given to the board sometimes are difficult to decipher because major portions are omitted. If given more information, the board would continue its practice of not naming officers in its reports, he said. But its members shouldn't have to risk personal lawsuits for the bulk of its work, Holmes said.

Board members, who are volunteers, sign an agreement that they will pay the city's legal costs if they prompt a lawsuit by disclosing confidential material that directly or indirectly identifies officers disciplined for misconduct.

Guild President Kevin Haistings said the possibility of a lawsuit provides a safeguard against board members leaking officers' names or other identifying information.

"They knew that rule when they took the job," he said.

Haistings also said the board doesn't need the names of officers, witnesses or people who file complaints to do its job. Omitting names of officers and citizens prevents the board from forming preconceptions and enhances its credibility, he said.

No blanket protection

Marianne Bichsel, spokeswoman for Nickels, said the mayor wants to strengthen the board, although she didn't commit to specific changes. She said the mayor's office is working with City Attorney Thomas Carr to address the board's concerns.

Carr said his office is drafting guidelines on what the board can disclose. If the board stays within the guidelines, the city will agree to pay legal costs resulting from any lawsuits, he said.

Those protections should "let the board rest easy," he said.

But for now, the city can't provide the board with blanket protection against lawsuits or more information from case files without renegotiating with the police guild, Carr said, calling the union "very powerful."

Holmes said the proposals fall short. For example, the board wouldn't be shielded if a third party — such as the news media — learned an officer's name and asked the board to respond to specific questions, he said.

If the board is unable to reach an agreement with Carr, Holmes said, it might submit a draft report to Carr's office, then ask if the city is willing to defend panel members against lawsuits. Holmes said he would be reluctant to do that repeatedly because the city might conclude it is an acceptable option.

Looking for options

Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata, chairman of the City Council's public-safety committee, said Nickels needs to provide stronger assurances to the board that the city will defend it against lawsuits.

"I think the mayor is being intransigent on this issue," Licata said. "I think he can be much more accommodating to the board."

Licata said the board also should be given more information from case files and that edited versions should never have been allowed in the first place.

He said he's not sure what to do next, but is looking for options.

At the least, Licata said, the city should disclose its negotiating stance on police oversight, so there can be an "open, philosophical discussion" about the issue before the guild contract expires in December 2006.

Holmes said the city should take a tougher stance with the guild. He said the city was aware of the board's concerns before signing the latest contract and should have pushed for reforms.

He said the board proceeded cautiously after it was formed, but ran into problems last year when it produced its fourth report. Carr's office warned that it contained too much information, prompting the board to remove some material to protect itself, Holmes said.

Holmes said he asked Nickels at that time to offer the board protection from lawsuits, but got nowhere in discussions with the mayor's office.

Moreover, Nickels has refused to meet with the board since he took office in 2002, Holmes said.

"They can claim they have a civilian review board, and the civilian review board can't issue reports," Holmes said. "It's the best of both worlds."

Bichsel, the mayor's spokeswoman, said the mayor has made top representatives available to the board.

Carr, the city attorney, said the current rules reflect complex collective bargaining, in which the city must take into account economic tradeoffs.

"It's not a simple area," he said. "It's frustrating when Peter paints the city as the bad guy here."

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@seattletimes.com