HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2001-047 Racial ProfilingRESOLUTION NO. R-2001- 47
A RESOLUTION condemning "racial profiling."
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999, a U.S. Presidential Executive Order was issued
stating that stopping or searching individuals on the basis of race is not an effective law
enforcement policy, that it is inconsistent with our democratic ideals, especially our
commitment to equal protection under the law for all people, and that it is neither
legitimate nor defensible as a strategy for public protection; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police passed two
resolutions in November 1999 condemning racial profiling; and
WHEREAS, in March 2000, the Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill
6683 addressing the practice of targeting certain racial groups for stops; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2000, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs passed a resolution condemning racial profiling; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yakima appointed a panel to
conduct an inquiry into certain matters relating to the Yakima Police Department, and
the inquiry panel submitted a report dated February 12, 2001, recommending, among
other matters, that the City Council adopt a resolution prohibiting racial profiling; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is committed to affirming the right of all people
to be treated equally and fairly, and without regard to their race, ethnicity, gender, or
economic status; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is committed to ensuring the coexistence of
public safety and civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is committed to policing procedures that are
fair, equitable, and constitutional; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
1. The City Council affirms the right of all people to be treated equally
and fairly, and without regard to their race, ethnicity, gender, or economic status.
2. The use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop and
question, arrest, or search a person without a legal basis under the United States and
Washington State Constitutions is illegal, and will not be tolerated. Such racial profiling
is ineffective law enforcement policy and offends fundamental democratic principles.
3. The Yakima Police Department shall ensure that it has in place a
policy against racial profiling.
4. The Yakima Police Department shall enforce its policies and provide
training to prevent cases of conscious or unconscious racial profiling among officers
and employees.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 020 day of March, 2001.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
274 4..rA(
ary Place, Mayor
• '
teabie
iHImo
La
Ulf
City of Seattle Legislative Information Service
Information updated as of February 26, 2001 1:41 PM
v
1 abc a va
Resolution Number: 30223
A RESOLUTION condemning "racial profiling" and racial pretext stops, committing to take action to
collect data and research police traffic stops, and committing to take proactive steps to ensure that racial
profiling is not tolerated within the Seattle Police Department.
Date introduced/referred: Aug 14, 2000
Date adopted: Nov 6, 2000
Status: Adopted As Amended
Vote: 9-0
Committee: Public Safety and Technology
Sponsor: COMPTON
(No indexing available for this document)
Text
Note to users: f- indicates start of text that has been amended out
-) indicates end of text that has been amended out
f+ indicates start of text that has been amended in
+1 indicates end of text that has been amended in
A RESOLUTION condemning "racial profiling" and racial pretext stops,
committing to take action to collect data and research police traffic
stops, and committing to take proactive steps to ensure that racial
profiling is not tolerated within the Seattle Police Department.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999 President Clinton issued an Executive Order
stating that stopping or searching individuals on the basis of race is
not an effective law enforcement policy, that it is inconsistent with
our democratic ideals, especially our commitment to equal protection
under the law for all persons, and that it is neither legitimate nor
defensible as a strategy for public protection, and instructing the
law enforcement agencies within the Departments of Justice, Treasury,
and Interior to collect race, ethnicity and gender data on the people
they stop or arrest; and,
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the Washington State Legislature passed
Senate Bill 6683 addressing the practice of targeting certain racial
groups for stops, ordered demographic data collection by the
Washington State Patrol and encouraged other local law enforcement
agencies to voluntarily gather data; and,
WHEREAS, the Seattle Human Rights Commission, Commission for Sexual
Minorities, and Women's Commission passed a joint resolution on July
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/ scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=RACIAL+PROFILING&s2=&s3=&s... 0226/2001
17, 2000 calling upon the Mayor to direct SPA to collect data as
called for in ESSB 6683, to analyze and report on a semi-annual basis.
Establish a Task Force of Commissioners to participate in the review
and offer recommendations on a semi-annual basis; and,
WHEREAS, the international Association of Chiefs of Police passed two
resolutions in November 1999 condemning racial profiling and urging
all law enforcement agencies to implement a variety of steps,
including traffic data collection; and,
WHEREAS, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
passed a resolution on July 20, 1998 denouncing racial profiling and
supporting U.S. legislation calling for collection of traffic stop
data; and,
WHEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that pretextual
traffic stops on the basis of race are illegal; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle could be open to sanctions under the
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, if discriminatory practices were found to be
used by City departments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle is committed to ensuring the coexistence
of public safety and civil liberties; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle is committed to policing procedures that
are fair, equitable, and constitutional; and,
WHEREAS, the Seattle Police Department prohibits discrimination by
police officers in the conduct of their duties and requires them to
protect the constitutional rights of citizens; and,
WHEREAS, studies and analyses completed on traffic stops by the
Seattle Police Department show racial disproportionality, i.e., that
African American citizens are cited at a rate greater than their
percentage of the driving public within the City of Seattle; and,
WHEREAS, the reasons for this are poorly understood, data on the
subject are inadequate to make conclusive findings, and research to
understand the basis of the disproportionality is a high priority in a
city committed to human and civil rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE, THE MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT:
1. The use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to-stop and
question, arrest, or search a person without a legal basis under the
United States and Washington State Constitutions is illegal,
reprehensible, and will not be tolerated. Such racial profiling is
ineffective law enforcement policy and offends fundamental democratic
principles.
2. The Seattle Police Department shall assure that it has in place a
policy against racial profiling.
3. The Seattle Police Department shall enforce its policies and
provide training to correct and prevent cases of conscious or
unconscious racial profiling among officers and employees.
httpJ/clerk.ci.seattle.wa.usi—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=RACIAL+PROFILING&s2=&s3=8cs... 02/26/2001
•6114ry ✓ v.. .
4. The Strategic Planning Office (SPO) shall convene a Citizen Task
Force. The Task Force shall consist of a limited number of members,
appointed and confirmed by the Council, representing a broad range of
perspectives. Representatives shall include, but not be limited to: a
member of the City of Seattle's Human Rights Commission; a member of
a public interest organization, a member of a community or
neighborhood organization, a member of the academic community; a
representative(s) from the legal community; and Council staff. The
role of the Citizen Task Force is to represent the specific needs and
concerns of the community at large and to work with SPD, SPO, and
academic experts to provide consultation on the objectives, goals and
design of the data collection program. SPO will synthesize the
recommendations from the Citizen Task Force, SPD, and academic experts
and will create a data collection program design and workplan based on
those recommendations. The design shall include at a minimum data on
race/ethnicity, current demographics, time, location, gender, age,
reason for police stop, and on whether a search was conducted. The
Citizen Task Force is asked to review the collection of license plate
information as a possible component in the design. The design shall
include at least two components: a method to collect data from police
and civilians; including civilians who have been stopped by the
police. The cost for the design and implementation of the data
collection program shall not exceed the amount $200,000, as allotted
in the 2001-2002 budget. SPO shall present the Council with a
recommendation for a final design within 120 days after the
forumlation of the Citizen Task Force. The formulation of the Citizen
Task Force shall be completed not later than 60 days from the adoption
of this resolution.
5. Upon Council's approval of the data collection design, the Seattle
Police Department and SPO shall structure and implement a system to
begin collecting data. Implementation shall begin within 90 days of
Council approval. Such research efforts will be housed within SPO, not
the Seattle Police Department.
6. The Seattle Police Department, in consultation with the Citizen
Task Force, and SPO shall devise a comprehensive strategic plan to
utilize the data collection effort to enhance training, counseling,
and police management, to implement police misconduct prevention
techniques, to develop early warning systems, and to improve the
citizen complaint process, community relations and education. SPD
shall present this plan as well as the status of data collection
efforts to the Public Safety and Technology Committee and the Housing,
Human Services, Education and Civil Rights Committee no later than
March 2001. SPO, in consultation with the Citizen Task Force, shall
review the data collected and present a final report with findings,
analysis, and recommendations to the Council by no more than 18 months
from the beginning of data collection to be preceded by a preliminary
report at 9 mos.
7. SPD is requested to prepare a feasibility study and make
recommendations for installing video cameras in some or all police
patrol cars. The study shall estimate implementation costs and
benefits, including: an examination of best practices of other cities
in the use of video cameras in patrol cars; desirability and value in
addressing concerns over racial profiling; possible unintended
impacts, legal liability; officer training requirements and labor
issues. SPD shall submit its report and recommendations to the Public
Safety Committee on or before March 31, 2001.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/ scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=RACIAL+PROFILING&s2=&s3=&s... 02/26/2001
Adopted by the City Council the day of , 2000,
and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption
this day of , 2000.
President of the City Council
THE MAYOR CONCURRING:
Paul Schell, Mayor
Filed by me this day of , 2000.
City Clerk
11/06/00
FINAL - V16
04,
L UIL
2d0
&hie
http://clerk.ci.seattie.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s 1=RACIAL+PROFILING&s2=&s3=&s... 02/26/2001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 9, 1999
June 9, 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
SUBJECT: Fairness in Law Enforcement_ Collection of Data
We must work together to build the trust of all Americans in law
enforcement. We have great confidence in our Federal law enforcement
officcrz and know chat they strly= to uphold the best principles of law
enforcement in our democratic society. we cannot tolerate, however,
officers who cross the line and abuse their position by mistreating
law-abiding individuals or who bring their own racial bias to the lob.
No person should be subject to excessive force, and no person should be
targeted by law enforcement because of the color of his or her skin.
Stopping or searching individuals on the basis of race is not effective
law enforcement policy, and is not consistent with our democratic
ideals, especially our commitment to equal protection tinder the law for
all persons. It is neither legitimate nor defensible as a strategy for
public protection It is simply wrong.
To begin addressing the problem of racial profiling, Federal agencies
should collect more data at all levels of law enforcement to better
define the scope of the problem. The systematic collection of
statistics and information regarding Federal law enforcement activities
can increase the fairness of our law enforcement practices. Tracking
the race, ethnicity, and gender of those who are stopped or searched by
law enforcement will help to determine where problems exist, and guide
the development of solutions.
I therefore direct you to design and implement a system to collect and
report statistics relating to race, ethnicity, and gender for law
enforcement activities in your department. Specifically, you shall:
(1) develop a proposal within 120 days, in consultation with the
Attorney General, for a system of data collection and an
implementation plan for a field test of that system. including the
law enforcement agency components. sites, data sets, training, and
other methods and procedures to be included in the field testing.
You shall implement field tests within 60 days of finalizing their
proposals;
(2) to the extent practicable, collect data that is sufficiently
detailed ro permit an analysis of actions relevant to the
activities of the included law enforcement agencies by race,
ethnicity, or gender. Such actions may include traffic stops,
pedestrian stops, a more extensive inspection or interview than
that customarily conducted with entrants to the united states,
requests for consent to search, or warrantless searches. Data
acquired pursuant to this memorandum may not contain any
information that may reveal the identity of any individual; and
(3) provide to the Attorney General a summary of the information
collected during the first year of your field test, including
civilian complaints received alleging bias based on the race,
ethnicity. or gender of the complainant in law enforcement
activities; your process for inva_srtaaring and resolving such
complaints; and the outcomes of any such investigations. The
Attorney General shall report to me, in consultation with relevant
agency heads. on the results of the field tests with: (1) an
evaluation of the first year of the field test; (il) an
implementation plan to expand the data collection and reporting
system to other components and locations within the agency and to
make such system permanent; and (iii) recommendations to improve
the fair administration of law enforcement activities.
In addition, within 1.20 days of the daze of this directive, you shall
�_,
provide n, iP��t�%e``,.s._>Tee on your training` programs, policies, lie 3e?r, aTad
practice regarding the use of race, ethnicity, ani gender in your law
enforcement activities, along with recommendations for improving those
programs. policies, and practices_
WTT.T.T M ,T, C`T.TIJTAIR
IACP Resolutions
Adopted at the 106th Annual Conference
Charlotte, North Carolina
November 3, 1999
Professional Police Contacts
Submitted by the Executive Committee
WHEREAS, in a free society, law enforcement is entrusted and expected
to protect the civil rights of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the overwhelming majority of police officers perform their
duty in a professional and impartial manner free from bias; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recognizes
that tensions created by some police contacts with citizens have become a
concern to police and citizens alike; and
WHEREAS, this tension has been heightened by allegations of bias
profiling and discriminatory practices, and the IACP in November 1998,
conducted a forum addressing one of these areas of concern, traffic stops;
and
WHEREAS, the IACP has recognized the important nature and necessity
of traffic stops as a vital and effective law enforcement tool that saves
lives, reduces injuries and other crimes; and
WHEREAS, traffic stops have been proven to reduce street and violent
crimes, increase the apprehension of criminal offenders, combat illegal
drug activities, illegal guns and other crimes; and
WHEREAS, forum participants acknowledged that bias, real or perceived,
is detrimental to the relationship between police and the community they
serve and erodes the basic foundations of trust affecting community
policing; and
WHEREAS, participants at this forum developed a series of
recommendations to reassure the community that their concerns are being
addressed and that steps are being taken to correct problems where they
occur; and
WHEREAS, participants at this forum unacknowledged that to strengthen
trust and confidence between law enforcement and the community, its
citizens and officers must have mutual respect; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the IACP reaffirms its long standing position against
biased enforcement or any other type of discriminatory practices; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP does not endorse, train, teach,
support, or condone any type of bias profiling by any law enforcement
agency or individual acting under color of law; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the law enforcement executives, in
conjunction with their o fficcrs who 1,.�ve responsibility to open
with their 4lA 0.AA�'+��A �, who AdSdtlld the SR.dwTd4dnSv+vsub� �v v�..��
dialogue and discussion with community groups to produce guidelines for
police policies, operational procedures, and training programs; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP encourages the law enforcement
ioy the .intions oft e U fres ional Traffic
profession to e111p1VY 1GLoliLLllGliA��tlVilJ of �h„ a ro+�r.�sav+.....
Stops Forum along with the recommendations that are developed at future
IACP forums; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP hereby commits its resources and
energies to work at all levels to enhance trust between police and the
communities they serve
IACP Resolutions
Adopted at the 106th Annual Conference
Charlotte, North Carolina
November 3, 1999
Incorporation of Racial Background as a Data Element on
Driver's Licenses
Submitted by the Highway Safety Committee
WHEREAS, national concerns have been raised regarding the extent to
which racial profiling may or may not exist as a triggering element in
traffic stops and drug interdiction strategies; and
WHEREAS, some law enforcement agencies are required to record the
race and ethnicity information of the subjects of police traffic stops; and
WHEREAS, race or ethnicity is no longer a data element on most states'
driver's licenses; and
WHEREAS, without this element the only accurate way to determine the
race or ethnicity of most drivers is for the officer to make a direct inquiry
of the motorist; and
WHEREAS, such an inquiry often leads to embarrassment, resentment,
misunderstanding and even confrontation; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police urges
states to incorporate race and ethnicity as a data element and print it on the
driver's license to facilitate the capture and accurate recording of this
information; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government is encouraged to
provide funding to assist states wishing to modify their driver's license
and databases for this purposes; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the
United States Attorney General, Secretary of Transportation, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The National Governors'
Association, The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives, and the National Sheriffs' Association, and the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
IACP Resolutions
Adopted at the 106" Annual Conference
Charlotte, North Carolina
November 3, 1999
Condemning Racial and Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Stops
Submitted by the Highway Safety Committee
WHEREAS, according to the National Highway Safety Traffic
Administration, the majority of traffic crashes are caused by moving
traffic violations and kill 41,967 people a year, injure another 3.4 million
persons, and cause a societal loss of $150 billion dollars a year; and
WHEREAS, intensive traffic enforcement efforts have been proven to
reduce traffic crashes and increase the apprehension of criminal offenders;
and
WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies have seized more illegal drugs
resulting from traffic enforcement than they have from undercover
enforcement strategies; and
WHEREAS, traffic stops utilizing plain view and consent searches
annually lead to the interdiction of millions of dollars in illegal substances
and stolen property; and
WHEREAS, careful analysis of the actions and behaviors of criminal
offenders who use motor vehicles in the commission of crimes reveals
commonalties which, after the traffic stop, can be used to develop
probable cause; and
WHEREAS, such strategies, when based upon articulable suspicion that
an infraction of the law has been committed, have been upheld as
constitutionally appropriate by the U.S. Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, traffic stops should not be made on the basis of the motorist's
race, ethnicity, or economic status, but rather on articulable suspicion or
actual violation of a law; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and
professional law enforcement organizations' training courses teach that
biased or unprofessional enforcement practices are prohibited and will not
be condoned; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police urges
all Jaw enforcement agencies to utilize the "IACP Guiding Principles of
Proactive Traffic Enforcement" when developing strategies for crash
prevention and crime control; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, all law enforcement agencies are urged to
examine their interdiction strategies and their mission and value
statements, training programs, field supervision, evaluation of citizen
complaints and traffic stop data and other efforts to ensure that racial or
_this 1,-.1c ..7 traffic stows being employed within their agencies And
�lLN.:�4l:^..."rte e�ne�eey �4a���� are not ar..aaasu ,aaaaa ave e�ae �,aa,n-nnea _....�.. »....
that all citizens are treated with the utmost courtesy and respect when they
encounter our officers; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the United States Department of Justice are urged to
form a closer partnership for the purpose of providing financial support to
state, county, municipal law enforcement agencies for training programs
or in -car audio and video systems, and to assist in the voluntary collection
of appropriate data relative to this resolution.
IACP Resolutions
Adopted at the 106th Annual Conference
Charlotte, North Carolina
November 3, 1999
IACP Highway Safety Committee: Statement of Guiding
Principles of Proactive Traffic Enforcement
Law enforcement officers committed to the lifesaving benefits of
proactive traffic enforcement are aware of its ancillary benefits in terms of
crime prevention, reduction, and criminal apprehension. Proactive traffic
enforcement should be carried out in a manner that strikes a balance
between the right of citizens to enjoy a quality of life free from crime and
traffic crashes and the right of citizens to be free from unreasonably
intrusive police conduct; therefore, the International Association of Chiefs
of Police proposes the following Guiding Principles:
Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, said that the first duty of the police is the
prevention of crime; that the police can only be effective if they earn the
trust of the public; and that the law must be enforced equally and
impartially for all citizens. These principles are as sound today as they
were in Peel's day.
