Seize Time for Oppressed People (STOP)
On Tuesday, August 20, 1974, at 7:45 pm, the Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Health Committee held a special meeting to hear public opinion regarding a petition of Seize Time for Oppressed People (STOP) "for establishment of a Citizen's Review Board to review police misconduct complaints, etc." In their proposal, STOP stated: "The procedure for making and adjudicating complaints brought against the police is desperately in need of modification to the extent that it becomes a just and sensitive civil procedure. To ensure objectivity and to eliminate the prejudice attendant upon the vested interest of the police in protecting the police department, administration and adjudication of complaints must be removed from the hands of the police and transferred to a Citizen's Review Board... Today's City government needs to represent and protect the human, social, economic and cultural interests of all its citizens equally if it is to ensure justice for the future." STOP began circulating their petition on September 12, 1973, in response to multiple reports of police brutality; it was submitted with over 1,500 signatures.
Supporters in favor of forming a Police Citizen Review Board included the Japanese American Citizens League, Action Childcare Coalition, Feminist Coordinating Council, Radical Women, Freedom Socialist Party, Seattle Counseling Service, University of Washington Law School's Women's Caucus, United Workers Union - Independent Unitarian Feminist Alliance, the Seattle chapter of the Black Panther Party, Seattle Gay Liberation Front, and the Gay Community Center of Seattle.
At the August 20th meeting, STOP chair Adriane Nihaund spoke in support of a citizen review board. Her speech was met with multiple rounds of applause from the audience. Judith Freel of Radical Women and Elmer Dixon of the Black Panther Party also spoke in favor of a review board in their public comments.
With the support of some local residents, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) resisted the implementation of a citizen review board, arguing that civilian eyewitnesses did not have a full understanding of situations and jumped to conclusions that police brutality was indicated. SPD believed they should be able to handle these investigations and determine appropriate repercussions internally. Speaking on behalf of SPD, Mark Levin (head of SPD's Internal Investigations Division) argued that citizen review boards do not work and that there was no evidence of consistent misconduct within the department. Following the meeting, additional petitions were filed to establish a Police Citizen Review Board.
On November 14, 1974, a Seattle police officer shot, but did not kill, Michael Jones, a nineteen-year-old Black man, as he fled on foot from a stolen car. This event prompted STOP to reassert the need for a review board and requested that City Council reconsider their petition. The officer was placed on a ten-day suspension. Two citizens, including Fred Maxie who was Black, were allowed to sit in on a police review board hearing after the community demanded a presence from those outside the Police Department. Elmer Dixon, representing the Black Panther Party, stated, "There is clear evidence that a community police review board is needed to control police activities," according to the Seattle Times on November 22, 1974.
On December 10, 1974 (Event 2665), Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Health Committee chair Randy Revelle submitted a brief to the committee, recommending the Council file the petition to establish a review board without action, which was agreed upon unanimously by the full committee. Stated in a letter to STOP Chairperson Adriane Nihaund, Revelle's reasoning cites:
- Promises from the newly selected police chief to conduct a review of SPD's disciplinary procedures during his confirmation proceedings.
- Stipulations in the 1975 Police Guild contract that disciplinary procedures will be improved, including a civilian, non-voting observer to oversee citizen complaints about police behavior and report actions taken for each to Mayor Uhlman.
- That the Seattle City Council funded the Ombudsman during the 1975 budget process "with the understanding that he would review citizen complaints about the police disciplinary process in an effort to improve public credibility in the process and ensure fair and impartial hearings."
- That, in his opinion, citizen review boards have not been successful in the United States and he didn't see why Seattle's situation would be unique or different.
On Monday, December 16, 1974 (Event 2672), the full City Council was presented with STOP's petition and placed it on file without any apparent further action.
Letters arguing all sides of the Civilian Review Board formation, the Seattle City Council decision making process, related research, and public opinion can be read in the full documentation of Comptroller File 279625. Notable sections of the file include:
- A copy of STOP's recommendations and reasoning behind the petition for a Citizen's Review Board (pages 44-52)
- Sign-in sheet for public comment (pages 22-24)
Selected speakers from the August 20, 1974 meeting
Adriane Nihaund, STOP chair (listen to audio)
Hi, I'm Adriane Nihaund. In your packets, we have included STOP's statement this evening to the councilmembers, a STOP fact sheet, a Civilian Review Board fact sheet, sample cases that had been previously submitted to the Internal Investigations Division and have not been satisfactorily resolved, according to the complaints - by the way, their names are not on, of course, you know, not on on the written testimony, for their protection, but we do have their names and, of course, you can always check this out with us. And also a list of sponsoring organizations, and you will later have our petitions with approximately 1,500 signatures in support of a civilian review board. I have a cold, by the way, so let me know if you can't hear me.
The people in attendance at this hearing tonight are for the most part, the poor. We represent the working mother, the welfare recipient, the communities, racial and sexual minorities, the ex-con, the elderly on fixed incomes, and working people in general. The list is long. We are the people who best understand and are most sensitive to the role of institutions and police in our communities. We have been made cognizant of the fact throughout our history of struggle that police are the enforcing arm of the system in its effort to maintain its power. It only stands to reason that racism and sexism, for example, must continually feed the fires of police violence.
