|
BART's police review panel falls far short |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Friday, 25 March 2011 |
 In the aftermath of the Oscar Grant shooting, BART has taken several steps to demonstrate it has learned lessons from this horrible tragedy.
Four police chaplains were recently brought on to counsel and offer spiritual guidance to transit police officers and crime victims.
Last week, BART appointed members to a new police review panel that will oversee complaints about its police department. It's undoubtedly a positive first step, but it raises the question of whether BART is listening to public concerns or simply placating them?
Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case. Since Grant's much-viewed shooting by former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle in the early morning hours of New Year's Day 2009, the public's perception of BART's handling of the matter has left something to be desired.
The police review panel that is designed to quell such perceptions may have served only to exacerbate them.
The panel, along with the police auditor, can recommend discipline against officers, but the final decision rests with the BART police chief -- so much for being independent.
A key component to having any real power has already been robbed before the panel's first meeting.
If we compare what BART is doing with those police review panels that have real teeth, such as the one in San Francisco, we see a panel that fails to meet a required standard to be taken seriously.
The final decision for discipline must rest with the police review panel and not the police chief. I hope this panel will do more than a periodic ride-along with BART officers and the occasional photo-op.
Panel appointees Sue Angeli, a former BART customer service agent, and Douglas Hambleton, the former chief of police in Berkeley, are also cause for concern. How do those appointments suppress suspicions that this body lacks independence?
Professor Peter Keane, dean emeritus of the Golden Gate University School of Law and a former member of the San Francisco Police Commission, addressing this question on KQED radio, stated:
"I think that it's much better if you're going to have civilian oversight of police forces, that it's just that -- it's civilian oversight. Otherwise, you get back to the whole idea of the fox guarding the chicken coop, if you have police review of police conduct."
There must be an independent police review panel that understands how to evaluate police performance, knows how to address areas of discipline, and has the trust of the community. If it is to have any legitimacy, the panel cannot report directly to the police chief, and it cannot include a former BART employee and a former police chief.
The manner in which the police review panel was formed diminishes the confidence of those who have complaints that they will be dealt with in a judicious manner.
BART is engaging in the not-so-unfamiliar practice of appearing to do something without really doing anything.
Even if BART had formed this panel in the heat of crisis two years ago, we would still find it an example of what not to do. But it is difficult to believe that after two years, this panel is the best BART could do.
BART is clearly guilty of failing to listen to its stakeholders. A body that ultimately has no power to act on legitimate complaints strongly suggests BART is not listening.
Was the police review panel in its current form the only way BART could get police buy-in? It hardly bears repeating the obvious, but BART police are the reason for creating an independent police review panel in the first place.
Reminiscent of an ostrich burying its head in the sand, BART's police review panel indicates more contempt than concern for a community that has more than enough data to question BART's motives.
The police review panel sadly appears to be rooted in fear. If not, why would BART be adamant against giving the panel any real power to act?
BART will undoubtedly tout its panel as a step forward -- proof that it's listening to its constituency.
Too bad BART could not have a police review panel on a par with the gravity of the crime that demonstrated the need for its existence.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