Community policing as practiced today involves a partnership between the
police and the public that addresses crime, neighborhood deterioration,
traffic problems and other quality of life issues.
Lessons can be learned from the most successful officers who are able to
go beyond the traffic stop and apprehend criminal suspects.
Police officers should be assigned to areas where there is a high likelihood
that crashes will be reduced and/or criminal suspects will be apprehended.
Achieving a higher rate of compliance in the use of safety belts and child
safety restraints through proactive enforcement will save thousands of
lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of disabling injuries from traffic
crashes each year. Citizens of particular age, socioeconomic, and ethnic
groups appear to have lower compliance levels in the use of these safety
devices than other groups and therefore may be disproportionately
represented in enforcement action for violations of safety belt and child
restraint laws, but to the extent that enforcement of these laws brings a
greater number of these citizens into compliance, these citizens will also
disproportionately share in the lifesaving benefits of such enforcement.
Enforcement efforts can be enhanced by effective public information
efforts.
Officers involved in traffic enforcement should be proper; trained.
Training programs in traffic enforcement must emphasize the need to
respect the rights of all citizens to be free of unreasonable government
intrusion or police action.
Traffic enforcement programs must be accompanied by effective
supervisory oversight to ensure that officers do not go beyond the
parameters of reasonableness in conducting such activities.
Traffic stops should be made only with artic„lable suspicion that the
person stopped has committed a traffic violation.
Appropriate enforcement action should always be completed at traffic
stops, generally in the form of a warning, citation, or arrest.
No motorist, once cited or warned, should be detained beyond the point
where there exists no reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity.
Officers making traffic stops shall not make them based on race, ethnicity
or socioeconomic status.
Motor vehicle driver license information regarding the race of drivers
stopped for traffic violations should be recorded whenever available and
this data utilized by police departments to determine the extent to which
racial minorities are stopped for traffic violations in proportion to their
absolute numbers in the area's population, and the number of minority
stops which result in criminal apprehension versus the overall numbers of
stops that result in such violations.
ha jurisdictions where race data is not contained on driver licenses and
the racial characteristics of motorists are not visibly apparent, police
officers should not be required to risk offending citizens by asking them
their race at the time of a motor vehicle stop.
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the members of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are
assembled in annual Fall Conference at the Westcoast Yakima Center Hotel, in Yakima,
Washington, November 16, 2000; and
WHEREAS, racial and ethnic descriptions may be essential to identification of victims and
suspects and, thus, important to proper and legal police work; and
WHEREAS, racial profiling is the illegal use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop and
question, take enforcement action, arrest or search a person or vehicle with or without a
legal basis under the United States or Washington Constitutions; and
WHEREAS, the question and debate concerning racial profiling, real or perceived, is part of a
symptom causing people to question their public trust in law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the National Organisation of Black Law Enforcement Executives passed a resolution
on July 20, 1998 denouncing racial profiling and supporting U.S. legislation calling for
collection of traffic stop data; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999 President Clinton issued an Executive Order stating that stopping or
searching individuals on the basis of race is not an effective law enforcement policy, that it
is inconsistent with our democratic ideals, especially our commitment to equal protection
under the law for all persons, and that it is neither legitimate nor defensible as a strategy for
public protection, and instructing the law enforcement agencies within the Departments of
Justice, Treasury, and Interior to collect race, ethnicity and gender data on the people they
stop or arrest; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police passed two resolutions in November
1999 condemning racial profiling and urging all law enforcement agencies to implement a
variety of community policing steps; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2000, the Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 6683
addressing the practice of targeting certain racial groups for stops, ordered demographic data
collection by the Washington State Patrol, and encouraged other local law enforcement
agencies to voluntarily gather data; and
WIIEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that traffic stops on the basis of race
are illegal; and
WHEREAS, Washington Law Enforcement Agencies are committed to ensuring the public safety
and the protection of civil liberties; and to policing procedures that are fair, equitable, and
constitutional; and
WHEREAS, Washington Law Enforcement Agencies prohibit discrimination by police officers in
the conduct of their duties and require them to protect the constitutional rights of citizens;
protroll
-1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TM WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF
SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS, THAT;
1. The illegal use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop and question, arrest or search a
'oasis _nae_ t e States and Washington Constitutions is illegal,
person witnoui a ►ega� under ...�. United �----__ �- _
reprehensible, and should not be tolerated.
2. Law enforcement agencies should adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent
racial profiling.
3, Law enforcement agencies should review and audit their existing procedures, practices and
training to ensure that they do not enable or foster the practice of racial profiling.
address issues related to racial
4. Law enforcement agencies should continue training to addr the
profiling. Officers will be trained in how to better interact with persons that they stop so that
legitimate police actions are not misperceived as racial profiling.
5. WASPC will coordinate with the Criminal Justice Training Commission to ensure that issues
Law _ r._F ..,,e..„o„t Training and offered in
related to racial profiling are addressed in Basic Law rnU.olwmen+ -'a
regional training for in-service law enforcement officers at all levels.
6. If data is to be collected, the Legislature must provide the funds for a valid research design, for
data collection, and for analysis. Law enforcement and their communities must participate in
the research design. The decision to collect data is voluntary with local agencies.
7. Law enforcement agencies will ensure that they have in place a citizen complaint review
process that can adequately address instances of racial profiling. The proems must be accessible
to citizens and must be fair. Officers found to be engaged in racial profiling must be held
accountable through the appropriate disciplinary procedures within each department.
8. Washington communities are quite different, not only in their racial mix, but also in the nature
and amount of crime and in the relationship which exists between the people and their law
enforcement agency. If problems are to be resolved, every local law enforcement agency needs
to work with the minority groups b their community to appropriately address the issue of racial
profiling.
Adopted by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) this 16th day of
November, 2000.
-2-
PROFILE STOPS IN WASHINGTON STATE
A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
November 16, 2000
BACKGROUND
Racial profiling is the illegal use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop
and question, take enforcement action, arrest or search a person or vehicle with
or without a legal basis under the United States or Washington Constitutions.
Members of minority communities believe that some police decisions are race -
based. The crux of this issue is that no one can know what is in a police officer's
heart and mind when he/she makes a stop. There may be a legal reason, for
example, a traffic violation, but the officer may really be biased towards a
minority group. Unless the officer either admits his/her bias or gives other
evidence through behavior or speech, there is no way to know whether bias was
the real reason.
As law enforcement executives, we support only the lawful exercise of police
power. Officers are trained to make legal stops and to base their decisions on
the facts and the behavior, not on the race of the person involved. Officers
swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of
the State of Washington. This means equal treatment under the law for all
citizens. The vast majority of officers honor that oath. If a few individuals violate
their oath and the law, then they deserve the civil and criminal penalties provided
by law.
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
As law enforcement executives, we are willing to address the racial profiling
issue right now. We know that real and perceived race bias are issues in
Washington State. We are committed to community policing and that means that
any community concem is an issue we must address. This is true regardless of
what the data might show. Many of our agencies have taken steps to begin to
address this issue.
We are committed to eliminating race -based decisions in law enforcement.
There are several positive steps law enforcement can take to address the
concerns about racial profiling.
-1-
1. Meet with community groups. Law enforcement exists to serve all the
people and to treat everyone equally under the law. Community meetings
can be used to leam about the nature and extent of the concerns in that
community. Each community must define and address its own issues.
2. Leadership begins at the top. The police chiefs and sheriffs of this state will
take a strong stand against any form of bias or race -based decisions in law
enforcement. We will do it by making strong public statements in each of our
own communities about our commitment rniument to fair and impartial law
enforcement. We will do it by insuring our policies are known in our agencies
and in our communities. We will do it by holding officers and their supervisors
accountable if they do not follow the policies.
3. Provide more training to police officers. Law enfor. eme t training has
spent considerable time on the legalities of the stop and on officer safety.
Considerably less time has been spent on the human side of the contact.
Officers can do their job with skill and safety and still be sensitive to the
impacts of their work on others.
4. Provide adequate supervision. If an officer is inappropriately targeting
minorities, his/her supervisor should be aware of it and take corrective action.
The first line supervisor is in the best position to observe officers as they go
about their work. He/she is in the best position to take immediate corrective
action on bias issues.
5. Insure complaint procedures are open and act on sustained complaints.
Community confidence in the police requires openness and integrity in the
complaint process. We understand that if we fail to address issues in our own
departments, then someone outside the department will address them for us.
6. Use WASPC to share lessons learned and best practices. We have a
long history of using our professional association (WASPC) to share our
experiences and develop improved standards for performance. For example,
panels and workshops on success stories could be presented at our semi-
annual conferences. The best practices can be incorporated in future training
for our officers.
7. Use other resources available to us. One of these is the Washington
Criminal Justice Training Commission which trains officers, supervisors and
executives. Another is the Community Relations Service of the United States
Department of Justice. This agency helps communities work through tough
issues like racial profiling. Another resource is the Western Regional Institute
for Community Oriented Policing (WRICOPS). The mission of this agency is
to help local law enforcement agencies deal successfully with community
issues.
-2-
SUMMARY
Law enforcement executives are willing to address bias issues right now, we do
not have to collect data to convince us to address issues in our communities.
There are ways to address the legitimate concerns of minority groups and
support the lawful efforts of the police. It begins with every law enforcement
officer treating every person they contact with dignity and respect. Law
enforcement officers can do a better job of communicating with the people they
stop about the reasons for the stop. Local law enforcement should be building
partnerships with all the people in their communities. This is an opportunity for
law enforcement to walk their talk about community policing.
Washington communities are quite different, not only in their racial mix, but also
in the nature and amount of crime and in the relationship which xs existsbetween
be
the people and their local law enforcement agency. problems are
resolved, every local law enforcement agency needs to work with the minority
groups in their community to appropriately address the issue of racial profiling.
-3-
SENATE BILL REPORT
E2SSB 6683
As Passed Senate, February 15, 2000
Title• An art relating to reporting information on routine traffic
enforcement. reporting
Brief Description: Reporting information on routine traffic
enforcement.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by
Senators Franklin, Kline, Heavey, Thibaudeau and Costa).
Brief History: Committee Activity: Judiciary: 2/2/2000, 2/4/2000
[DPS]
Transportation: 2/8/2000, 2/8/2000 [DP2S].
Passed Senate, 2/15/2000, 45-2.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6683 be substituted
therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Heavey, Chair; Kline, Vice Chair; Costa, Hargrove,
Haugen, Long, McCaslin, Roach and Thibaudeau.
Staff: Karen Lundahl (786-7421)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Majority Report: That Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 6683 be
substituted therefor, and the second substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Haugen, Chair; Gardner, Vice Chair; Goings, Vice
Chair; Costa, Eide, Heavey, Horn, Jacobsen, Prentice, Shin and Swecker.
Staff: Michelle Chase (786-7305)
Background: There has been recent concern about the possibility of
"racial profiling" or the practice of targeting certain racial groups
for traffic stops. While some local law enforcement agencies have
collected some data on the issue, and the Washington State Patrol has
recently begun collecting information, no comprehensive study of the
problem has been done to determine whether the practice is widespread
in Washington.
Summary of Bill: Beginning May 1, 2001, the Washington State Patrol
must collect data on all traffic stops. The data collected includes
total number of stops, reason for each stop, race or ethnicity, age,
and gender of individuals stopped, whether there was a search, and
whether there was an arrest or citation issued. A report on this data
must be made to the Legislature by December 1, 2000.
The State Patrol must cooperate with the Washington Association of
Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to develop further criteria for use and
evaluation of racial profiling data and training for officers. A
report must be made to the Legislature by December 1, 2000, concerning
voluntary cooperation by local law enforcement agencies.
There is an emergency clause that makes the bill effective prior to May
1,2000.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Requested on February 14, 2000.
Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect
immediately.
Testimony For (Judiciary): There are many reports of racial profiling
and a perception that it is widespread. This creates a distrust of law
enforcement, which carries over to the court system as well. The
proposed collection of data will help to see if we really have a
problem so we can address it. Data collected must include information
concerning searches, and should be identified as to each individual
police officer to provide accountability. All law enforcement agencies
regardless of size must be included to give a true picture. Unfair
targeting of young black males has a devastating impact on their lives.
Testimony Against (Judiciary): None.
Testified (Judiciary): PRO: Dan LaRoche, Douglas County Sheriff,
WASPC; Jerry Sheehan, ACLU; Dr. Ebrahim Minjalidi, Sea -Mar Community
Health Center; Oscar Eason, Jr. NAACP; Annette Sandberg, Chief, WSP;
Hayward Evans, Central Area Motivation Program; Addie Marie Jones; Leo
Hamaji, Defender Association; Don Alexander, Diane Turk, Seattle Human
Rights Commission; Cory Thomas, Lawrence Norman, Thomas Dixon, Tacoma
Urban League; Dr. Shirt Gilbert, Tacoma Empowerment Consortium; James
T. Watson; Tony Orange, Commission on African- American Affairs; Perry
Dyer; Alton McDonald.
Testimony For With Concerns (Transportation): This legislation is
valuable and necessary. The Washington State Patrol can collect this
information at minimal to no cost and is already collecting four of the
five data points involved. Racial profiling must be dealt with;
allowing it to continue will result in hard to quantify costs to
individuals and society, as well as continuing legal costs. The
intangible costs and the legal costs are not considered in the draft
fiscal notes. The draft local government fiscal note appears to be
extraordinarily high and should be reexamined.
Testimony Against (Transportation): None.
Testified (Transportation): PRO: Senator Franklin, prime sponsor;
Chief Annette Sandberg, WA State Patrol (concerns); Larry Erickson, WA
Assn. Of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (concerns); Thomas Dixon, Tacoma
Urban League; Dr.Shirl E. Gilbert, Tacoma Empowerment Zone; Hayward
Evans, Central Area Motivation Program; Oscar Eason, Jr., NAACP;
Lawrence Norman, Hilltop Community Services; Corey Thomas.
464 National League of Cities
Congressional City Conference
March 9 —13, 2001
Racial Profiling:
The term "racial profiling" was coined after increased reports of unwarranted traffic stops, where
law enforcement officers have stopped or detained motorists mainly because of their ethnicity,
rather than for suspected legitimate reasons. This alleged practice has gained widespread media
attention in recent years, capturing national headlines after substantiated and perceived incidents of
racial bias, within several federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, were publicized.
As a result, this issue attracted a flurry of attention during the recent election, prompting President
Bush to create a special panel to examine the problem. The panel, headed by U.S. Attorney General
John Ashcroft, will be "listening to the law enforcement community, and to others who are involved
in this very important and sensitive issue." Details about the composition and specific focus of this
panel have not been disclosed. "It is an important issue that the President talked about during the
campaign, and we are open to ideas," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated.
Legislative Developments:
Last April, Representative John Conyers (D- Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary
Committee, introduced the "Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999" (H.R. 1443) as "a hopeful
precursor to some national policy against the practice [of racial profiling]." The legislation called
for gathering statistical data to determine how widespread racial profiling has become. Former
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S. 821).
"Racially -based traffic stops turn driving into one of the most dangerous risks, especially when
driving while black or brown," Congressman Conyers stated while reviewing the intent of the
legislation. He noted the "skyrocketing" number of complaints reported to the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) for "phony traffic violations" by African American and Hispanic
motorists. "This measure simply requires the gathering of good, solid, helpful information to
address the problem," Conyers stated. "If the constitutional guarantee of equal protection means
anything, it has to mean that it is unacceptable for our citizens to be stopped and searched on
account of their race."
The Traffic Stops and Statistics Act specifically called for the Attorney General to conduct a
nationwide survey of stops for traffic violations by law enforcement- officers. A grant program
would be established for local police departments and other law enforcement agencies to fund the
collection of data and comply with reporting requirements established by the U.S. Department of
Justice. The survey would be conducted in two phases with: 1) an initial analysis of existing data
on complaints and other information on traffic stops motivated by race and other bias, and 2) a more
comprehensive analysis of data collected from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions. Information
gathered through the survey would include data on: the characteristics of the driver stopped (race,
gender, and approximate age); the alleged traffic violation(s) that prompted the stop; the number of
passengers in the stopped vehicle; whether or not a consented search of the vehicle was conducted;
what items may have been seized; and whether or not an arrest was made as a result of the stop
and/or search.
The House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 1443 after a detailed debate on a possible amendment
offered by Representative Asa Hutchinson (R -AR) which sought to define the difference between
"routine" traffic stops and stops prompted by situations where possible suspects, described by race
and other characteristics, could be fleeing from the scene of a crime. Unfortunately, the 106t
Congress never passed the legislation. Tne respective House and Senate bills never reached the
floors of the two chambers for consideration. Congressman Conyers' office has stated that he does
plan to reintroduce the Traffic Stops and Statistics Act during the 107th Congress.
Available Statistics and Initial Actions:
"The quantitative data available to us indicates that the problem of racial profiling in
traffic stops is serious," Congressman Conyers remarked. He cited a study conducted by
the Orlando Sentinel, which found that 70 percent of the persons stopped on 1-95 were
African-American, even though they only made up about 10 percent of the driver
population.
Also, a court-ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on 1-95
were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers, while another study
conducted in New Jersey found that minorities were nearly five times as likely as non -minorities to
be stopped for traffic violations along that state's turnpike. There is also considerable evidence that
Hispanics and other minorities are being targeted by racial profiling, according to the ACLU.
Local governments have also conducted studies to gauge alleged incidents of racial profiling. The
ACLU reported that hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country have voluntarily
agreed to collect data during traffic stops. For example, North Carolina already mandates that its
police departments keep racial data on traffic stops; and the U.S. Department of Justice and the
State of New Jersey entered into a consent decree requiring comprehensive reforms. Last year, the
City of Denver convened a diverse panel of citizens and police who began developing policies and
practices to deal with racial profiling.
