Police-oversight stories stir heated reaction

The recent wrangling over how Seattle handles complaints about police misconduct has been like watching "The Jerry Springer Show." One is tempted to ask, "Who are these people?"

The answer, of course, is they are us. All of us: the citizens of Seattle; the politicians we elect and the officials they appoint; the Police Department's leadership, as well as those in the ranks and the union representing them; civic and civil-rights leaders; the press and its sources of information. All of us acting with what we consider good intentions. That was the case when The Seattle Times decided to publish a story last Tuesday under the headline, "Scathing report says chief interfered with cop probe." Here are the first two paragraphs of the story by reporters Sharon Pian Chan and Mike Carter:

"Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske repeatedly interfered in an investigation into the actions of a pair of officers, damaging the credibility of the police force to the point that increased oversight is needed, according to a civilian-review board report.

"Kerlikowske said he had not received a copy of the report, which has not been released publicly. It was obtained by The Seattle Times, and when a reporter read him the key findings, he called them 'absolutely false.' "

Police oversight has been a fractious topic for years among the mayor, the City Council and the City Attorney's Office, as well as between the city and the Seattle Police Officers' Guild. It has been divisive among the various agencies and individuals who are supposed to provide citizen oversight and accountability to the system.

Even local civil-rights groups are conflicted about the immediate controversy.

On Friday, the NAACP called for Kerlikowske to resign, while the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle came out in support of him. Later the same day, the Urban League said it will wait for "all the facts" before passing judgment on the chief.

The Times has written extensively about the dissension surrounding the police-discipline process in recent years, but the Tuesday story set off a storm of reaction. Readers both applauded and condemned The Times' decision to publish such a story based on a document that had been leaked.

One letter to the editor said: "The growing outrage and hysteria over police Chief Gil Kerlikowske and the Office of Professional Accountability report — fueled by The Seattle Times and Councilman Nick Licata — reek of journalistic and political opportunism."

Another said: "I feel it was unprofessional to release the OPARB [Office of Professional Accountability Review Board] report without informing the chief or the mayor. ... It is no secret that this attack is politically motivated and designed to create a stir."

So, what was the thinking inside The Times?

Cheryl Phillips, deputy investigations editor, said, "Our charge is to monitor public employees' performance of their jobs on behalf of the public. That's our responsibility."

Reporter Chan said there are many police-oversight bodies, but the newspaper has an obligation to hold the entire system accountable. The compelling reason to do this story was because the report's allegations were so serious, she said. "That's something the public needs to know."

I asked Chan how she felt about criticism that the leak was politically motivated. "Every piece of information that comes to the paper is motivated by some agenda," she replied, adding that reporters try to provide balance by including as many sources and perspectives as possible.

The Times had reported earlier that the City Attorney's Office was holding up the report because releasing it could expose review board members who wrote it to possible civil liability. However, Peter Holmes, board chairman, was quoted as saying the report "is embarrassing," adding, "I'm not surprised they don't want it made public."

In fact, no OPARB case reviews have been released in recent years because of the continuing conflict. That is particularly ironic given the goals the board set for itself. Its Web site says:

"Our goals are to build a sense of confidence in the community that police work is fair, even-handed, and free of bias; and to build a sense of confidence in the police force that complaints against police officers will be treated fairly and without prejudice. Above all, we are committed to strengthening communications between police and the community."

Among the reports that haven't been made public is one written a year ago. Holmes told Chan and Carter for a story last Wednesday that the report examines other cases in which the chief imposed lesser punishments than internal investigators had recommended, and in some cases imposed none at all. Holmes said he is negotiating with the City Attorney's Office to have the report released.

So, what is the effect of all this conflict and confusion about the oversight function?

Times reporter Steve Miletich, who has written about it in recent years, said a lot of the earlier coverage could only be piecemeal. "The ultimate result is that the public isn't getting the information they need," he said.

Miletich said Chan and Carter's Tuesday story, based on the leaked report, "brought out a lot of festering issues. I think now it's all out on the table, and the public can make of it what they want."

Inside The Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists