In its hesitant reaction to its first complaint, Columbia's new Citizens Police Review Board will be accused of ineptitude by some, but the new board deserves a bit of slack. The first complaint, concerning the controversial police SWAT raid in February, was not exactly what the Columbia City Council expected when it created the review process. The board and council properly tabled the complaint while they second-guess their rules.
To begin with, the initial complaint came from a marijuana activist from the state of California whose allegations apparently involve issues beyond the jurisdiction of the board. The review board ordinance does not prohibit foreigners from bringing complaints, a degree of laxity criticized by several board members in their initial meeting Wednesday. The board will discuss whether to ask the city council to amend the ordinance.
Ed Rosenthal's complaint also provides an opportunity to second-guess the scope of its authority. Several of his allegations concern police actions not reviewed by police Chief Ken Burton and thus deemed beyond further review by the board. He also calls for psychiatric evaluation of officers empowered to carry weapons, a request clearly beyond the authority of the board.
Chief Burton said he thinks the board should hear Rosenthal's complaint, but only concerning the activities of officers.
The avowed purpose of the review board is to second-guess internal police department investigations of officers' actions. In the SWAT case, Burton decided officers were justified in shooting a threatening pit bull dog and the stray bullet that hit another dog nearby was accidental. In this case, Burton's decision clearly is subject to review under the board's rules.
I'm not sure what the ordinance says about the ability of the review board to examine a police department decision not to review. One can imagine legitimate criticism of such non-action, but allowing such complaints could lead to excessive meddling by the review board. Rosenthal criticized officers for unwarranted "manhandling" of the suspect in the SWAT raid, a question not reviewed by Burton's investigation. Perhaps the chief and his team should have done so. Perhaps the board should have the authority to recommend as much. Maybe it does. Maybe no such authority should be granted. Is the ordinance clear? Is clarification or second-guessing in order?
A brief hesitation in processing this first complaint is justified to consider such questions. To avoid unfair inaction, it does make sense for the board to proceed with Rosenthal's appeal but to act with maximum restraint. After all, yesterday we had no citizen review process at all. It makes no sense to leap out of the box with an overactive process. Let the proper scope of activities reveal itself over time.
If people are happy in their work – exerting themselves to the full extent of their limitations and capabilities, and enjoying it – is that not a good definition of success?
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Columbia Daily Tribune
Author: Henry J. Waters III
Copyright: 2010 The Columbia Daily Tribune
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
To begin with, the initial complaint came from a marijuana activist from the state of California whose allegations apparently involve issues beyond the jurisdiction of the board. The review board ordinance does not prohibit foreigners from bringing complaints, a degree of laxity criticized by several board members in their initial meeting Wednesday. The board will discuss whether to ask the city council to amend the ordinance.
Ed Rosenthal's complaint also provides an opportunity to second-guess the scope of its authority. Several of his allegations concern police actions not reviewed by police Chief Ken Burton and thus deemed beyond further review by the board. He also calls for psychiatric evaluation of officers empowered to carry weapons, a request clearly beyond the authority of the board.
Chief Burton said he thinks the board should hear Rosenthal's complaint, but only concerning the activities of officers.
The avowed purpose of the review board is to second-guess internal police department investigations of officers' actions. In the SWAT case, Burton decided officers were justified in shooting a threatening pit bull dog and the stray bullet that hit another dog nearby was accidental. In this case, Burton's decision clearly is subject to review under the board's rules.
I'm not sure what the ordinance says about the ability of the review board to examine a police department decision not to review. One can imagine legitimate criticism of such non-action, but allowing such complaints could lead to excessive meddling by the review board. Rosenthal criticized officers for unwarranted "manhandling" of the suspect in the SWAT raid, a question not reviewed by Burton's investigation. Perhaps the chief and his team should have done so. Perhaps the board should have the authority to recommend as much. Maybe it does. Maybe no such authority should be granted. Is the ordinance clear? Is clarification or second-guessing in order?
A brief hesitation in processing this first complaint is justified to consider such questions. To avoid unfair inaction, it does make sense for the board to proceed with Rosenthal's appeal but to act with maximum restraint. After all, yesterday we had no citizen review process at all. It makes no sense to leap out of the box with an overactive process. Let the proper scope of activities reveal itself over time.
If people are happy in their work – exerting themselves to the full extent of their limitations and capabilities, and enjoying it – is that not a good definition of success?
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Columbia Daily Tribune
Author: Henry J. Waters III
Copyright: 2010 The Columbia Daily Tribune
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
