It's been only a matter of weeks since a team working for
the city auditor released an extensive review showing that the Portland Police
Bureau was slow -- and in some cases had failed -- to learn from its mistakes
over a period of 20 years.
Now a team of California-based consultants hired to review seven officer-involved shootings between 2004 and 2010 has produced even harsher findings on the same subject. Most troubling among them are the failure of snipers to wear earpieces allowing them to hear negotiations in highly charged situations, and a union rule that protects officers involved in shootings from answering investigators' questions for a full 48 hours. Apparently, the stress is too great.
The earpiece failure is classic.
In 2005, Raymond Gwerder was on the phone with hostage negotiators when a Portland police sniper without an earpiece fatally shot him in the back. As The Oregonian's Maxine Bernstein reported, the recommendation by bureau brass as well as independent reviewers was immediate: All snipers must wear an earpiece to listen in and understand situations as they unfold.
But two years later, Lesley Stewart was injured by bullet fragments from another Portland police sniper without an earpiece. And in 2010, Aaron Campbell took a fatal bullet in the back from Portland police Officer Ronald Frashour, who was not wearing an earpiece.
What makes our police dismiss instruction? Worse, what makes the Portland Police Bureau an organization of apparently slow learning?
The answers need to come soon, because errant outcomes are in too many instances fatal.
We argued recently that the Portland Police Bureau could take no greater step toward achieving accountability and improving its capacity to learn from mistakes than to institute annual performance reviews for every cop. Significantly and correctly, Chief Mike Reese replied to the city's audit review by saying he'd pursue quarterly performance assessments -- a comparatively frequent conversation between supervisor and officer that would make sure officers know how well they are adhering to bureau rules and protocols. In the case of snipers, that would include something so tiny but consequential as using an earpiece.
The 48-hour rule, part of the bureau's labor agreements, is ludicrous on its face. In the last 20 years, Bernstein reported, no Portland officer using deadly force has ever agreed to give a statement on the day of the shooting. Citizens involved in shootings, meanwhile, do not typically enjoy the same insulation from being asked what happened.
We argue again for the institution of performance assessments -- no public agency with roughly 1,000 employees can function properly without them -- and support the chief in working out details with the union. But we also ask the bureau to follow the consultants' recommendation of restructuring labor agreements to eliminate the 48-hour rule. The rule sends the wrong message to citizens, who want to believe that truth is served first and above all.
Several other findings by the consultants are problematic and need addressing, as well -- from on-scene communication foul-ups among officers to disturbing delays in providing medical care to wounded suspects.
But performance assessments and the elimination of the 48-hour rule alone have the potential of jump-starting the bureau's capacity to learn while assuring Portland that timely accountability and an embrace of best practices are conditions of bureau employment.
Now a team of California-based consultants hired to review seven officer-involved shootings between 2004 and 2010 has produced even harsher findings on the same subject. Most troubling among them are the failure of snipers to wear earpieces allowing them to hear negotiations in highly charged situations, and a union rule that protects officers involved in shootings from answering investigators' questions for a full 48 hours. Apparently, the stress is too great.
The earpiece failure is classic.
In 2005, Raymond Gwerder was on the phone with hostage negotiators when a Portland police sniper without an earpiece fatally shot him in the back. As The Oregonian's Maxine Bernstein reported, the recommendation by bureau brass as well as independent reviewers was immediate: All snipers must wear an earpiece to listen in and understand situations as they unfold.
But two years later, Lesley Stewart was injured by bullet fragments from another Portland police sniper without an earpiece. And in 2010, Aaron Campbell took a fatal bullet in the back from Portland police Officer Ronald Frashour, who was not wearing an earpiece.
What makes our police dismiss instruction? Worse, what makes the Portland Police Bureau an organization of apparently slow learning?
The answers need to come soon, because errant outcomes are in too many instances fatal.
We argued recently that the Portland Police Bureau could take no greater step toward achieving accountability and improving its capacity to learn from mistakes than to institute annual performance reviews for every cop. Significantly and correctly, Chief Mike Reese replied to the city's audit review by saying he'd pursue quarterly performance assessments -- a comparatively frequent conversation between supervisor and officer that would make sure officers know how well they are adhering to bureau rules and protocols. In the case of snipers, that would include something so tiny but consequential as using an earpiece.
The 48-hour rule, part of the bureau's labor agreements, is ludicrous on its face. In the last 20 years, Bernstein reported, no Portland officer using deadly force has ever agreed to give a statement on the day of the shooting. Citizens involved in shootings, meanwhile, do not typically enjoy the same insulation from being asked what happened.
We argue again for the institution of performance assessments -- no public agency with roughly 1,000 employees can function properly without them -- and support the chief in working out details with the union. But we also ask the bureau to follow the consultants' recommendation of restructuring labor agreements to eliminate the 48-hour rule. The rule sends the wrong message to citizens, who want to believe that truth is served first and above all.
Several other findings by the consultants are problematic and need addressing, as well -- from on-scene communication foul-ups among officers to disturbing delays in providing medical care to wounded suspects.
But performance assessments and the elimination of the 48-hour rule alone have the potential of jump-starting the bureau's capacity to learn while assuring Portland that timely accountability and an embrace of best practices are conditions of bureau employment.