actually reduce suspicion and distrust of police departments and enhance their reputations. -DB
Redding Record Searchlight
Opinion
October 1, 2009
A 2006 state Supreme Court ruling, Copley Press v. Superior Court, essentially made secret the records and findings of police commissions. In the last session, the Legislature considered and the Senate even passed a bill to reverse that decision, but it ultimately died in the Assembly under intense pressure from police unions.
It’s hard to understand their opposition. Secrecy only breeds the suspicion and complaints, common among those with a beef against an officer, that internal discipline is a sham. More often than not, greater openness would probably only polish departments’ reputations as the public saw the merit – or lack thereof – of complaints and that officers faced punishment when appropriate.
But who’s to say? Internal police discipline is confidential. The independent body best able to review complaints is the county grand jury – whose proceedings are also confidential unless it issues a formal report. Under current law, a police commission would just add one more layer of secret bureaucracy – and, it bears mentioning, a costly one for a department under chronic threat of layoffs.
Separately, the ACLU of Northern California has lobbied to overturn the benighted Copley decision. And our state senator, Sam Aanestad, was one of a handful of Republicans who crossed the law enforcement line and voted for the bill that would have restored greater openness.
Here’s a deal: How about Aanestad, approaching the final year of his legislative career, sponsors a bill to make police commissions public again? How about liberals and conservatives who share the quaint notion that the public’s business should be public work together to pass it?
Then, when a police commission might have a purpose again, it’ll be worth discussing whether Redding needs one.
Our view: The Legislature must first restore public access before a police commission would have a point.
Copyright 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group
An opinion piece in the Redding Record Searchlight suggests that a state law opening the reports of police review boards to the public would
actually reduce suspicion and distrust of police departments and enhance their reputations. -DB
Redding Record Searchlight
Opinion
October 1, 2009
A 2006 state Supreme Court ruling, Copley Press v. Superior Court, essentially made secret the records and findings of police commissions. In the last session, the Legislature considered and the Senate even passed a bill to reverse that decision, but it ultimately died in the Assembly under intense pressure from police unions.
It’s hard to understand their opposition. Secrecy only breeds the suspicion and complaints, common among those with a beef against an officer, that internal discipline is a sham. More often than not, greater openness would probably only polish departments’ reputations as the public saw the merit – or lack thereof – of complaints and that officers faced punishment when appropriate.
But who’s to say? Internal police discipline is confidential. The independent body best able to review complaints is the county grand jury – whose proceedings are also confidential unless it issues a formal report. Under current law, a police commission would just add one more layer of secret bureaucracy – and, it bears mentioning, a costly one for a department under chronic threat of layoffs.
Separately, the ACLU of Northern California has lobbied to overturn the benighted Copley decision. And our state senator, Sam Aanestad, was one of a handful of Republicans who crossed the law enforcement line and voted for the bill that would have restored greater openness.
Here’s a deal: How about Aanestad, approaching the final year of his legislative career, sponsors a bill to make police commissions public again? How about liberals and conservatives who share the quaint notion that the public’s business should be public work together to pass it?
Then, when a police commission might have a purpose again, it’ll be worth discussing whether Redding needs one.
Our view: The Legislature must first restore public access before a police commission would have a point.
Coopyright 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group