"Denver is one of the few communities in which police and citizens worked together to craft a
policy on biased profiling," reported a Denver neighborhood association president. In addition to
data collection, Denver also began revising policies on police hiring, training, and enforcement as
they pertain to biased profiling, according to City Attorney Rico Munn.
While a vast majority of police officers strive to enforce laws objectively and treat all citizens with
respect, many people agree with Congressman Conyers that there is an erosion in public confidence
in the law enforcement community. As local governments choose the best solutions to address
incidents of racial or biased profiling, many are confronted with issues of trust and credibility
between their community and police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has
cited such concerns, stating that the "highly publicized incidents of use of force, racial profiling,
corruption, and instances of unethical behavior of police officers and executives have laid the
groundwork for many of our citizens to believe that the problems are widespread and deeply rooted.
The concerns of our citizens encompass not only law enforcement but all the participants in the
criminal justice system - to the courts, to prosecutors, corrections, and probation officials. For all of
these elements to perform in an effective manner that ensures justice and leads to orderly and
peaceful communities, there must exist a trusting and confident relationship with all of our citizens
in every part of the country."
Furthermore, to address racial profiling in a comprehensive manner, the IACP recommends
the creation of "a national commission to conduct a comprehensive review of law
enforcement and the administration of justice in the United States, and to provide the nation
with a measured response to crime. It is our hope that the commission's recommendations
would serve to ensure justice, to maintain order and peace, and to secure a trusting and
confident relationship between the people of the United States and their criminal justice
system."
National Municipal Policy:
The National League of Cities adopted a resolution against racially -based profiling in
December 2000, which supports federal legislation that provides financial support to state,
county, and local law enforcement agencies for training programs, equipment, data
collection and research as measures to prevent further incidents and allegations of biased
profiling. Moreover, NLC's National Municipal Policy calls for a constant commitment
throughout all levels of government to ensure that justice is dispensed equally, and not based
on race, gender, education, or economic status. Currently, NLC President Dennis Archer,
Mayor of Detroit, Michigan, is pursuing an "Investing In Communities" agenda, which
urges the federal government to support local efforts to prevent racially -based profiling.
As developments occur, NLC will continue to advocate its position against racial profiling
with both the Administration and Congress to ensure that cities and towns have the federal
support needed to address the problem in some areas and develop proactive policies against
the problem in other communities.
For further information about racial profiling and other public safety issues,
please contact the following NLC staff at (202) 626-3020:
Deborah Rigsby, Senior Legislative Counsel
Debra Johnson, Manager of Policy Analysis and Development
Additionally, the National League of Cities' Municipal Reference Service
(202-626-3130) has information about city programs implemented to address racial
profiling.
REPORT
OF
INQUIRY PANEL
CONCERNING THE
YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Submitted by:
F. JOE FALK, JR.
BERTHA ORTEGA
LAZARO "LARRY" B. SANCHEZ
February 12, 2001
February 12, 2001
The Honorable Mary Place
Mayor, City of Yakima
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: Report of Inquiry Panel Concerning
the Yakima Police Department
Dear Mayor Place:
Last October the City Council appointed the
undersigned to inquire into allegations of internal and
external disparate treatment by the Yakima Police
Department affecting minority officers and minority
citizens within our community. We have done so and
herewith submit our report to you and the Council.
We have found that the available proof to support or
refute both allegations of disparate treatment is elusive.
The reason for this is that much of the evidence lies in
the perception which many minorities and others have that
disparate treatment does occur. As our report states, we
believe that whether it is fact or misperception, the
existence of this perception presents significant strategic
issues which the Council and the YPD must address.
We are fully cognizant that police officers have a
difficult job to do. In many instances, they place their
lives at risk in providing emergency services and
protecting our community against criminal wrongdoers. They
also provide a host of crime prevention and public safety
services which make our community a safer place to live.
They are broadly supported within our community, including
our minority neighborhoods, for their professionalism and
excellent work.
However, change is going to be necessary, as our
report concludes, to address and respond to the perception
that disparate treatment is occurring within the YPD and
community. We believe the Council and YPD should
proactively act to make the changes which we are
recommending in our report. The alternative is that if you
fail to act, others will do so for you.
We hope our report will serve as a catalyst for the
kinds of change that will mitigate, insofar as possible,
mistrust of the Department and its officers and will
promote positive relationships between them and the
community.
F. Joe Falk, Jr.
Very truly yours,
./ -� cr�t� 8
Bertha Ortega Lazaro "Larry" B. Sanchez
INDEX
TOPIC PAGE
Introduction 1
Inquiry Panel 2
Process 2
Disparate Treatment of
Minority Officers 4
Findings 5
Discussion 7
Recommendations 8
Racial Profiling 9
Findings 10
Discussion 13
Recommendations 19
Implementation Recommendation 22
Conclusion 23
INTRODUCTION
On July 29, 2000, now former Yakima Police Department ("YPD"
or "the Department") officer Tony Ramos wrote the Washington
State Commission on Hispanic Affairs ("Commission") regarding his
view that the Department and its officers engage in racially
discriminatory practices. (Tab 1) His allegations fell
generally into two categories:
• That Hispanic police officers are subject to
discriminatory treatment, including being the object of
racist remarks and excessive discipline.
• That YPD officers engage in discriminatory practices
towards Hispanic persons, including engaging in racial
profiling.
The Executive Director of the Commission, Onofre Contreras,
Jr., requested that the City of Yakima undertake an independent
review of Mr. Ramos' allegations. The City Council responded by
appointing the undersigned to conduct an inquiry into his
allegations.
We have completed our inquiry and submit this as our report
to Mayor Mary Place and the City Council.
INQUIRY PANEL
The undersigned Inquiry Panel ("panel") is comprised of:
• F. Joe Falk, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Finney,
Falk & Lawrence-Berrey, who served on the Yakima School
Board from 1991 to 1999 and the Board of Governors of
the American National Red Cross from 1992 to 2000.
• Bertha P. Ortega, the Assistant Vice -President for
Community Relations at Heritage College, who served as
a member of the Washington State Commission on Hispanic
Affairs from 1992 to 1999.
• Lazaro "Larry" B. Sanchez, the Regional Director for
the Washington State Department of Employment Security
for Eastern Washington. Mr. Sanchez was born and
raised in Toppenish and attended Yakima Valley
Community College and Evergreen State College.
PROCESS
Our panel began its inquiry on October 28, 2000 when we met
to frame the scope of our inquiry and develop the process we
would use to ensure a responsive investigation of Mr. Ramos'
allegations.
We thereafter secured numerous documents from the City and
YPD, many of which will be referred to in this report and, as
appropriate, attached hereto. We also:
• Conducted community forums on December 6, 2000 at the
Yakima Southeast Community Center and on January 11,
2001 at the Yakima Convention Center;
• Hosted a one-hour radio call-in show on Radio KDNA on
December 8, 2000;
• Interviewed 14 persons on December 16, 2000 and January
6 and January 20, 2001, including Chief Don Blesio,
Mayor Mary Place, Council Member Henry Beauchamp, City
Manager Richard A. Zais, Mr. Ramos, and nine members
from the Department;
• Received several letters;
• Spoke with many citizens who provided additional input;
• Conferred with P. Diane Schneider of the Community
Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice, who also
is a member of the Portland Police Bureau's Blue Ribbon
Panel on Racial Profiling;
• Reviewed the videotapes of the hearing before the
Yakima Police and Fire Civil Service Commission on
August 18 and 19 and September 29 and 30, 2000
regarding Mr. Ramos' termination by the YPD ("Ramos
hearing"); and
• Reviewed voluminous materials concerning law
enforcement -community relationships and racial
profiling.
3
DISPARATE TREATMENT OF MINORITY OFFICERS
Mr. Ramos alleged that Hispanic police officers are subject
to disparate treatment by the YPD. We expanded our inquiry to
include all minority officers.
We did not address the question of whether Mr. Ramos'
termination by the Department was racially motivated. That
question was before the Yakima Police and Fire Civil Service
Commission which found that his termination was not due to racial
discrimination. It is also before the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") which issued a finding on
November 21, 2000 that reasonable cause exists to believe that:
• Mr. Ramos was subjected to racially derogatory language
directed at Hispanics and that the Department took
insufficient corrective action to prevent it; and
• Mr. Ramos was disciplined more severely than other
officers who are not in his protected class under the
law.
However, the EEOC found insufficient evidence of a connection
between Mr. Ramos' termination and his protected status. (Tab 2)
We construe that finding to mean that the EEOC was unable to find
that his termination was racially motivated. The EEOC is seeking
certain sanctions and reforms concerning which we express no
opinion.
To address the broader allegation of disparate treatment of
minority officers, we interviewed seven minority officers from
the Department, the president of the Yakima Police Patrolmans
Association ("YPPA"), and, as already mentioned, Mr. Ramos. We
also considered a letter written to the Commission by Officer Joe
M'. Salinas on August 23, 2000 (Tab 3) and his testimony during
the Ramos hearing.
FINDINGS
From our interviews and other information we learned that:
• There are minority officers who have not experienced or
observed racially discriminatory behavior or treatment
within the Department.
• There are minority officers who believe they are
treated fairly by the Department.
• There are minority officers who believe that they are
treated less favorably than non -minority officers in
respect to (a) discipline, (b) assignment and
promotional opportunities, and (c) enforcement of
policies and procedures.
• There are minority officers who believe that they and
other minority officers are sometimes subject to
racially derogatory behavior.
• There are minority officers who do not trust the
complaint process and fear recrimination if they report
the perception of disparate treatment to their
superiors.
• The YPPA has received no complaints of discriminatory
treatment from its minority members.
• Racial bantering in jest has sometimes occurred between
minority and non -minority officers.
• A racially inflammatory note directed at Mr. Ramos was
left in his mailbox at the YPD following his suspension
in August, 1999. (Tab 4) The author thereof has never
been identified.
• Cultural awareness/diversity training is sometimes
ineffective or irrelevant and is not uniformly
respected by non -minority participants. This training
is not always offered annually (it was not offered in
1997 or 1998). Not all supervisory officers
consistently attend the training. In addition,
application of the skills learned in the training is
not monitored.
• The Department does not annually assess its personnel
regarding employee satisfaction.
• As of November 7, 2000, minority members comprised
27.5% of the Department's personnel.
• There are 19 supervisory officers (sergeant or above)
of whom one is a minority officer.
6
• When an officer seeks to be promoted to the rank of
sergeant or higher, 40% of the final score derives from
an interview by an independent board ("oral board").
Oral boards rarely include minority officers.
DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing findings, we cannot find that
minority officers are systematically discriminated against by the
Department. On the other hand, there are occasions when minority
officers perceive they are treated differently than non -minority
officers, especially in regard to disciplinary matters.
We are convinced that Chief Blesio has a "zero tolerance"
policy for racial discrimination within the Department and that
he endeavors to ensure this is well known. He maintains an "open
door" policy which allows minority officers to come directly to
him regarding issues of fair treatment. However, some minority
officers, as noted previously, fear coming to him or their
superiors directly; they do not trust the outcome.
The Department must ensure that all personnel understand
that fair and equal treatment and mutual respect are core values
of the Department and that discriminatory practices will not be
tolerated. It must also ensure that it is in touch with the
treatment of its minority officers and provides opportunities for
them to have meaningful dialogue with their superiors, including
the Chief, regarding their feelings and perceptions without fear
of recrimination. Our following recommendations are intended to
facilitate this dialogue.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, we make the following recommendations:
• Chief Blesio and his supervisors should develop new
strategies for communicating proactively with the
Department's minority officers to ensure a better
understanding of their perceptions regarding fair
treatment and to more effectively address any
perceptions of unfair treatment.
• The Department should assess its personnel annually
regarding employee satisfaction. The assessment
instrument should include questions having to do with
how employees feel about their treatment, their
relationship with their superiors, and their
opportunities for growth and promotion.
• The Department should continue to offer cultural
awareness/diversity training every year as part of its
annual in-service training program and should ensure
that the training has value and is designed to be
relevant and reflective of our community's ethnicity.
In addition, this training should be mandatory for all
supervisory personnel.
• The Department should undertake a critical self-
assessment to determine if discipline, assignment and
promotional opportunities, and enforcement of policies
and procedures are fair and equitable.
• The promotion process should be revised to ensure that
the oral boards regularly include minority officers.
8
RACIAL PROFILING
Mr. Ramos alleged that V L officers engage in discriminatory
practices towards Hispanic citizens and cited several examples of
such practices. These practices are commonly referred to as
"racial profiling". We expanded our inquiry to examine whether
racial profiling is occurring which affects all minorities in our
community.
There are many definitions of racial profiling across the
nation. Neither the City Council nor the YPD has developed a
definition for racial profiling (we understand the YPD is in the
process of doing so). The following definition of racial
profiling was developed by the City of Seattle and was utilized
in substance by the Seattle City Council in a racial profiling
resolution adopted by it on November 6, 2000:
"Racial Profiling" is the use of race or ethnicity as a
factor in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement
action, arrest or search a person or a vehicle without a
legal basis under the United States and Washington
Constitutions.
This definition has also been recommended for adoption by the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. It is
consistent with the several other definitions of racial profiling
currently in use and has the virtue of encompassing all forms of
police action in connection with a traffic stop, not simply the
decision to initiate a traffic stop.
FINDINGS
From our community forum, interviews, and other information,
we learned that:
• There is a perception within the minority community
that YPD officers engage in racial profiling.
• YPD officers deny that they engage in racial profiling
and are very sensitive about the perception that they
do so.
• There are minority officers who believe that there may
be occasions when some YPD officers engage in racial
profiling.
• YPD officers believe that racial profiling violates
Departmental policy and they can be terminated if they
engage in racial profiling.
• There is no written Departmental policy or directive
prohibiting racial profiling. However, we understand a
policy is being developed at present. The Seattle
Police Department has issued a statement on racial
profiling as a directive which represents an excellent
statement of direction for a police department.
(Tab 5)
• The City Council has not adopted a resolution
addressing racial profiling. As noted previously, the
Seattle City Council has recently adopted such a
resolution which serves as an excellent model.
(Tab 6)
• The YPD does not collect traffic -stop data on racial
profiling and is not required by law to do so.
• Since the spring of 1999, many states (including
Washington), municipalities, and law enforcement
agencies have adopted racial profiling legislation or
policies prohibiting racial profiling and requiring the
collection of data in traffic stops, including the
race/ethnicity of the driver stopped. In other
instances, the same outcome has been imposed by
judicial decree.
• In a door-to-door survey of Southeast Yakima conducted
in April of 1997 by Project CHANGE in collaboration
with the Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition, 65%
of the respondents said they trust the police and 48%
rated their local police as good or excellent (81% fair
to excellent). (Tab 7)
• In a report to the City by the Washington Association
of Minority Entrepreneurs submitted in September, 1996
entitled "East Yakima Neighborhood Community Assessment
-- A Baseline Conditions Review", among the issues
ranked as "major concerns" were neighborhood crime and
violence, drug abuse, and gang activity. Law
enforcement activities or services were not identified
as a significant issue. Of the respondents surveyed,
50.4% rated police protection as satisfactory or
excellent, and 45.2% rated the relationship between the
police and their community satisfactory to excellent
(84.7% fair to excellent). Hispanics comprised 55% of
the respondents surveyed.
• With one exception, we heard few unfavorable comments
regarding the YPD from the Hispanic or African American
business, management, and professional community or
from Hispanic or African American community leaders at
our forums, by letter, or otherwise. Some were in
attendance at our forums but did not speak.
• Although the above statistics would suggest a
relatively low level of mistrust by minority citizens
towards the YPD, we believe that there is sufficient
evidence of mistrust to warrant addressing it as an
important issue at this time.
• Felony and misdemeanor adult arrest statistics for
1998, 1999, and to October 31, 2000 reflect that the
percentage of minorities arrested by the YPD varies
from 30.6% to 37.3%. No such data is available for
traffic stops as the Department is not required to
collect it.
• Some minority citizens do not understand and others do
not respect or trust the YPD's complaint process and
will not complain of disparate treatment for fear their
complaints will not be taken seriously or may result in
recrimination.
• Community outreach to Yakima neighborhoods by the YPD
has been significantly reduced in recent years due to
budgetary constraints. We are aware that Chief Blesio
personally reaches out to the minority community and to
community organizations in a number of ways.
• There is uniform agreement that enhanced outreach
activities by the Department as a whole, especially in
- 12 -
East Yakima, would be beneficial and would defuse
tension.
• Our previous finding regarding cultural awareness/
diversity training is pertinent to the issue of racial
profiling as well.
DISCUSSION
In a June 9, 1999 address, former President Clinton stated:
"But we also know that we have a major problem, which in
some places has gotten worse as our communities have grown
increasingly diverse. While public confidence in the police
has been growing steadily overall, people of color continue
to have less confidence and less trust, and believe that
they are targeted for actions by the police not because of
their illegal conduct but because of the color of their
skin."
He also stated that stopping or searching individuals on the
basis of race is not an effective law enforcement policy, that it
is inconsistent with our democratic ideals, especially our
commitment to equal protection under the law for all persons, and
that it is neither legitimate nor defensible as a strategy for
public protection.
We can affirm from our inquiry that President Clinton's
words are no less pertinent today than when they were when they
were spoken nearly two years ago. A Gallup poll released in
December 1999 showed a majority of Americans, regardless of race,
believe racial profiling occurs and is a widespread wrong. This
perception persists today nationally to the degree that President
Bush is considering the appointment of a law enforcement panel to
examine racial profiling, according to the February 8, 2001
edition of USA Today.
We have found that this perception also exists in the City
of Yakima as well as in the Yakima Valley. In a survey conducted
for the Yakima Herald -Republic in April 2000 and published in its
December 12, 2000 edition, 81% of Hispanics and 74% of non -
Hispanics surveyed believe the police in Yakima County stop
vehicles based upon the race or ethnicity of the occupants at
least occasionally.
