These recommendations are only a first step, but at least they're that. Numerous conflicts in the past left no institutional legacy, nothing for people concerned with police accountability to build on in the future. This leaves us continually fighting the same battles over and over. If the City takes this first step, then if Austin continues to have police accountability problems in the future we can argue over, for example, whether the Oversight Board or the Police Monitor are working, whether they should be given more or less power or authority, etc. As it is, every time the community rises up over a particular case -- Grill Couch, Evans Ekiye, Cedar Avenue, Johnny Cornell, Herbert Vences -- we debate whether to have any oversight at all. We need to move beyond that.
The new complaint intake model will allow citizens to acquire complaint forms citywide and bring them to a civilian office to be filed, dramatically increasing accessibility for complainants. Presently citizens must go to the Internal Affairs office out on Highway 290 to file a complaint with a sworn police officer. This intimidates many people from coming forward when they have evidence of police misconduct.
Presently many people don't know where or how to complain about bad cops even if they wanted to. The POFG model calls for creating a Public Information officer position responsible for making sure complaint forms are available citywide and translated into appropriate languages and formats. This person would also be responsible for interfacing with the community to discuss the work of the Police Monitor's office and to make the public aware of their rights when faced with police misconduct. And it would allow community groups to get more involved in facilitating complaints for victims.
The Police Monitor would be on "automatic ringdown" for critical incidents and may be present on the scene at their discretion. Assuming the Police Monitor functions independently, having a civilian with an oversight role show up at incidents like the Cedar Avenue Police Riot could only have beneficial short and long-term effects.
The "Monitor Conference" provides complainants with a chance to view the department's investigative file related to their complaint. Complainants can also point out witnesses or evidence the police investigators may have overlooked and the Police Monitor can request additional investigation by the department.
The Oversight panel represents the first opportunity ever for complainants to take their case before citizens, not police officers or city bureaucrats. It is also the first opportunity for the public to hear the details of alleged police misconduct, whereas before the process was completely closed. Under the proposed system, if a complainant decides to take their appeal before the Oversight panel, the case gains public exposure and an opportunity for civilian review. All the materials actually given to the Oversight panel, excepting those only reviewed in executive session, will be public.
Even though it's decisions have no teeth in the sense of having authority to discipline, the Oversight panel will allow members of the community to closely examine these issues and for the first time to make public judgments where people aren't satisfied with the complaint's outcome. Though far from a comprehensive sample, this will still give the public much more information about police misconduct. Moreover, it establishes a precedent for civilian oversight, and gives us a board which could be strengthened in the future.
The Police Monitor and Oversight panel will recommend policy changes on an ongoing basis. Given the level of detail they will receive about police misconduct and disciplinary policies, they'll be in a good position to make informed suggestions based on the empirical cases before them. Current police "advisory" groups meet infrequently and have no such concrete basis for specific recommendations. This puts them in a position where the police have expert knowledge with which average people from the community frequently cannot compete. The Oversight panel would not be in a similar position.
Although for political reasons they will be rare, the POFG recommendations recognize the need for independent investigations in case where the department's efforts have been inadequate. By establishing the precedent that they are necessary, it's possible that future councils might find it proper to remove the barriers to independent investigations that the Austin Police Association built into this proposal.
If we reject this now, when will our next opportunity come? In the past 25-30 years, there have been four or five flurries of political activity related to police accountability, typically after some egregious incident has occurred that stirred public outrage. If we do not implement the POFG recommendations now, it could easily be another 5-6 years or more before another opportunity arises to create civilian oversight mechanisms.