We are unable to find that the YPD intentionally engages in
a widespread practice of racial profiling or discriminatory
actions. We believe that the Department does not teach or
condone such conduct and condemns it.
However, there is evidence that one or more YPD officers
have engaged in conduct that falls within the definition of
racial profiling, either wittingly or unwittingly, within the
past two years. From the officer's viewpoint, his or her intent
and actions had nothing to do with the race or ethnicity of the
person stopped, but the person stopped and others nevertheless
perceived that race or ethnicity was a factor. Whether or not
that perception is accurate, it is nearly always a reality for
those persons. If so, then the Department must be as concerned
about its actions being perceived as fair as it is about its
actions in fact being fair.
The Department has a practice that may lend to the
perception that racial profiling is occurring. We heard from
- 14 -
several officers that the Department uses citation and arrest
statistics as a benchmark for individual officer performance.
One officer characterized the Department as "statistics driven",
and most other officers agreed. They are expected to issue a
certain number of citations each month. This expectation, by
itself, may not seem relevant to the racial profiling issue.
However, it is well known within the Department that persons
traveling in East Yakima and in older cars are likely to generate
multiple citations. As one officer put it, traffic violations
follow poverty. Thus, if a vehicle is stopped in East Yakima for
a taillight that is out, as one example, the stop is more likely
to result in additional citations or an arrest (e.g. because of
driving without a license or with a suspended or revoked license,
no proof of insurance, prior unpaid citations, or an outstanding
arrest warrant) than if the stop were made in West Yakima for a
routine violation (e.g. speeding). Also, if an officer's
statistics are down for the month, he or she, we are told, is
more likely to take formal enforcement action. If so, then this
expectation may readily lead to the perception that the stop and
subsequent enforcement action were precipitated by racial
profiling, even though that may be untrue.
We recognize that the issue of racial profiling is very
complex and emotional and cannot be easily resolved. Many law
enforcement agencies are working earnestly to address this issue
in their communities. It has not been an easy task, nor will it
be an easy task in our community. We note that the YPD had its
15
officers undergo an eight-hour racial profiling training course
during the week of January 29, 2001.
We are not experts on racial profiling. We instead bring
what we hope is a common sense perspective to the subject. We
are persuaded that:
• The City Council needs to affirm the City's commitment
to law enforcement procedures that are fair, equitable,
and constitutional. The Council needs to provide
policy direction to the YPD requiring that it assure
the Council that it has in place policies and
procedures which prohibit and prevent racial profiling,
as have the Seattle City Council and other legislative
bodies.
• The YPD also needs to formalize a policy prohibiting
racial profiling and related procedures designed to
prevent racial profiling from occurring.
• The Department should undertake a critical self-
assessment to determine which aspects of its current
operations may be the source of racial and ethnic
tension in minority neighborhoods.
• The current level of minority officers should be
sustained and initiatives for recruiting qualified
minority officers should be enhanced within the limits
of the law (we note that the Department has secured
approval for a bilingual registry).
• The Department must have good dialogue with the
minority neighborhoods regarding not only law
enforcement actions but also "liveability" problems in
their neighborhoods (e.g. addressing crime and
violence, drug abuse, and gang activity). This
dialogue needs to be meaningful, sustained, and,
insofar as possible, Department -wide.
• There needs to be a thorough, fair, and responsive
citizen complaint investigation and review process.
The YPD has a citizen complaint process which is found
in Chapter 8 of its Policy and Procedure Manual.
Chapter 8 requires that the complainant be notified of
the disposition of his/her complaint, but it does not
allow for any appeal of such disposition. In addition,
there is no provision for independent oversight of the
complaint process by the City Council or a citizen
advisory body appointed by the Council. The City of
Portland has adopted a particularly well designed
oversight model which addresses the desire for both
public oversight of police activities and the need for
a functional and effective police department. A copy
of the Portland model is attached to this report.
(Tab 8)
• The in-service training provided YPD officers must
instruct officers that discriminatory practices will
not be tolerated and must elevate their awareness and
sensitivity to the kinds of behaviors or practices
which lend to a perception of discriminatory treatment.
We recognize that no amount of in-service training will
eliminate this perception from occurring; there will
always be some citizens who believe they have been
racially profiled, regardless of the officer's
professionalism and sensitivity. However, effective
training will serve to mitigate opportunities for this
perception to occur.
- 17 -
• The Department needs to develop management tools to
ensure that racial profiling does not occur and, if it
should occur, that it will be identified and remedied.
Many state and local police departments have
implemented a data collection program. The prevailing
view is that data collection efforts help to determine
whether there is evidence that racial profiling is
occurring and, if so, the nature and extent thereof.
This view has been statutorily adopted in many areas of
the country, including in our state. However, only the
Washington State Patrol is currently required to
collect data in traffic stops using a standardize
ScanTron form much like ScanTron forms used in other
states and municipalities. For the City, it is
encouraged by the state but is optional; the state has
not thus far provided municipalities any funding or
other resources to pay for data collection.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, we make the following recommendations:
• The City Council should develop and adopt a clear,
strong resolution affirming the right of all citizens
to be treated equally and fairly and without regard to
their race, ethnicity, gender, or economic status;
defining and prohibiting racial profiling; and
requiring the YPD to adopt a policy on racial profiling
and related procedures to ensure the prevention of
racial profiling.
• The YPD should adopt a written policy prohibiting the
practice of racial profiling, as defined by the City
Council, and containing, in substance, the following
elements:
(a) Members will endeavor to ensure that police
services provided by the Department are available to
all persons in the community on an equal basis without
regard to a person's race, ethnicity, gender, or
economic status. (Other descriptors may be appropriate
as well.)
(b) No member shall deny access to or provide a
lower level of police service by the Department to any
person based solely on race, ethnicity, gender, or
economic status. (Other descriptors may be appropriate
as well.)
(c) No member shall engage in the practice of
race -based profiling or any other type of
discriminatory enforcement practices in selecting
vehicles for traffic stops and in deciding upon the
scope and substance of post -stop actions.
• The Department should undertake a critical review of
its existing procedures, practices, directives, and
training to ensure that they prevent racial profiling
from occurring insofar as possible, including the
perception thereof. This should include a review of
its quota -based performance standards (written or
unwritten) to ensure that compliance with those
standards is not contributing to the perception that
officers engage in racial profiling.
• The Department should implement appropriate training to
better prepare its officers to avoid the perception
that they are engaging in racial profiling in their law
enforcement actions. This training should include
giving officers cross-cultural communications and
conflict resolution skills. We would here also refer
to our previous recommendation at page 8 regarding
cultural awareness/diversity training.
• The Department's citizen complaint investigation and
review process should be reexamined and, as necessary,
revised to ensure that it is thorough, fair, and
responsive. This should include adding a requirement
that the complainant be notified in writing of the
disposition of his/her complaint and, if the following
recommendation is adopted, has the right to appeal the
disposition thereof.
• The City Council should develop and implement an
independent citizen oversight process similar to the
Portland model to hear appeals by citizens of the
disposition by the YPD of their complaints and to
oversee the administration of the complaint process.
• The City Council and the Department should investigate
and develop a process for collecting racial/ethnic and
other data on all traffic stops utilizing the standard
ScanTron vehicle stop data form. The data collected
from these forms should be used as a management tool to
assess, among other items, whether or not racial
profiling is occurring. This will also require that
appropriate statistical benchmarks be developed.
• The Department should develop strategies for enhancing
its community outreach to minority neighborhoods and,
if necessary, seek to identify federal, state an other
resources, including volunteer resources, to ensure an
effective and comprehensive outreach program. We also
believe that the City Council and City Manager need to
partner with the Department in its outreach program.
The importance of an enhanced community outreach cannot
be overstated.
• Consistent with the foregoing recommendation, the
Department should develop strategies for enhancing
community policing programs based on a proactive
collaboration between police and citizens in non-
threatening and supportive interactions.
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION
We further recommend that the City Council direct the City
Manager to implement our recommendations, except for those
recommendations which are directed to the Council itself, and
that he include in his monthly management report to the Council a
description of the actions being undertaken to do so, including
anticipated completion dates. The Council should also set a
final time, in its discretion, by which all such actions are to
be completed and a final implementation report is to be made to
the Council.
Regarding those recommendations which are to be implemented
by the City Council, we recommend that it appoint an
implementation committee, including three Council members, which
shall have responsibility for developing a plan of implementation
for those recommendations. This Committee should also have
oversight responsibility for implementation of these
recommendations and all other recommendations.
CONCLUSION
We are confident that our recommendations are responsive to
the information which we gathered, the voices which we heard, and
the issues which we were called upon to address. We believe that
it is critical that our recommendations be acted upon by the City
Council and the YPD. The failure to act will almost certainly
result in the continued perception of disparate treatment by the
YPD, both internally and externally. The failure to act will
also enhance the risk of litigation and of a judicially imposed
resolution, as has already occurred elsewhere.
We hope our report and recommendations will serve as a
useful tool for planning and effectuating change to better enable
the Department to serve our community and its citizens.
We believe that, on balance, the Department's men and women
demonstrate a high level of professionalism when dealing with the
public. We also believe that they do excellent work and will
continue to do so in the future. We do not want our report to be
construed as suggesting otherwise.
Nevertheless, change is necessary Either we make that
change based upon our core values and community culture or others
will do so for us based upon their own criteria. The choice is
ours, and now is the time to make and act upon it.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 2001.
(‘.i/a-,7
F. JOE 'WALK, JR, BERTHA ORTEGA
LAZi O "LARRY" B. SANCHE
APPENDIX
Tab No. Document
1
2
3
Ramos letter to Washington
State Commission on Hispanic
Affairs, dated July 29, 2000
EEOC letter to Tony Ramos
and YPD, dated November 21,
2000
Joe M. Salinas letter to
Washington State Commission
on Hispanic Affairs, dated
August 23, 2000
4 Note left in Tony Ramos'
YPD mailbox
5 Seattle Police Department
Directive on racial profiling
6 Seattle City Council resolution
on racial profiling adopted
November 6, 2000
7
8
Project CHANGE survey results
for Southeast Yakima
Portland police review/advisory
board model
3607530199; Aug -9-'x13:03; Page 2/4
LETTER OF POSITIION
July 29, 21mo
The Washington State Commileics on Efispimic Anti=
anafbe Osmtre as
EhmcudveDinector
Olympia, WA
Dear Mt Contreras,
•
Fist. Dian thank ya+s Ihr taking the time to speak with me an the afternoon of July .17, 2000. Yaw
condemn and unliarstancraig is vary appreciated. I as wends other employees oftheYakana Police
departineit hope that the Cacti as 'ratable fir di:< i sion, the serious aaceovumt that I and °
ahem Officers have reganfregibs past and currant practiced involving racial profiling abode of
civil rigs and the disparate treatment of flispanic Porion Ods.
k is my hope that the ccannintricet-vall drank attention to the caonrmooity any de flispanic
commimity &the type of discdtainstory practices the department is engaged . 1 pe:acoally-
wocioed as a police officer frees 1993 and witnessed MallY jai:Wel t, of musttrafc stops, radar
profiling and serious abuses -c aim civil ruts. 1 have persaaaUy hand racial remarks made by
administrators of the department and have received racially tainted hate >maef at work An example
& a =meat made by s moor at the deputised was, `'P icmadiy, 'think we ought to take
every Mexican and put a t ac3ie • bulletin their head". -
White Police Officers art angttikig at the practice of lading res ti doe i to we °Moder.
These offinders ate afben tic or ðnic descent. I have at mums occasions seen 'Ake
Police Ods give aver $1,4013 -worth &dam 'ts to one I paak of s de 4 knowing that nae thdret
would suffice alaeg with a rstreingweming. The Administratica however preening it's Officers to
meet a caeca &maintaining act*Et a day a (INt °policy_ er m¢i) and threatears.
Officers with }ane if thig liquata" is not met at the end )the math. Ibis I benaae vly
to the abuse of iikringtick tits to the bard working Kzspa nae vom ear pity. The statistics
would prove that the i ccemmamiy as a whole are :victimised bythis psa Ours are
isety &amain vehicleaccOPiod by I,spm& citizen' WIsuspiciour and are ftillovaing these
veiu+cles-uattl they spat a #ate:giials n ase plates light, cracked wi vt eWd eto.)
Offices have very often critegniizerl Espanics driving new pickup as.drug dealers and
fallow thew vehicles on miato=.triulatiaaa hoping to fold dings in oho vehicles. OfBaecs have also
arrested Manes= F _iso arrest waaratsts. If a latpestic ser maria a dese.t3othat ofties
admit person in..: .. aid date &bath almost matches, I lupe seen Officers ;Fest people
perm* sits cfthe identify &the persoathey stetakiogto jai: This happens
weaken - ii Ueda who ars very afraid to challenge the autbcrky uta Pogo)
3607530199; Aug-Of13:04; Page 3/4
•
&Scar. I have been at the comity jail murarow times when people who only speak Spanish tell
me that the officers who waged than called them racial names and abused them physically. I
knew this happcos because !ire Breen it and 1 have seen Officers untruthfWly gibs tie
amounts and types of use ofixce they used when wrking their reports. I have witnessed a whine
Police Officer unjustly pt. hie gun to a Arm wothac, just berm the Ofcerthau{ght be was a
drug dealer.
Te is nriposin—en that also 1n the ittsp�ic � efuly .obehgvios• is not ally aimed at the
Police : help create a beaer relationship
betore�aethe Hispamc
coimummnity and des police dap ment. There currently, am has there ever been a in/entity
administrator at the Yakima .?atice Department. This am deatf should be egret amoem
considming the &terse etfinkiky and the lame Id anis aoreamznitytt>at make ap this area.
Repo& Polka Officers watt* that they get paid well enough for vrhst they einvihen theyl ied
to bargain fine di entisl pay bean= of their bbl skills. They vane denied -by the police
muga and the Chief of Police*lid to consider the mal pay even tboagiz Mimic Officers
were berg used to translate throughout the city and work loads were sad have been inclosed
patty.
FliSpiaiic Officers have also beta the victims of excessive discipline White Polceafficers as well
as members of the adiainisEr 'ort have engage{ in ethnical be vier ranging from
p d aim tic viodeacesi;d sexual misceodn x'while on datysadthey still remain employed
by*. department. the aclatinistraden has knowingly covered up the fact that several police
departmeet sus wase in unethical behavior involving almitoi while en city
Pfup&ty or while cc dwy. These officers where not dieciplined nearly the same as-scme hispanic'
Officers. A arbitrator ruled -Just brat month that the CiyManager and the thief of Polio
threatened and retaliated agakg a Ilispanic Police Officer ahem he filed a grievance for what he
thou it was. excessive &ce. I was terminated a Deca:aber 1999 fix filling too weer cry
ballistic vest, although tie lino written department policy in the department policy and
procedure manual. These tuntither white police officers alio Windy did not weartheir vests,
they were ;server d>aciplined: I bras once told by a supervisor that time only reams 1 was hired was
because I was Evade, tlatereme supervisor also told me that "We media stick to our own ling"
when he saw me speaking to a Mexican Dimly while on day. -
Police supervitorshave ray refined to I tispaaic Offices as "Spica" or Beacom'
in bath the work place and:soca1 gatherings. This type ofworking mvuanment and TISIOV3inative
department meocaiky can Mo loaner be tolerated This has created s hoe& working environment at
the _penmen and has ed viIy loci/end the monde. at the depastment, aging due stiess anti'
tanker. in it already . If department is allowedto contbme.cperating is this
wanner, The City of Yak:i na not expect e#lec tive and ethical lawanfincement Sian time
Xlsnlios shop withem** am asking ng fbr an inquiry into the total operation of YakimaDepartment.terms deserve to know mcsetiy how their Police Department is
-firming. Police departure to rota the nation or beteg bald accountable for the way they police
their and thus theauseltrea The City of Yakima ianot diff not. Let the nudes be told.
real; the community swank iftheYakima Police Department believes it is operating in an
effbctive eehiai manner, thentitice should be nOhesitstion to eaofraat these issues head m.
Again, we would ask that Tlbe•6civentr 's Cermnissiai can Hispanic Aft btu attention to this
3607530199; Aug -9-2(2,,13:05;
. -
matter so that the citizens of Our conummity can e4ect affective law eufbrcenent 1 would also
hire to go cn record arid stythat the issues we have spoke oftcdity does not &scale all of the
Officers ofthellakim" a PoliceDepattrnect There am many dedicate1 men and women doing au
outstanding job for their community.
•
We appreciate your at:A(11km this matter.
Sincerely,
Page 4/4
ZOOM ISOS8 014 X Ill 00
w =9T a14, sar0i/VIii
.Rurrs,uKI VDU. 1 ! WMMISSION
Seattle District Office r - 10 oel
NOV 2 I ?IL% 909 DAAmite. SAG 400
Snide. WA 991044061
p06)ua66u
TTY 006) 3304$83
PAXp06j=S0491!
Tony Ramos
5503 Mt. Aix Way
Yakima, WA 98901
City Ot Yakima -Police Department
200 South Third Street
Yakima, WA 98901
DETERMTHAXIM
Charge 10o.380A01160
Charging Party
Respondent
Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the
following determination as to the merits of the subject charge
filed under Title VIZ of the Civil Rights' Act of 1964, as amended
(Title V/1).
All requirements for coverage have been met. Charging Party
alleged that Respondent discriminated against him in violation of
Title VII in that, because of his race and national origin he Was
subjected to harassment in the form of derogatory language and
disparaging comments. Charging Party further alleged he was
subjected to disparate treatment in the.form of excessive
discipline, resulting in his termination. He also alleges that
the discipline he received was based on retaliation for opposing
practices made illegal under Title VII.
During the investigation, all relevant, available documents were
reviewed. 1 have considered all the evidence disclosed during the
investigation and have determined that there is reasonable cause
to believe that the Charging Party was subjected to racially
derogatory language directed at Hispanics, and that the employer
took insufficient corrective action to ensure the elimination of
the hostile environment. The investigation also found that there
is reasonable cause to believe that.the level of discipline
administered to the Charging Party, discharge, was more severe
than that administered to others not of Charging Party s
protected class for comparable conduct, which violates Title VII.
i 17bti+;t 1lc •ni/nn:ct •ivtn:q,t nnn7 U It(NOW) 39V[S831N3O WO8i
COOL (SOS8 ON XVII] 00 : uT MOR 00/LZ/TT
found insufficient evidence to his shy a
nexus b the investigation CharParty's protected activity nexus between Charging .
discharge• believe that a violation has
on finding that theca is reason to 1 cation.
the C fission attests to eliminate
a alleged
occurred, practices by informal methods o parties to j. with it
unlawful •
P Commission now invites the p l
in
thejust resolution of this matter. The co confidentiality provisions of Title VII and conciliation.
confidentiality
Regulations apply to information obtained during
for any
the Respondent declines to discuss
to thesettlement
ff�ceDirector is
of parties advise
tot o reason. theeDirec or willpinform the p j abs a and vise
them
obtained, enforcement alternatives available
to notify
to agvieved
persons
of andne the
It is Commission policy
�r9onB the Go�1i8S ion •ht to sue for remedial relief.
each aggrieved person of the right
attorney's fees and court
• including recovery of back pay, P
ission representative will contact each party in
costs. A Comm
the near suture to begin conciliation.
On Behalf of the Commission
- 11411 1111111
S' a r at?tiiic°nN/nn:ct is/tn:gt nnn7 i7 tt(NOW)
6
M`LBINO
Dis 4t Director
39V1Sa31N30 WO
RECEIVED
("TY OF Y '10.n
AUG 3 0 2000
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
August 23, 2000
Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs
Onofre Contreras
Executive Director
Olympia, WA
Dear Mr. Contreras,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my concerns. A letter, written by
ex -police officer, Tony Ramos, was sent to you. In that letter, Mr. Ramos alludes to
some "serious concerns" that he had with department operations during his employment
with the Yakima Police Department. A copy of that letter was posted on a police
department bulletin board and made available for all to read. Police officers, for years,
have been trained to offer no response when criticized by the public, whether the
criticism holds any merit or not. After reading Mr. Ramos' letter, I cannot help but feel
compelled to offer this response.
I worked as a Yakima Police Officer with Mr. Ramos for many years during my
assignment with the Patrol Division. I was hired as a police officer in 1991 while Mr.
Ramos was hired in 1993. I had what I considered to be a close, personal friendship with
Mr. Ramos. Among other things we shared in common was our chosen path into law
enforcement. Mr. Ramos and I both began our careers as what was classified by the
police department as a Depai Iinent Assistant II, a clerical position in the Complaint /
Communications Division at YPD. I can recall Mr. Ramos' desire to become a police
officer while he was employed as a DA II. Subsequently, Mr. Ramos passed the
necessary requirements and testing phases and was hired by YPD. I remember Mr.
Ramos as being an aggressive, hard-working officer who made it a point to be involved
in many arrests during his career. Mr. Ramos enjoyed his work as a police officer and he
made friends easily. Having been schooled locally, he was familiar with many citizens in
Yakima on both sides of the law. Mr. Ramos also spoke Spanish. This helped him, as it
has helped me, help the non-English speaking citizens of Yakima.
As our careers progressed, I saw Mr. Ramos less often. He was assigned to a specialty
unit, the SCAT squad or Street Crimes Abatement Team. This team often worked with
minimal to no supervision on a variety of vice -related, undercover operations. I can
remember congratulating Mr. Ramos on his new assignment as I had also considered
applying for the same unit at that time. It was toward the end of his career that Mr.
Ramos began having discipline issues arise.
I was in attendance at a Yakima Police Patrolman's Association meeting at which Mr.
Ramos was asking for help in retaining an attorney. Mr. Ramos was facing dismissal
following an incident involving insubordination over the wearing of his ballistic vest and
he was planning an appeal to the decision for his termination. In his letter to you, Mr.
Ramos indicated that he was fired for not wearing the vest. This was not the case. Mr.
Ramos was terminated as a result of insubordination and for lying to his supervisors
during an internal investigation.
Mr. Ramos alleges serious racial discrimination issues within the Yakima Police
Department and in dealings with the public. In my ten years with the department, I have
learned that this is not the case. To this day, I consider each of the men and women on
the Yakima Police Department as members of an extended family.
Officers here recognize the need to speak Spanish and some officers have learned phrases
on their own to help them deal with our Spanish-speaking citizens. As the need arises,
Yakima Police Officers can call on an array of Spanish-speaking officers to assist with
translation. I do not consider this a burden, nor do I consider it a duty that I should
receive extra pay for. I consider it part of my job. Extra pay for this sort of work would
have to be bargained for in our labor contract with the City of Yakima. I don't believe
this is something that our Chief has any control over.
The Yakima Police Department continues to encourage minority applicants including
those who speak Spanish. Realizing that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing
population in America, the department recognizes the need for employees who speak
Spanish. Citizens who speak Spanish and need contact with a police officer have often
requested that a Spanish-speaking officer contact them. Rather than turn these people
away, the department accommodates these requests.
Mr. Ramos also refers to a "quota" of one ticket a day for each officer. While the one
ticket a day may be viewed by the general public as a "quota", it's actually a measure of
each officer's own initiated activity. While it is not uncommon for a citizen to receive
more than one citation during a traffic stop, I can assure you that officers are more than
fair with warnings issued to these same people. I have not personally witnessed any of
the allegations made by Mr. Ramos in regard to numerous tickets issued to members of
"the hard-working Hispanic community" simply based on their race.
Mr. Ramos speaks of improper stops on "suspicious" vehicles being driven by people of
Hispanic descent. The law requires that each officer be able to articulate why a vehicle
was stopped and provide a "reasonable suspicion" for the stop. If this standard is not
followed, then evidence from this stop is inadmissible in court.
There are approximately 15 Hispanic commissioned police officers in the Yakima Police
Department. All employees with over five and one half years of service are eligible to
take the promotional exam for Sergeant. I have taken the last two promotional exams and
I believe the testing process is fair and impartial. I would not want to be, nor should I be
promoted simply because I am Hispanic. I would much rather be chosen for promotion
because I was the most qualified applicant.
I have not experienced any racial discrimination while at work and I am satisfied with my
work environment. In fact, I believe that race relations in the Yakima Police Department
are far better than they are in the community that we serve. I have faith in the current
administration that they handle police internal investigations fairly. The Yakima Police
Patrolman's Association ensures that each officer receive fair and impartial discipline
within departmental guidelines. I have served proudly with the Yakima Police
Department for over ten years.
In closing, in the game of life, people play the cards that they are dealt. If the only cards
in your hand are the "race" cards, then those are the ones that are played. I find it very
interesting that these allegations surfaced only after Mr. Ramos' termination and never
during the course of his employment with the Yakima Police Department. Mr. Ramos'
allegations appear to be the ramblings of a disgruntled employee making a last attempt at
tarnishing the badges of that same group of dedicated men and women he once was a part
of.
Respectfully yours,
til. j �.-
Joe M. Salinas
cc: Mary Place, Mayor, City of Yakima
Dick Zais, City Manager, City of Yakima
Don Blesio, Police Chief, City of Yakima
'Kathryn Wilson, Investigator, EEOC
r
YOU FUCKING MEXICANS.......YOU CAN KISS YOUR ASSES GOOD-BYE
WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE UP!
GRIEVENCE THATI1IIII1
#14%
r
Exhibit 5
Seattle Police Department
DIRECTIVES
Date: 9/14100
Directive: D 00-66
STATEMENT ON RACIAL PROFILING
STATEMENT
WE RECOGNIZE the following to be true:
That the Seattle Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement and
public safety services of the highest quality and professionalism to all persons.
Those enforcement decisions based solely on race have no acceptable or legal place in
professional law enforcement or public safety operations.
That the Seattle Police Department and other law enforcement agencies of good
conscience have been concerned -that instances of persons being stopped or detained
by law enforcement personnel solely on the basis of. race have occurred in parts of our
nation.
That both the United States and Washington State constitutions protect persons from
infringement of their rights, except pursuant to due process of law, when there is
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe they have committed an offense.
That some individuals in our community, particularly within communities of color,
perceive that law enforcement officials engage in discriminatory enforcement practices
and believe they have been the target of unlawful and inappropriate law enforcement
scrutiny and attention.
That discrimination — real or perceived — erodes the confidence that alt persons must
have in law enforcement if we are to fulfill our mission of keeping people safe. Trust
between the Police and the people they serve is an essential element in a democracy.
LET IT THEREFORE BE KNOWN, throughout this community and elsewhere:
That the Seattle Police Department does not train, teach, endorse, support or condone
law enforcement or public safety practices based solely on race; and
That the Seattle Police Department is committed to legal and constitutionally valid police
practices free of discrimination engendered by race and that this expectation and right
extends to all people.
IN RECOGNITION of the importance of these principles, this Statement of Policy is
signed.
R. Gil Kerlikowska, Chief of Police
Date: .1/ ja,o
Page 1 of 1
Seattle Police Department
The Seattle Police Department is committed to enforcing the law fairly. The
following strategies are being implemented concerning racial profiling.
Data Collection:
• Collect Data
• Work with experts in the field to exarnine the issues in a comprehensive
fashion
• House all data collected in the Mayor's Office for Strategic Planning
• Work with Regional Partners such as WSPIC and Building Blocks Work
Group
♦ independent Review of Data
Training:
• Develop a comprehensive community outreach program
• Provide Roll Call Training on the issue of racial profiling and recent court
cases
♦ Hold community forums with Precinct Commanders and community
members to discuss the concerns of racial profiling
Accountability:
• Direct the Director in the Office of Professional Accountability to view
these complaints as a high priority
• Implement Internatacc-ountabili-ty and audit procedures
♦ Implement a pilot program that puts video cameras in patrol cars
I icy:_.- _.
•. Issue a specific policy -that prohibits racial -profilin
Seattle Police Department
Data Collection
and Analysis
Department
Policy
Training
db[
def
hie.e
db[
def
hie
14
0
nup.//ecru.ca.Srauic.waUS/ —Nut ipwit...a.0—maria p-.104.41—i—puuuuicwilAm/Km—Iota—L,
City of Seattle Legislative Information Service
Information updated as ofJanuary 30. 2001 12:35 PM
Resolution Number: 30223
A RESOLUTION condemning "racial profiling" and racial pretext stops, committing to take action to
collect data and research police traffic stops, and committing to take proactive steps to ensure that racial
profiling is not tolerated within the Seattle Police Department.
Date introduced/referred: Aug 14, 2000
Date adopted: Nov 6, 2000
Status: Adopted As Amended
Vote: 9-0
Committee: Public Safety and Technology
Sponsor: COMPTON
(No indexing available for this document)
Text
Note to users: (- indicates start of text that has been amended out
-) indicates end of text that has been amended out
(+ indicates start of text that has been amended in
+) indicates end of text that has been amended in
A RESOLUTION condemning "racial profiling" and racial pretext stops,
committing to take action to collect data and research police traffic
stops, and committing to take proactive steps to ensure that racial
profiling is not tolerated within the Seattle Police Department.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999 President Clinton issued an Executive Order
stating that stopping or searching individuals on the basis of race is
not an effective law enforcement policy, that it is inconsistent with
our democratic ideals, especially our commitment to equal protection
under the law for all persons, and that it is neither legitimate nor
defensible as a strategy for public protection, and instructing the
law enforcement agencies within the Departments of Justice, Treasury,
and Interior to collect race, ethnicity and gender data on the people
they stop or arrest; and,
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the Washington State Legislature passed
Senate Bill 6683 addressing the practice of targeting certain racial
groups for stops, ordered demographic data collection by the
Washington State Patrol and encouraged other local law enforcement
agencies to voluntarily gather data; and,
WHEREAS, the Seattle Human Rights Commission, Commission for Sexual
Minorities, and Women's Commission passed a joint resolution on July
17, 2000 calling upon the Mayor to direct SPD to collect data as
called for in ESSB 6683, to analyze and report on a semi-annual basis.
111111.I / ICA Q. UJ/"'JN /p W/ 11...ULU-1W J1 Y{X.T S IX u -/"},U V U W I _ JIS 1.u“..,1 ..,... .,
Establish a Task Force of Commissioners to participate in the review
and offer recommendations on a semi-annual basis; and,
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police passed two
resolutions in November 1999 condemning racial profiling and urging
all law enforcement agencies to implement a variety of steps,
including traffic data collection; and,
WHEREAS, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
passed a resolution on July 20, 1998 denouncing racial profiling and
supporting U.S. legislation calling for collection of traffic stop
data; and,
WHEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that pretextual
traffic stops on the basis of race are illegal; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle could be open to sanctions under the
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, if discriminatory practices were found to be
used by City departments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle is committed to ensuring the coexistence
of public safety and civil liberties; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle is committed to policing procedures that
are fair, equitable, and constitutional; and,
WHEREAS, the Seattle Police Department prohibits discrimination by
police officers in the conduct of their duties and requires them to
protect the constitutional rights of citizens; and,
WHEREAS, studies and analyses completed on traffic stops by the
Seattle Police Department show racial disproportionality, i.e., that
African American citizens are cited at a rate greater than their
percentage of the driving public within the City of Seattle; and,
WHEREAS, the reasons for this are poorly understood, data on the
subject are inadequate to make conclusive findings, and research to
understand the basis of the disproportionality is a high priority in a
city committed to human and civil rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE, THE MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT:
1. The use of race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding to stop and
question, arrest, or search a person without a legal basis under the
United States and Washington State Constitutions is illegal,
reprehensible, and will not be tolerated. Such racial profiling is
ineffective law enforcement policy and offends fundamental democratic
principles.
2. The Seattle Police Department shall assure that it has in place a
policy against racial profiling.
3. The Seattle Police Department shall enforce its policies and
provide training to correct and prevent cases of conscious or
unconscious racial profiling among officers and employees.
4. The Strategic Planning Office (SPO) shall convene a Citizen Task
Force. The Task Force shall consist of a limited number of members,
appointed and confirmed by the Council, representing a broad range of
perspectives. Representatives shall include, but not be limited to: a
member of the City of Seattle's Human Rights Commission; a member of
a public interest organization, a member of a community or
nnp:iroierLci.searne.wa.usi-scnprsin...aca=nnwvacp=i &u=/-pu ouuresn 1.nnn«.r- I 04.1-v
neighborhood organization, a member of the academic community; a
representative(s) from the legal community; and Council staff. The
role of the Citizen Task Force is to represent the specific needs and
concerns of the community at large and to work with SPD, SPO, and
academic experts to provide consultation on the objectives, goals and
design of the data collection program. SPO will synthesize the
recommendations from the Citizen Task Force, SPD, and academic experts
and will create a data collection program design and workplan based on
those recommendations. The design shall include at a minimum data on
race/ethnicity, current demographics, time, location, gender, age,
reason for police stop, and on whether a search was conducted. The
Citizen Task Force is asked to review the collection of license plate
information as a possible component in the design. The design shall
include at least two components: a method to collect data from police
and civilians; including civilians who have been stopped by the
police. The cost for the design and implementation of the data
collection program shall not exceed the amount $200,000, as allotted
in the 2001-2002 budget. SPO shall present the Council with a
recommendation for a final design within 120 days after the
forumlation of the Citizen Task Force. The formulation of the Citizen
Task Force shall be completed not later than 60 days from the adoption
of this resolution.
5. Upon Council's approval of the data collection design, the Seattle
Police Department and SPO shall structure and implement a system to
begin collecting data. Implementation shall begin within 90 days of
Council approval. Such research efforts will be housed within SPO, not
the Seattle Police Department.
6. The Seattle Police Department, in consultation with the Citizen
Task Force, and SPO shall devise a comprehensive strategic plan to
utilize the data collection effort to enhance training, counseling,
and police management, to implement police misconduct prevention
techniques, to develop early warning systems, and to improve the
citizen complaint process, community relations and education. SPD
shall present this plan as well as the status of data collection
efforts to the Public Safety and Technology Committee and the Housing,
Human Services, Education and Civil Rights Committee no later than
March 2001. SPO, in consultation with the Citizen Task Force, shall
review the data collected and present a final report with findings,
analysis, and recommendations to the Council by no more than 18 months
from the beginning of data collection to be preceded by a preliminary
report at 9 mos.
7. SPD is requested to prepare a feasibility study and make
recommendations for installing video cameras in some or all police
patrol cars. The study shall estimate implementation costs and
benefits, including: an examination of best practices of other cities
in the use of video cameras in patrol cars; desirability and value in
addressing concerns over racial profiling; possible unintended
impacts, legal liability; officer training requirements and labor
issues. SPD shall submit its report and recommendations to the Public
Safety Committee on or before March 31, 2001.
Adopted by the City Council the day of , 2000,
and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption
this day of , 2000.
President of the City Council
THE MAYOR CONCURRING:
Paul Schell, Mayor
Filed by me this day of , 2000.
JAN -14-01 THU 4:40 PM 3 FAX NO. 4533312
Door to Door Survey: Technical Report
From October 1996 through January 1997, Project CHANGE in collaboration
with the Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition conducted the Door to Door
Survey in three target neighborhoods in Yakima County. The purpose of the
survey was to collect information on community members' demographics,
perceptions of their community, and opinions on how best to reduce teen
pregnancy.
After completing training in survey administration, Americorps volunteers
conducted face-to-face interviews of all households in the City of Mabton and
Southeast Yakima (boundaries: Yakima Avenue on north, Nob Hill on the south,
Fair and 109' Street on east, First Street on the west). Face-to-face interviews
were conducted of a random sample of households in the City of Toppenish. A
total of 605 interviews were completed. This sample was representative of the
populations in the three areas. A break down of completed interviews is as
follows:
Neighborhood Number of Completed Interviews
Mabton '174
Southeast Yakima 327
Toppenish 104
Survey Instrument
Questions were based on a'similar survey conducted by the KC -WAIT project in
Kansas City, Missouri. The survey instrument was reviewed by the Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services Review Board in Olympia.
Please note due to confusion surrounding the IRB requirement, the instrument
was reviewed after data collection had already begun,
Selection of target neighborhoods
Project CHANGE's Assessment Workgroup selected the target neighborhoods
because limited resources made conducting a survey of the entire Yakima
County was infeasible. A lengthy process was used to select neighborhoods (see
attached Assessment Workgroup minutes).
Data Analysts: Results were tabulated by Dr. Mike Vachon of Yakima County
GIS.
JAN -1,1-01 THU 4:41 PM 3 FAX NO, 4533312 P. 3
Appendix D-2
Door to Door Survey
SOUTHEAST YAKIMA DOOR TO DOOR SURVEY RESULTS
April, 1997
The first few questions are about you.
1. What language are you most comfortable speaking? ❑ English 64%C] Spanish 34%
2. Are you:
1. 18 - 25 years old 23% 4. 41 - 50 13%
2. 26 - 30 17% 5. over 50 23%
3. 31 - 40 23%
3. Check one: ❑ FEMALE 64% ❑ MALE 35%
4. Where were you born? Mexico= 46% US= 51%
5. How would you describe your racial or ethnic background?
❑ African American ❑ A 2 �rican Indian ❑ Asian Pacific Islander
16%
❑ Caucasian q Hispanic
29%
❑ Mixed -race ❑ Other
6. How many years of school have you completed?
NO SCHOOL COMPLETED 5% 12TH GRADE OR GED 32%
4TH GRADE OR LESS 7% SOME COLLEGE 10%
5T" THROUGH 8T" GRADE 14% ASSOCIATE DEGREE 2%
9TH GRADE 10% TRADE DEGREE 1%
10TH GRADE 8% BACHELOR'S DEGREE 0%
11`" GRADE 8% ADVANCED DEGREE 0%
7. How would you describe your household?
1. Two parents and children 40%
2. Mother only and children 25%
3. Father only and children 2%
4. Other family member (Uncle/Aunt/Grandparent) and children 2%
5. Unrelated adult and children 1%
6. Adults only 29%
8. How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
1. LESS THAN ONE YEAR 15% 4. MORE THAN 5 YEARS 46%
2. 1 - 3 YEARS 24% 5. DON'T KNOW 0%
3. 4 - 5 YEARS 14%
Do you like living in this neighborhood?
❑ Yes 71% 1 No 25% ❑ DON'T KNOW 3%
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 1
JAN -1,1-01 THU 4:41 PM 3
10.
FAX NO. 4533312
P. 4
Appendix D-2
Door to Door Survey
How do you rate the following in your neighborhood?
Not a Serious DON'T
Problem Problem Problem KNOW
1. Youth violence 21% 43% 33% 3%
2. Gangs 21% 35% 39% 6%
3. Crime 21% 36% 40% 3%
4. Domestic violence 36% 29% 19% 15%
5. Child abuse and neglect 36% 31% 14% 18%
6. Teen pregnancy 23% 41% 22% 13%
7. School dropout 23% 39% 27% 11%
8. Drug and alcohol use and abuse by youth 18% 34% 41 % 6%
9. Drug and alcohol use and abuse by adults 25% 36% 33% 6%
10. Access to health care 41% 35% 11% 12%
11. Safe and affordable housing 32% 41% 20% 7%
12. Availability of jobs 25% 32% 35% 8%
Now I'm going to ask you some questions about family.
11, Do you have any children under the age of 18 that live or stay with you?
❑ Yes 57% ❑ No 42% -4 IF NO, GO TO NEXT PAGE
12. What are their ages?
13. Please answer yes or no to the following statements about your children:
1 I am worried about my children using drugs ❑Yes 57% ❑No 42%
2 I know my children's friends DYes 73% CI No 25%
3 I know the parents of my children's friends Yes 63% 0 No 34%
4 I can talk to my children about their personal matters ❑Yes 87% ❑ No 10%
(grades, relationships, and other issues)
5 I have control over what my child does QYes 83% 0 No 13%
6 I can find childcare in this neighborhood that I trust & can afford
0 Yes 34% 0 No 50% ❑ N/A 14%
14. Do you help your children with their homework?
0 Yes 76%0 No 12% ❑ Kids don't do homework 12%
15. Do your children come toayou
No 18 % advice
0 0n personal 6% DON'T KNOWmatters?
0 Yes 74
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 2
JAI -U-01 THU 4:42 PM 3
FAX NO. 4533312
P, 5
Appendix D-2
Door to Door Survey
16. How many days a week does your family eat a meal together?
1. NOT AT ALL 7% 4.5-6DAYSAWEEK 14%
2. 1 - 2 DAYS A WEEK 11% 5. WE ALWAYS SHARE MEALTIME 53%
3. 3-4DAYS AWEEK I5%
17. Should schools get involved in preventing youth violence?
❑ Yes 87%0 No 8% U DON'T KNOW 3%
18. Should schools get involved in preventing teen pregnancy?
❑ Yes 85%0 No 9% ❑ DON'T KNOW 6%
19. Should schools get involved in preventing gangs & gang violence?
❑ Yes 89% ❑ No 8% 0 DON'T KNOW 2%
20. Should schools get involved in preventing youth drug and alcohol use and abuse ?
❑ Yes 93%0 No 5% ❑ DON'T KNOW 1%
21. Should schools get involved in preventing dropping out of school?
❑ Yes 90% 0 No 5% 0 DON'T KNOW 4%
22. Should schools get involved in preventing child abuse and neglect?
O Yes 89% ❑ No 6% ❑ DON'T KNOW 4%
23. Should schools get involved in preventing teen suicide?
❑ Yes 84% 0 No 7% 0 DON'T KNOW 8%
24. Should schools get involved in providing access to health care?
O Yes 75% 0 No 14% 0 DON'T KNOW 10%
25. Should schools get involved in providing after school activities for youth?
O Yes 92% ❑ No 55 ❑ DON'T KNOW 3%
26. Do you have family members (grandparents, aunts, uncles) who live in this
neighborhood?
❑ Yes 39% 0 No - IF NO, GO TO QUESTION #28 60%
27. Do you ask their advice on personal matters?
O Yes 25% 0 No 17% 0 DON'T KNOW 1%
28. Do children other than your own (such as nephews or nieces) ask you for advice?
❑ Yes 50% 0 No 45% 0 DON'T KNOW OTHER CHILDREN 4%
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 3
JAN -11-U1 THU 4:43 PM 3
FAX NO, 4533312
P, 6
Appendix D-2
Door to Door
The next few questions ask about preventing teen pregnancy.
29. Do you think sex education in school which discusses abstinence (uno sex") only
prevents teen pregnancy?
U Yes 35% U No 54% t 1 DON'T KNOW 10%
30. Do you think building pride and self-confidence in kids prevents teen pregnancy?
❑ Yes 69% U No 20% ❑ DON'T KNOW 9%
31. Do you think sex education in school which covers birth control options, decision
making skills, relationships and 2 abstinence DON'T KNOW pregnancy? 11 o
Q Yes 61% CI No
32. Do you think more jobs and bettereducationfor teens prevents teen pregnancy?
U Yes 72% Q No 23% 0 DON'T KNOW 4%
33. Do you think parents actively participating in their children's lives (including talking
about sexuality) prevents teen pregnancy?
(� Yes 79% 0 No 15% ❑ DON'T KNOW 5%
The next questions ask about resources in the community.
34, Are there enough jobs for youth?
U Yes 19% ❑ No 68% O DON'T KNOW 12%
35. Are there enough services to help families in need (food, clothing, shelter)?
❑ Yes 40% 0 No 49% 0 DON'T KNOW 10%
36. Are there enough services to help families get off welfare and find good jobs (such as
job training, education)?
❑ Yes 28% 0 No 61% 0 DON'T KNOW 10%
37. Are there enough after school iti 0 to DON'T KNOW 1p oor active?
U Yes 26% ❑ No63%
38. Do politicians listen
to t 0 e people
No 70% this
0 neighborhood?
DON'T KNOW 23%
❑ Yess7
39. Do you know how to find help for someone with a drug or ON'T KNOW 9%
alcohol problem?
O Yes 58% ID
No 30%
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 4
JA1-11-U1 •rtiu 4.4J 111 FAX NO. 4533312
P, 7
Appendix U-2
Door to Door Survey
40. Can you name three groups or agencies that provide activities for youth in this
neighborhood?
41. Can you name three places that can help with personal problems (such as teen
pregnancy, suicide, drug use/abuse, or similar problems)?
42. Do you attend church on a regular basis (at least twice a month)?
0 Yes 54% 0 No 44%
Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about personal resources.
43. What kind of work do you do?
1. Agriculture or Warehouse 24%
2. General Labor 10%
3. Service, Technical or Retail Work 6%
4. Administration or Management 2%
5. Professional (teacher, doctor, nurse) 3%
6. Home Full Time 13%
7. Retired 14%
8. Student 4%
9. Other 11%
10. Unemployed --* If unemployed, what is the source of your income? 3%
1. Unemployment 5%
2. Social Security 27%
3. Public assistance 39%
4. Retirement pension 11%
5. Other 16%
44. Have you been looking for work in the past four weeks?
0 Yes 22% ❑ No 74%
45. How many months did you work in the past year?
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 5
JAN -11-01 THU 4:44 PM 3
FAX NO, 4533312
P. 8
Hppenaix u -z
Door to Door Survey
46. Which of the following best describes your family income last year?
1. $0 to $7,500 22% 5. $16,501 to $20,500 7%
2. $7,501 to $9,500 16% 6. $20,501 to $24,500 6%
3. $9,501 to $12,500 15% 7. Over $24,501 6%
4. $12,501 to $16,500 10% 8. DON'T KNOW 13%
47. In your opinion, what is the most important reason people can't find jobs?
1. Lack of jobs 26% 6. Lack of transportation 3%
2. Lack of education 29% 7. Lack of affordable childcare 4%
3. Lack of experience 8% 8. OTHER 15%
4. Discrimination 6% 9. DON'T KNOW 7%
The next few questions ask about safety issues.
48. How safe do you feel in this neighborhood?
1. Very safe 11% 4. Very unsafe 11%
2. Safe 50% 5. DON'T KNOW 2%
3. Unsafe 25%
49. Do you know people 18 and under in your neighborhood who regularly carry or use
weapons?
D Yes 24% U No 71% ❑ DON'T KNOW 4%
50. Do you trust the police?
D Yes 65% ❑ No 25% ❑ DON'T KNOW 10%
51. How do you rate your local police?
1. Excellent 10% 4. Poor 15%
2. Good 38% FM 5. DON'T KNOW 4%
3. Fair 33%
52. In your opinion who commits the most crimes in your neighborhood?
1. Adults over age 18 20%
2. Kids under age 18 64%
3. DON'T KNOW 14%
53. How many times has your home
1. NONE 65%
2. ONCE 20%
3. 2-3TIMES 12%
been vandalized within the last year?
4. 4-5TIMES 1%
5. 6 OR MORE TIMES 1%
6. DON'T KNOW . 0%
54. Has anyone in this household been a victim of the following in the past 5 years?
1. Burglaries ❑ Yes 31% ❑ No 66%
2. Arson ❑ Yes 2% q No 91%
3. Assault t ] Yes 14% 0 No 81%
4. Vandalism ❑ Yes 28% ❑ No 66%
5. OTHER _
6. DON'T KNOW 2%
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima Page 6
JAN -i1-01 THU 4:44 PM 3
FAX NO, 4533312
55. Do you feel that racial or ethnic tensions exist in your neighborhood?
U Yes 37% ❑ No 55% 0 DON'T KNOW 6%
P, 9
Appendix D-2
Door to Door Survey
56. How often do you wear seatbelts when you drive?
1. Always 60% 3. Never 7%
2. Sometimes 20% 4. DON'T DRIVE 12%
57. How often do children who ride in your car wear seatbelts or use a car seat ?
1. Always 63% 3. Never 3%
2. Sometimes 6% 4. Don't have children 26%
In this section, I would like to ask you some questions about health care.
58. Which of the following best describes your medical insurance:
1. Health insurance from my job or my partner's job 22%
2. Medicare 11%
3. Medicaid or Medical Coupons 41%
4. Basic Health 7%
5. Veteran's Administration 0%
6. Other 3%
7. None 14%
59. In the past year, how many times did you go to a doctor or clinic for yourself?
1. ONCE 28% 1
2. TWICE 20% ]
3. THREE TIMES 11% ] GO TO QUESTION #61
4. FOUR OR MORE TIMES 20%1
5. OTHER 0% 1
6. DIDN'T SEE A DOCTOR IN THE PAST YEAR -4. GO TO #60 18%
60. If you didn't see a doctor, why not?
1. Too expensive 30% 4. Didn't need to 65%
2. Too far away 0% 5. Other 3%
3. No time 1%
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
61. Would you like to get results of this survey?
❑ Yes 63% 0 No 35%
62. Project CHANGE works with other agencies to reduce teen pregnancies and improve
opportunities for young people. Would you be interested in helping with this project?
❑ Yes 22% 0 No 68%
IF YES TO QUESTIONS 61 OR 62, HAND THEM THE PURPLE POSTCARD,
63. Do you have any comments about anything discussed in this survey?
DRAFT
Southeast Yakima - Page 7
Sections:
Chapter 3.21
POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
AUDITING COMMITTEE
(Added by Ordinance No. 153076,
effective May 10, 1982.)
3.21.010 Definitions.
3.21.020 Committee Created, Duties.
3.21.030 Committee Membership, Meetings.
3.21.040 Committee Powers.
3.21.050 Quarterly Reports Prepared by the Committee.
3.21.060 Filing of Requests for Review.
3.21.070 Decision Concerning Requests for Review.
3.21.080 Chairperson's Duties.
3.21.082 Obtaining IID Report.
3.21.083 Conducting a Committee
3.21.085 Duties of Citizen Advisors. Review.
3.21.090 Committee Conclusions.
3.21.100 Response of Chief.
3.21.120 Limitation on Committee Power.
3.21.010 Definitions.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.) Unless the
context indicates otherwise, the following definitions are applicable to this Chapter:
file://DATim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
A. "Appellant" means either:
1. A person who has filed a complaint with IID and subsequently
requested review by the Committee of the HD investigation or
2. A Bureau member about whom a complaint has been filed with
IID and who has subsequently requested review by the Committee
of the IID investigation.
B. "Bureau" means the Bureau of Police of the City of Portland, Oregon.
C. "Chairperson" means the Chairperson of the Committee.
D. "Chief" means the Chief of the Bureau.
E. "Citizen Advisors" means citizens appointed by City Council members to
assist the Committee in the performance of its duties and responsibilities
pursuant to this Chapter.
F. "Commissioner In Charge" means the Commissioner In Charge of the
Bureau.
G. "Committee" means the Police Internal Investigations Auditing
Committee.
H. "IID" means the Internal Investigation Division of the Bureau, whose
responsibilities and procedures are described in Section 330.00 of the Manual
of Rules and Procedures of the Bureau, as amended from time to time.
L "IID complaint" means a complaint by a citizen or member of the Bureau
which led to an IID investigation of alleged police officer misconduct.
J. "Party" means a complainant or an officer.
K. "Police Officer Misconduct" means conduct by a member of the Bureau
during an encounter with another member of the Bureau or a citizen who is not
a member of the Bureau, which conduct violates Police Bureau regulations or
orders, or other standards of conduct required of City employees.
L. "Request for Review" means a request by an appellant that the Committee
review an IID investigation of alleged police officer misconduct.
3.21.020 Committee Created, Duties.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769, and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.)
Pursuant to Sections 2-109 of the Portland City Charter, the City Council, sitting as the
Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee, shall monitor and review the internal
investigations system utilized by the Bureau of Police in resolving allegations of police
officer misconduct and Bureau practices and procedures. The Committee shall perform the
following duties and responsibilities:
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
A. Assist the Bureau in maintaining community credibility in its IID process by
reporting findings, conclusions, and recommendations about the IID process in
writing and making those reports available to the public for review.
B. Provide a review process for appellants who are dissatisfied with an IID
investigation. The Committee shall have discretion as to which investigations
to review. This Chapter does not give an appellant a right to a Committee
review.
C. Prepare quarter year reports based on the IID quarter year report, a review of
IID complaint files, the statistics of the Office of Risk Management and the
Community Outreach Program. The Community Outreach Program shall focus
on neighborhood associations and other community organizations to share
observations and to solicit feedback on police practices in their neighborhood.
The quarterly reports will highlight trends in police performance, suggesting
necessary police bureau policy and procedural changes. Patterns of behavior,
unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may be identified for
review.
3.21.030 Committee Membership, Meetings, Appointment of Citizen
Advisors.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769, 164317, 167276 and 169029, effective Aug.
24, 1995.)
A. The Committee shall consist of the five members of the City Council. One
City Council member shall be selected by the Committee as Chairperson.
B. City Council by ordinance may authorize the Chairperson to appoint and
supervise, in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Charter, one or more employees
including a person trained in doing investigations to provide services to the
Committee. In addition, the committee may utilize the staff resources of its
members in performing duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Chapter.
C. The Committee may utilize Citizen Advisors consisting of 13 persons to
assist in performing its duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter. The
work of the Citizen Advisors shall be in the form of recommendations to the
Committee. The Citizen Advisors shall be appointed as follows:
1. Each member of City Council shall appoint one Citizen Advisor;
2. The Commissioner in charge of police shall appoint two Citizen
Advisors; and
3. Seven Neighborhood Coalition areas shall be represented by a
Citizen Advisor and each Neighborhood Coalition may:
(a) Recommend to the City Council one person for
file:1/D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
appointment to the Citizen Advisors;
(b) Recommend at least three names to the
Chairperson from which the Chairperson will
recommend to the City Council one person for
appointment; or
(c) Recommend no persons for appointment in which
case the Chairperson shall recommend to the City
Council for appointment a person living within the
coalition area.
4. In the event a majority of the Council fail to appoint a person
recommended under the provisions of 3.21.030 C 3, the
Chairperson shall initiate the process again within 30 days after the
Council action.
5. In selecting Citizen Advisors, consideration shall be given to the
current composition of the group of Citizen Advisors and
appointments should be made that will cause the group to reflect
the demographic make-up of the community.
D. Each Citizen Advisor position shall be designated as a Council seat, a
Commissioner in Charge seat or Neighborhood Coalition seat.
E. Seats identified for a specific neighborhood coalition shall be filled as
follows:
1. The Chairperson shall prepare an interim policy setting forth the
order in which neighborhood coalitions shall have the opportunity
to recommend a person for appointment to the Citizen Advisors
and how the transition process will take place.
2. The City Office of Neighborhood Associations shall develop
rules establishing the process to be used by a neighborhood
coalition in recommending a name or names to the City Council or
Chairperson for appointment under 3.21.030 C 3.
3. Upon a vacancy in a seat designated for a specific neighborhood
coalition, the Chairperson shall make a written request to the
coalition president requesting that a name or names be submitted
as provided in 3.21.030 C 3.
4. In the event there is no response received .by the Chairperson
within 30 days of the date of the initial letter requesting a
recommendation, the Chairperson shall make a recommendation to
Council.
F. The Citizen Advisors shall:
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
Table I
1. Have no independent authority and may exercise only that
authority delegated to them by the Committee pursuant to rules
which have been adopted by the Committee. The rules may be
amended by the Committee at any time.
2. Each serve a term of two years, subject to reappointment. Upon
expiration of the term, an Advisor shall serve until reappointed or
replaced. Should a Committee member occupying a particular
council position or the position of Mayor change during an
advisor's term, any advisors appointed by the prior Committee
member or Mayor shall continue to serve until the expiration of the
term. Should a Citizen Advisor resign before the expiration of a
term, the Council position appointing that advisor shall appoint a
replacement to serve a two-year term starting from the date of that
appointment.
3. Meet for the purpose of exercising the authority delegated to
them by the Committee. The number of Advisors required for a
quorum ball be determined by adding the number of filled
positions on the date of the meeting and taking 60% of that
number. (See Table I.) In no case shall any formal action be taken
with less than 5 Citizen Advisors in attendance. A position is
considered vacant if an Advisor submits a formal resignation or an
Advisor is removed. In situations where a term expires, the
Advisor shall continue to serve until reappointed or a new Advisor
has been appointed. In situations where a quorum is expected, but
in fact there is no quorum, the Citizens Advisors present may take
testimony from any persons scheduled on the agenda to be heard or
attend to matters which do not require formal action. No action
may be taken, however, until at least a quorum had heard all of the
testimony either in person or by listening to the tape recording of
the testimony an is prepared to decide the matter. Additional
testimony may be taken at a subsequent meeting if an Advisor
requests it.
Number of Filled Position/Number of Advisors Required for a Quorum
13/7; 12/7; 11/6; 10/6; 9/5; 8/5; 7/5; 6/5
G. All meetings conducted pursuant to the Chapter shall be subject to the
Oregon Public Meetings Law. ORS 192.610 through 192.710.
3.21.040 Committee Powers.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769, and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.) In
performing its duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Chapter, and to otherwise
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
administer its affairs, the Committee shall:
A. Review a detailed quarter -yearly report, which IID shall prepare and submit
through channels in a timely fashion, and which shall describe, in a form
approved by the Committee, all IID activities subject to this Chapter during the
immediately preceding quarter -yearly period.
B. Review, in accordance with this Chapter, IID investigations of alleged police
officer misconduct.
C. Prepare quarterly reports based on the IID quarter year report, a review of
IID complaint files, the statistics of the Office of Risk Management and the
Community Outreach Program. The Community Outreach Program shall focus
on neighborhood associations and other community organizations to share
observations and to solicit feedback on police practices in their neighborhood.
The quarterly reports will hi • blight trends in police performance, suggesting
necessary police bureau policy and procedures changes. Patterns of behavior,
unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may be identified for
review.
D. Utilize the full powers granted by Section 2-109 of the Charter, including
the power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, administer
oaths and to compel the production of documents and other evidence. The
power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses in accordance with
Section 3.21.083 C 3 shall not be delegated by the Committee to the Citizen
Advisors.
E. Publicly report its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
F. Adopt such rules as are necessary to perform its duties and responsibilities
pursuant to this Chapter.
G. In carrying out its functions, the Committee may visit IID offices, examine
documents, reports and files and take such other actions as the Committee
deems necessary and consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. To maintain
the security of IID documents, reports or files, the Chief may require that the
examinations be conducted in the IID offices.
3.21.050 Quarterly Report Prepared by the Committee.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.)
A. The Committee shall prepare a quarter year report highlighting the trends in
police performance and stating its findings, conclusions and recommendations
regarding changes in police policy and procedures. Patterns of behavior,
unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may be identified for
review.
file://DATim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
B. The quarter year report shall be based on:
1. A review of the IID complaint files with the focus on analysis
on specific categories of complaints (e.g., use of deadly force and
pretext stops). The report may include analysis of closed files
which were not appealed to the Committee, but it is not the intent
that the files be reopened;
2. A review of IID process to insure it is effective, efficient, fair,
thorough, timely and shows equal concern for the rights of both
citizens and police officers.
3. The quarter year report prepared and submitted by IID;
4. The findings of the Community Outreach Program; and
5. The statistics of the City Office of Risk Management.
C. The Committee may accept the report of the Citizen Advisors as its own if it
finds it complete.
D. The report shall be submitted to the City Council, the Chief of Police, the
Chief's Forum and Office of Neighborhood Associations.
E. The report shall be placed on the Committee's agenda and considered during
a regularly scheduled Committee meeting. Public testimony may be invited.
3.21.060 Filing of Requests for Review.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.) Requests for
review shall be subject to the following requirements:
A. Any appellant who is dissatisfied with an IID investigation of alleged police
officer misconduct may request the Committee to review the HD investigation.
B. The request for review must be filed within 30 days of the appellant's
receipt of the IID determination. The Committee may adopt rules for permitting
late filings in extraordinary circumstances.
C. A request for review must be filed in writing personally or by mail, at the
Office of the Chairperson.
D. The request for review shall include:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant;
2. The approximate date the IID complaint was filed (if known);
3. The substance of the IID complaint;
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter'%203.htm 01/08/2001
4. The reason or reasons the appellant is dissatisfied with the IID
investigation.
3.21.070 Decision Concerning Requests for Review.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.) The Committee
shall have discretion to determine which requests for review it will grant. The Committee
shall exercise its discretion after reviewing the IID file and if required to understand the
facts about the incident, after communicating with the appellant. In exercising its discretion,
the Committee may consider the following factors:
A. The seriousness of the incident which was the subject of the IID complaint
B. The likelihood of error by IID;
C. The number of similar requests for review received by the Committee;
D. The likelihood that the review will assist the Bureau to improve or refine its
operations.
E. The importance of the review to police -community understanding.
3.21.080 Duties of the Chairperson.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769 and 167276, effective July 1, 1994.) The
Chairperson or designee shall accept requests for review, in writing, during regular business
hours. Such requests shall be recorded and forwarded in a timely fashion to the Committee.
If necessary, the Chairperson or designee shall help appellants complete the form to file a
request for review. In addition, if authorized by City Council pursuant to 3.21.030 B, the
Chairperson shall appoint and supervise staff to provide support services to the Committee.
The staff may include a person trained in doing investigations to assist the Citizen Advisors
in reviewing the quality and thoroughness of the IID investigation.
3.21.082 Obtaining IID Report.
(Added by Ordinance No. 161577, effective Feb. 24, 1989.)
A. To facilitate review by the Committee, IID shall tape record all interviews
with witnesses, including members of the Bureau, conducted during an IID
investigation and shall make those tapes, or accurate copies, available to the
Committee during its review of an IID investigation.
B. Within 21 days after the Committee notifies HD in writing that an IID
investigation will be reviewed, IID shall make available to the Committee a
written summary of its investigation containing findings of fact and
conclusions and specifying which Bureau general orders were relevant to its
investigation.
C. During a Committee review, IID shall make available to the Committee all
documents and information pertaining to the investigation being reviewed.
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
3.21.083 Conducting a Committee Review.
(Added by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.)
A. Scope of Review. The Committee may review the adequacy of an IID
investigation and whether the IID determination was supported by the findings
of the IID investigation. The Committee shall not investigate complaints about
police officer misconduct. The Committee may refer all appeals to the Citizen
Advisors for review and a recommendation in the manner provided in 3.21.085
D.
B. Evidence. In reviewing an IID investigation, the Committee may examine
the appeal form and any documents submitted with it, the file and report of the
IID, and any documents accumulated by IID during its investigation including
the investigating officer's report. The Committee may receive any oral or
written statements volunteered by the appellant or the police officer or officers
involved or any other citizen, and may listen to the tape recordings of the
witnesses examined by IID.
C. Witnesses.
1. IID and Police Bureau Commander. The Committee or its
Citizen Advisors if the Committee delegates the authority to them,
may require within its scope of review the Commander of IID to
appear and answer questions regarding the investigation and may
also require the responsible police bureau Commander to answer
questions regarding the basis and the rationale for a particular
decision.
2. Other Witnesses. Witnesses other than the IID Commander shall
not be required to appear involuntarily before the Committee or its
Citizen Advisors except in extraordinary circumstances and upon
approval by the Committee itself. Extraordinary circumstances
include, but are not limited to, those situations in which the witness
was interviewed by IID but no tape recording of the interview is
available for Committee review. When it is necessary to call
witnesses to testify involuntarily:
a. The Committee may require City employees to
appear and testify as a part of their employment duties
or may subpoena them;
b. The Committee may subpoen4 witnesses who are
not City employees.
D. Scope of Questions. When examining witnesses, the Committee, or its
Citizen Advisors if the Committee delegates the authority to them, may ask any
question within the Committee's scope of review, provided that the question
does not infringe upon contractual or constitutional rights. If a witness declines
to answer a question asked by the Committee or its Citizen Advisors, the City
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
Attorney or designee shall determine whether the question is within the
Committee's scope of review, and whether the witness is legally required to
answer.
1. If the City Attorney or designee determines that the question is
outside the Committee's scope of review or that the witness is
otherwise not obligated to answer, the witness shall not be required
to answer the question. The Citizen Advisors may request the
Committee to review the City Attorney's determination. The
Committee's determination shall be final.
2. If the City Attorney or designee determines that the question is
within the Committee's scope of review and the witness is legally
required to answer, but the witness nonetheless declines to answer,
the Committee may require the witness to answer. The
Committee's decision shall be final. If a City employee witness
declines to answer a question when directed by the Committee
itself, the City employee shall be subject to appropriate discipline.
3.21.085 Duties of Citizen Advisors.
(New Section added by Ordinance No. 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.)
A. The Citizen Advisors shall make recommendations to the Committee on the
matters under 3.21.020.
B. The Chairperson of the Citizen Advisors shall serve as a member of the
Bureau's Chief's Forum to report regularly on the activities and findings of the
Citizen Advisors and to serve as a communication link between the two groups.
C. On a case by case basis a member of the Citizen Advisors who reviewed the
case file and presented it to the Advisors for their consideration shall serve as a
member of the Bureau's Review Level Committee for purposes of reviewing
the individual case reviewed by the Citizen Advisors. The Chairperson of the
Citizen Advisors shall appoint the person responsible for taking the case to the
Review Level Committee. The Citizen Advisor member shall be assisted by
staff from the Chairperson's office. The Citizen Advisor member shall present
the case and participate in the deliberations leading to either a call for further
investigation or a recommendation to the Chief.
D. Matters on Appeal from the HD determination shall be handled as follows:
1. In reviewing an IID investigation, the Citizen Advisors nay
examine the appeal form and any documents submitted with it, the
report of IID, the investigating officer's report and any documents
accumulated by IID during its investigation, including listening to
the tape recordings of the parties of the witnesses.
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
2. The Advisors may receive any oral or written statements
volunteered by the appellant or the police officer or officers
involved or any other citizen. In addition, upon request the
responsible police commander of the Bureau shall be available to
present the basis and rationale for the initial decision regarding the
particular case.
3. The action taken on matter being reviewed by the Citizen
Advisor shall be one of the following:
a. Affirm the finding made by the Bureau;
b. Refer the matter to IID for further investigation;
c. Refer the matter to the Bureau's Review Level
Committee to consider the possibility of further
investigation. The Review Level Committee shall
either refer the matter for additional investigation or
submit its findings to the Chief for the Chief's action.
The results of the additional investigation or the
Chiefs decision shall be returned to the Citizen
Advisors for review and comment. The Citizen
Advisors may elect to return the matter to IID for
further investigation; or
d. Recommend that the Committee inform the Chief in
writing that the determination by IID was not
supported by the findings of the investigation and
what determination should have been made if the
Advisor's conclude that no additional information is
warranted.
4. A decision of IID affirmed by the Citizen Advisors may be
appealed by the parties to the Committee. The appeal shall be filed
within 30 days of receipt of a written determination from the
Citizen Advisors. The appeal shall be filed with the office of the
Chairperson.
E. The Citizen Advisors shall prepare a quarter year report as follows:
1. The report shall highlight the trends in police performance and
state the Citizen Advisors' findings, conclusion and
recommendations regarding changes in police policy and
procedures. Patterns of behavior, unclear procedures, policy issues
and training needs may be identified for review.
2. The report shall be based on:
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Fi1es\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
a. A review of the IID complaint files with the focus
on analysis on specific categories of complaints (e.g.,
use of deadly force and pretext stops). The report may
include analysis of closed files which were not
appealed to the Committee, but it is not the intent that
the files be reopened;
b. A review of the IID process to insure its effective,
efficient, fair, thorough, timely and shows equal
concern for the rights of both citizens and police
officers;
c. The quarter year report prepared and submitted by
IID;
d. The fmdings of the Community Outreach program;
and
e. The statistics of the City Office of Risk
Management.
3. The report shall be submitted to the Committee, the Chief of
Police, the Chief's Forum and Office of Neighborhood
Associations.
3.21.090 Committee Conclusions.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577, 161769 and 167276, effective Jan. 12, 1994.)
A. After reviewing an IID investigation and any recommendations by the
Citizen Advisors, the Committee shall inform the Chief in writing, stating
either:
1. No additional investigation is warranted; or,
2. The case should be reopened by IID to conduct additional
investigation and report to the Committee.
B. Once the Committee concludes that no additional IID investigation is
warranted, it shall inform the Chief in writing whether the determination by IID
was supported by the findings of the investigation, and if not, what
determination should have been made.
3.21.100 Response of Chief.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 161769, effective Apr. 5, 1989.)
A. The Chief, after reviewing a report provided by the Committee under
Section 3.21.050 or 3.21.090, shall respond promptly to the Committee in
writing, but in no event more than 60 days after receipt of the Committee
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
report. The response shall indicate:
1. What, if any, policy or procedural changes within the IID are to
be made as a result of a report made pursuant to Section 3.21.050
or 3.21.090.
2. The disposition of a particular IID investigation after
considering the report of the Committee made pursuant to
3.21.090.
B. If the Chief fails to respond within 60 days after receipt of the Committee
Report, the Auditor shall place the matter on the Council Calendar, for
consideration by City Council, within 15 days thereafter.
3.21.120 Limitation on Committee Power.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 161577 and 161769, effective Apr. 5, 1989.) The Committee
is not authorized to set the level of discipline for any police officer pursuant to any request
for review made under this Chapter. However, this Section shall not be construed to limit
the authority granted to City Council by the City Charter, City Code, state statutes, and
other applicable law.
file://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\Chapter%203.htm 01/08/2001
RULES OF THE POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS AUDITING
CO1VBI ITEE
AND CITIZEN ADVISORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. COMMITTEE
1.1 Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
1.1.1 Election
1.1.2 Term
1.1.3 Duties
1.2 Meetings
1.2.1 Quorum
1.2.2 Voting
1.2.3 Open Meetings
1.2.4 Meeting Time
1.2.5 Agenda
1.2.6 Minutes
1.3 Committee Duties
2. CITIZEN ADVISORS
2.1 Citizen Advisors Chaiperson and Vice Chairperson
2.1.1 Chairperson
2.1.2 Term
2.1.3 Duties
2.2 Citizen Advisors Responsibility and Authority
2.2.1 Quarter Year Report
2.2.2 Reviewing Cases
I. Screening
II. Denial of Review
III. Witnesses; Subpoenas
IV. Preliminary Review
V. Preliminary Review Meeting
VI. Citizen Advisors' Report
VII. Committee Review
VIII. Late Requests
IX. Date of Filing Request for Review
2.2.3. Review of Police Bureau Defensive Tactics
2.3 Citizen Advisors Subcommittees
2.4 Meetings
2.4.1 Quorum
f le://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Files\RULES%200F%20THE%20POLICE%201NTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
2.4.2 Voting
2.4.3 Open Meetings
2.4.4 Meeting Time
2.4.5 Agenda
2.4.6 Minutes
2.4.7 Absenteeism
3. NOTICES
4. RECORDS
5. CONFIDENTIALITY
5.1 Request for Review Pending
5.2 Request for Review Finding
5.2.1 Open Communication After Final Determination
5.2.2 Documents Remain Confidential
1. COMMITTEE (CITY COUNCIL)
1.1 Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
1.1.1 Election. Election of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson may be placed on the Committee's
agenda for its first regular meeting each calendar year at the request of one of the Committee members.
At that meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson by majority vote. The
Committee may conduct elections more frequently at its option. If a quorum is present and the
Committee fails to elect a new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson at its first regular meeting in any
calendar year, the Vice Chairperson then serving shall automatically succeed the Chairperson for the
next calendar year and the new Chairperson shall appoint a new Vice Chairperson from among those
Committee members not then in office.
1.1.2 Term. The term of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be one year. The Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson shall not be required to serve more than one consecutive term as either Chairperson or
Vice Chairperson, except as provided in Section 1.1.1.
1.1.3 Duties. The Chairperson shall preside at all Committee meetings. In the Chairperson's absence, the
Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson. In the absence of both the Chairperson
and the Vice Chairperson, the other members of the Committee shall select one of their members to
perform the duties of Chairperson during the Chairperson's absence. On points of order not covered by
these rules, the Rules for Council Business, PCC 3.02.040, shall govern conduct of Committee
meetings.
1.2 Meetings
1.2.1 Quorum. Three Committee members shall constitute a quorum
1.2.2 Voting. All Committee actions shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of Committee
members present.
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Files\RULES%200F%20THE%2OPOLICE%20INTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
1.2.3 Open Meetings. All Committee meetings shall be open to the public except as provided by ORS
192.610 et. seq.
1.2.4 Meeting Time. The Committee shall meet as necessary in the City Council Chamber at a regularly
scheduled meeting. The Committee may hold special meetings on its own initiative or if requested to do
so by the Citizen Advisors.
1.2.5 Agenda.
A. The agenda for each Committee meeting shall consist of those matters referred to the Committee by
the Citizen Advisors and other items approved for inclusion on the agenda by the Committe
Chairperson.
B. The quarterly reports submitted by the Citizen Advisors shall be placed on the Committee's agenda
and heard during a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Public testimony may be invited.
1.2.6 Minutes. Recorded and written minutes shall be kept for all Committee meetings. The written
minutes shall include at least the following:
(1) Committee members present
(2) Motions proposed and their disposition;
(3) Results of each vote and the vote of each Committee member,
(4) Substance of discussion in any matter; and
(5) Reference to any document submitted or discussed.
1.3 Committee Duties
Among the other duties and responsibilities of the Committee as prescribed by PCC 3.21, the Committee
shall also review Citizen Advisor reports pursuant to Section 2.2.2. VII.
2. CITIZEN ADVISORS
2.1 Citizen Advisors Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
2.1.1 Election of Officers. Election of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be placed on the
Citizen Advisors agenda for their first regular meeting each calendar year. At that meeting, the Citizen
Advisors shall choose a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson by majority vote. The Citizen Advisors may
conduct elections more frequently at their option. If a quorum is present and the Citizen Advisors fail to
elect a new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson at their first regular meeting in any calendar year, the
Vice Chairperson then serving shall automatically succeed the Chairperson for the next calendar year
and a new Vice Chairperson shall be elected at the next regular meeting from among the Citizen
Advisors.
2.1.2 Term. The term of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be one year. The terms of office
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Fi les\RULES%20OF%20THE%20POL1 CE%201NTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
shall be limited to two consecutive terms except as provided in Section 2.1.1
2.1.3 Duties.
I. Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
A. The Chairperson shall preside at all Citizen Advisors meetings. Inthe Chairperson's absence, the Vice
Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson. In the absence of both the Chairperson and the
Vice Chairperson, the other Citizen Advisors shall select one of their members to perform the duties of
Chairperson during the Chairperson's absence. The Chairperson shall determine points of order not
covered by these rules.
B. The Chairperson shall serve as a member of the Police Bureau's Chiefs Forum to report regularly on
the activities and findings of the Citizen Advisors and to serve as a communication link between the two
groups.
II. Service on Review Level Committee
A. On a case by case basis, the Chairperson of the Citizen Advisors shall appoint a member of the
Citizen Advisors to serve on the Police Bureau's Review Level Committee to present an individual case
and to participate in the deliberations leading to either a call for future investigation or a
recommendation to the Chief. The person appointed shall have reviewed the IAD file and presented the
case to the Citizen Advisors for their consideration.
2.2 Citizen Advisors Responsibility and Authority
The Citizen Advisors are delegated to perform those duties and responsibilities created by PCC
§3.21.020 and such other duties and responsibilities as the Committee may from time to time prescribe.
Without limitation those duties and responsibilities include:
2.2.1 Quarter Year Reports
I. Function
A. The Citizen Advisors shall monitor the IAD process of investigating and resolving allegations of
police officer misconduct.
11. Review of IAD
A. The Citizen Advisors shall determine the compliance of the IAD process with Police Bureau General
Orders and citizen perception of its effectiveness by an annual review of complaints received by the
IAD.
B. The Citizen Advisors shall select a sample of IAD files to determine whether the IAD process is
effective, efficient, fair, thorough, timely and shows equal concern for the rights of both citizens and
police officers.
C. The Citizen Advisors shall assist the Bureau in maintaining community credibility in its IAD process
by reporting fmdings, conclusions and recommendations about the IAD process in writing and making
those reports available to the public for review.
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Files\RULES%20OF%20THE%20POLICE%20INTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
D. In carrying out the monitoring function, the Citizen Advisors shall have access to all IAD files and
records.
III. Designated Citizen Advisors and Monitoring Reports
A. Monitoring procedures shall be performed by any member(s) of the Citizen Advisors group
designated by the Citizen Advisors Chairperson.
B. Monitoring reports shall be prepared at such times as the Citizen Advisors Chairperson may direct.
The report shall contain the following:
1. Statistical material compiled by the Citizen Advisors or relied upon in the report
2. Pursuant to PCC 3.21.050, Citizen Advisors' findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning
the quarter -yearly report submitted by IAD;
3. A description, in general terms and subject to confidentiality requirements, of the IAD files,
disciplinary records and other materials reviewed by the Citizen Advisors in preparing the report;
4. A summary of the findings of the Citizen Advisors pursuant to such review;
5. Recommendations of the Citizen Advisors for changes in the IAD process as they may affect the
process of resolving allegations of officer misconduct
6. Other matters that Citizen Advisors consider material to a fair and impartial IAD process..
I. The Citizen Advisors shall prepare a quarter year report as follows:
A. The report shall highlight the trends in police performance and state the Citizen Advisors findings,
conclusion and recommendations regarding changes in police policy and procedures. Patterns of
behavior, unclear procedures, policy issues and training needs may be identified for review.
B. The report shall be based on:
1. A review of the IAD complaint files with the focus on analysis on specific categories of complaints
(e.g., use of deadly force and pretext stops). The report may include analysis of closed files which were
not appealed to the Committee, but it is not the intent that the files be reopened;
2. A review of the IAD process to insure it is effective, efficient, fair, thorough, timely and shows equal
concem for the rights of both citizens and police officers;
3. The quarter year report prepared and submitted by IAD;
4. The findings of the Community Outreach Program; and
5. The statistics of the City Office of Risk Management.
C. The report shall be submitted to the Committee, the Chief of Police, the Chiefs Forum and Office of
Neighborhood Associations.
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%2OFiles\RULES%200F%20THE%2OPOLICE%20INTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
D. All information obtained by the designated Citizen Advisors shall be confidential. The Quarter Year
Report shall refer neither to names nor to specific cases. The designated Citizen Advisors may, however,
verbally comment on specific cases to the IAD Commander and to the Citizen Advisors during
executive sessions.
2.2.2 Reviewing Cases
I. Screening
A. The Citizen Advisors shall decide whether to accept each Request for Review filed pursuant to PCC
3.21.060.
B. The Citizen Advisors may screen requests at their monthly meeting or the Chairperson may select a
subcommittee to review new cases, and the subcommittee shall report to the full Citizen Advisors group.
C. On receipt of a Request for Review, the Staff Assistant shall photocopy the request and the Police
Bureau's letter to the appellant and provide copies for each Citizen Advisor at the meeting at which new
cases are reviewed.
D. The Staff Assistant shall notify the Appellant, IAD and the public by mail of the time and place at
which the Citizen Advisors will meet to consider new Requests for Review.
E. The Citizen Advisors shall:
1. Recommend denial of the Request for Review;
2. Recommend referral of the case to a Citizen Advisor(s) for further review; or
3. Recommend referral of the case to IAD for further investigation.
II. Denial of Review
A. The Citizen Advisors may decline to hear a Request for Review for the following reasons:
1. The appeal was not filed within 30 days from the mailing of IAD's notice to complainant of IAD's
findings, and the requirements of 2.2.2 VIII, Late Requests, cannot be satisfied.
2. The Request for Review is commenced by a person other than the complainant when the complainant
is not under any disability or impairment;
3. The Request for Review concerns an issue substantially similar to a former Request for Review by the
same complainant;
•
4. The Request for Review does not allege Police Bureau misconduct as outlined by PCC 3.21.010(10);
5. There is no outside evidence from which the Citizen Advisors can determine whether proper
procedures were followed and whether the party against whom the complaint has been filed used proper
conduct.
6. The Request for Review appears to be an abuse of the process.
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Files \RULES%20OF%20THE%20POLICE%20INTERNAL.... 01/08/2001
M. Witnesses; Subpoenas
A. If the Citizen Advisors decide to review a case, they may decide to hear information from witnesses.
In deciding whether to hear witnesses, the Citizen Advisors shall consider the time available considering
the total number of cases pending and the likelihood that testimony will contribute materially to a fair
review of the case.
B. The Staff Assistant shall prepare requests for witnesses and shall provide notices of the meeting to
the appellant, IAD and the public as required by Section IV of these Rules.
C. If witnesses do not respond to the Citizen Advisors' request, subpoenas may be issued by the
Committee and signed by the Chairperson as required by PCC 3.21.083(3).
IV. Citizen Advisor Review
A. When the Citizen Advisors decide to review a case, the Staff Assistant shall assign to one or more of
them the duty of conducting a preliminary review. Such assignment may be modified by the Citizen
Advisors, if necessary.
B. The reviewer shall investigate the applicable IAD file, the PIIAC files and such other materials,
including but not limited to applicable general orders, the complaint record of the officer involved, the
investigating officer's report, and discussions with the investigating officers of IAD as the Advisor
deems appropriate.
C. The staff assistant may advise the Citizen Advisors of the need for further investigation to complete
the record and should assist the Citizen Advisors in framing the issues raised by the appeal.
V. Citizen Advisor Review Meeting
A. The Citizen Advisors may review cases at their monthly meeting or the Chairperson may select a
subcommittee to review new cases, and the subcommittee shall report to the full Citizen Advisors'
group. The full Citizen Advisors' group shall approve all recommendations to the Committee.
B. The appellant and IAD shall each have the opportunity to make a statement. All testimony shall be
subject to the rulings of the Chairperson as to relevancy and competence and such time limitations as the
Chair shall provide. Witnesses, if any, shall be interviewed by the Citizen Advisors. Within their scope
of review the Citizen Advisors may request testimony from the IAD Commander regarding the
investigation and the Commander of the responsible Police Bureau precinct regarding the basis and
rationale for the decision.
C. The Citizen Advisors may:
1. Recommend that the finding of IAD be affirmed; or
2. Refer the matter to IAD for further investigations;
3. Recommend the matter be referred to the Bureau's Review Level Committee for consideration of the
possibility of further investigation. The Review Level Committee shall either refer the matter for
additional investigation or submit its findings to the Chief for the Chiefs action. The results of the
additional investigation or the Chiefs decision shall be returned to the Citizen Advisors for review and
file ://D:\Tim's%20Word%20Fi1es\RULES%20OF%20THE%20POLICE%20INTERNAL... 01/08/2001
comment. The Citizen Advisors may elect to return the matter to IAD for further investigation; or
4. Recommend that the Committee inform the Chief in writing that the determination by IAD was not
supported by the findings of the investigation and what determination should have been made if the
Citizen Advisors conclude that no additional information is warranted.
D. A decision should be made on the case immediately after the hearing absent extenuating
circumstances.
VI. Citizen Advisors' Report
A. The Staff Assistant shall provide a written report of any action taken by the Citizen Advisors at their
monthly or subcommittee meeting. The report of proceedings in Open Session shall include general
descriptions of cases and the Citizen Advisors' findings, conclusions and recommendations or such other
action as they have recommended and shall be available to the public. The Citizen Advisors' minutes
may serve as the written report.
B. The Staff Assistant shall prepare a summary of the Citizen Advisors' recommendations for the
Committee, including a description of cases and the evidence on which advisors based their
recommendations, or submit the advisors' preliminary reports to the Committee.
VII. Committee Review
A. The Committee shall review the Citizen Advisors' recommendations.
B. Pursuant to PCC 3.21.090, the Committee shall submit a report of its findings, conclusions and
recommendations to the Chief of Police. For routine matters, the Committee minutes may serve as
the PIIAC report.
VIII. Late Requests
The Citizen Advisors may decide to consider a Request for Review after the deadline established
by PCC 3.21.060(2) if the Citizen Advisors fmd there is good cause to excuse late filing. Good
cause shall exist when the Appellant establishes that the late filing resulted from circumstances
that were exceptional or beyond the Appellant's reasonable control.
IX. Date of Filing Request for Review
The date of filing the Request for Review shall be either, in case of mailing, the postmark date; or
in case of personal delivery, the office of the Chairperson's date stamp.
2.2.3. Review of Police Bureau Defensive Tactics
A. A member of the Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee (PIIAC) or a Citizen
Advisor may review the Defensive Tactics Manual and meet with a representative of the Police
Bureau Training Division to discuss the tactics, as the tactics relate to a particular case under
review, by following the procedures set forth below:
1. A written request shall be filed with the Internal Investigations Division commander or the
PIIAC staff for forwarding to IAD.
file :HD ATim's%20 Word%20FilesRULES%200E%20THE%20POLICE%20INTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
2. The request shall state with specificity the defensive tactic the requestor wishes to review, a
brief statement regarding the facts of the case, and the date and the time the requestor is available
to do it; and
3. The requestor shall agree in writing not to disclose the information to a third party.
B. The Committee (PIIAC) or the Citizen Advisors sitting as a whole may request a representative
of the Police Bureau Training Division to meet with them and demonstrate specific defensive
tactics and discuss the use of them.
C. In the event a dispute arises regarding whether certain material is reviewable, it shall be
decided by the City Attorney's Office on the basis of the argument in City of Portland v. Meece,
Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 9001-00572. The City Attorney's opinion shall be
reviewable by the Committee.
2.3 Citizen Advisors Subcommittees
The Citizen Advisors group may establish subcommittees to carry out preliminarily any of its
responsibilities. All subcommittee recommendations shall be subject to review and approval or
modification by the full group. The Chairperson shall appoint all subcommittees and a
chairperson for each subcommittee subject to approval of the Citizen Advisors.
2.4 Meetings
2.4.1 Quorum. The number of Advisors required for a quorum shall be determined by adding the
number of filled positions on the date of the meeting and taking 60% of that number.
2.4.2 Voting. All actions shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the Citizen Advisors
present. Each Advisor, including the Chairperson or other officers, is entitled to a vote of equal
weight. In no case shall any formal action be taken with less than 5 Citizen Advisors in attendance.
2.4.3 Open Meetings. All Citizen Advisors meetings shall be open to the public except as provided
by ORS 192.610 et seq.
2.4.4 Meeting Time. The Citizen Advisors shall hold a regular monthly meeting in a place and at a
time as provided by notice. The Citizen Advisors may hold special meetings as they or the
Chairperson determine appropriate. Subcommittees may hold regular and special meetings as
they determine appropriate.
2.4.5 Agenda. The agenda for each Citizen Advisor meeting shall consist of those matters
approved by the Chairperson for inclusion on the agenda, those items a majority of the Citizen
Advisors place on the agenda, items referred to the Citizen Advisors from subcommittees, or items
referred to Citizen Advisors from the Committee.
2.4.6 Minutes. Recorded and written minutes shall be kept for all Committee, Citizen Advisors
and Review Subcommittee meetings and the meetings of other subcommittees as needed. The
written minutes shall include at least the following:
A. Citizen Advisors present;
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Files\RULES%200E%20THE%2OPOLICE%20INTERNAL'... 01/08/2001
B. Motions proposed and their disposition;
C. Results of each vote;
D. Substance of discussion on any matter; and
E. Reference to any document submitted or discussed.
2.4.7 Absenteeism. Any Citizen Advisor who misses more than two consecutive monthly meetings
or a total of three meetings a year without prior excuse shall be automatically removed as of the
last meeting missed, and the position shall be promptly reappointed as provided by PCC 3.21.030
(3)-
3. NOTICES
Notice shall be provided of the Committee, Citizen Advisors and subcommittee meetings as
required by ORS 192.640 for regular and special meetings and for executive sessions.
4. RECORDS
Except as provided by ORS 192.001 et seq and City Charter § 2-802, all records of the Committee
and the Citizen Advisors shall be available for public disclosure.
5. CONFIDENTIALITY
5.1 Request for Review Pending
Prior to a final decision by the Committee, the Committee members, Citizen Advisors and staff
shall not communicate with the public, including the press, any information regarding the names
of the appellant, the officers, or witnesses; information given; or the substance of the request for
review unless all parties to the case waive the right to confidentiality.
5.2 Request for Review Final
5.2.1 Open Communication after Final Determination.
Once the final decision has been made, information may be released as provided by law.
5.2.2 Documents Remain Confidential.
Documents and other records remain confidential unless release is directed by the Citizen
Advisors Chairperson or Staff Assistant after review by the City Attorney.
file://D:\Tim's%20 Word%20Files\RULES%20OF%20THE%20POLICE%20INTERN AL'... 01/08/2001
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of 3 _ O a O
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a Resolution
Condemning "Racial Profiling"
SUBMITTED BY: Don Blesio, Chief of Police
Helen Harvey, Assistant City Attorney
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Chief Blesio - 575-6211
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
This is the first of several Council actions recommended by the recent Faulk Inquiry
Committee. It is a resolution affirming the right of all people to be treated equally and fairly;
condemning the perceived practice of "racial profiling" and directing the Police Department to
implement appropriate policies and training to prevent such practices from occurring. It is the
first step in addressing issues and recommendations contained in the Inquiry Committee's
report and will be followed by additional recommendations and actions by the City Council
special committee.
Resolution X Ordinance Contract Other (Specify)
Funding Source c�
City Manager
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Passage of this resolution is recommended by the City
Council special committee, the inquiry panel and staff.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2001-47