For these reasons, we are here to address ourselves to the issue of police brutality, to the violence and harassment that play an arrogant and very definite role in our daily lives. Based upon our long but unsolved standing as the principal victims of abuse at the hands of the Seattle Police Department, we consider the following demands to be the most logical and working towards the solution of one of the most serious problems facing our communities today.
One, we demand that the Seattle Police Department's Internal Investigations Division be totally abolished. And through that a citizens review board be empowered to process and adjudicate all complaints of police misconduct brought to its attention by the citizenry. And speaking to the abolishment of the internal investigations division, we are in truth acknowledging that the police have not been and are not today responsible to any form of governmental control. Neither are they subjected to any type of supervision or monitoring of their policies and practices, except that which comes from within the policing structure itself, to please remain above the law. But those citizens who commit even the most petty and innocuous of crimes are subjected to the criminal justice system in its entirety by the police, the courts and the prisons.
Tightening up procedures, for example, is beside the point when the IID is, by its very nature, anomalous in a democratic system of checks and balances. This kind of isolationism and aloofness will continue to militate against fairness and impartiality, rather than providing the environment for their growth.
The issue of police controls and their necessity is nothing new, as presidential commissions through the years have attested. As early as 1931, the Wickersham report stated that police departments throughout the United States fail consistently to follow their own rules and regulations. The Kerner study after the rise to the 60s reiterated this point, and further advised the creation of external agencies to regulate police and other government agencies. The Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice repeated this in 1967. And again, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1971. In Washington State just this past year, the Asian American Advisory Council, in the hearing held here in Seattle, listed the need for an external regulatory agency over the police.
The position of the police department in general is that of a closed structure, autonomous and untouchable from the outside. Despite all the verbiage regarding the effects of court decisions of the last decade, their procedures and rules have not substantially changed. The police have great stories of experience in circumventing legal strictures to perform what they conceive as their function. Essentially, they involve collusion and perjury, whereby any of their declared actions as distinct from their true actions, receive as many substantiating witnesses as there are available credible officers in the vicinity.
To control the daily misuse of police power, more is needed than the ability to appoint or dismiss a police chief. The citizenry must be able to monitor and adjust the activity of its police force, both individually through the punishment of particular acts of illegality and misuse of power, and collectively through examination and establishment of police policies, procedures and rules. As it now stands, the IID can be compared with a professional society's board of ethics, or a trade union's industrial disciplinary committee. Questions such as absenteeism, inefficiency, or insubordination may be proper to such a board, but hardly complaints which are criminal in nature. Yet the police guild would have us believe that assault, manslaughter, rape, and murder, for example, are within their province and their province only.
Even with the most thoroughgoing internal investigatory and regulatory bodies, the only absolute control is over the machinations of the lower echelon of police officials. The high echelon officials, as controllers and directors of the internal agencies, must be taken on face - the face that their commitment to justice outweighs their loyalty to the police force. Nowhere else in our system of criminal justice do we take people on faith, even to the presidency. Why should we here? The people of this country... [applause]
The people of this country have been awakened to the realities of power gone wild and uncontrolled. They no longer put on unquestioning trust in their public officials on a national or a local basis. The people of the state of Washington are now at the forefront of instigating some more democratic controls - witness Initiative 276. In Seattle, citizens are organizing to address themselves to issues such as entrapment, rape, the plight of our senior citizens in the International District, to unfair housing practices and discrimination or foster child care legislation, not the least of which is the formation of a civilian review board over the police.
What are the alternatives presently open to a person wronged by the police - beaten, harassed or otherwise abused - since many acts of police violence upon such a person are usually covered by an arrest. The office of the district attorney could well aid that individual by refusing to prosecute the often barely credible cases brought to it for this purpose. However, the district attorney seldom goes against the police in this fashion because he needs them for his job. And the number of DAs that function in the face of police dislike is infinitesimal.
Again, the trial judge is similarly able to see false arrest if he is at all competent, but to impugn the word of a police officer who often appears before him would lay that officer open to impeachment whenever he took the stand, making the judge's job that much more difficult. This, of course, is aside from any political pressures. An attempt at a civil suit would not profit the victims either, since this is normal in agreements signed with police associations - that the department, not the individual policeman, is liable for all damages, or that the wages of the policeman are unattachable. The inability to get a judgment against a government body is proverbial and what lawyer would take the case?
What redress is possible via the Office of Ombudsman? First of all, the Office of Ombudsman cannot produce change, and can only assume the role of arbiter. Secondly, this office cannot enforce decisions. And lastly, even if given indefinite power, we would have an unhealthy concentration of that power in one individual.
The victim's only recourse in Seattle is to make a complaint to the Seattle Police Department's Internal Investigations Division. However, the IID in Seattle has shown itself repeatedly to be an ineffective agency, unable through its control by the police department to adequately and fairly handle civilian complaints. In 1972, for example, out of 89 charges concerning the use of brutality or excessive force, the IID sustained none. In 1973, from a total of 117 charges of excessive force, the IID again found none of the charges sustainable. Also in 1973, only 17 charges of police harassment were brought forth, a ridiculously small number when one is witness to the general systematic harassment of the racial and sexual minority communities. Of the 17 harassment charges that were brought forth, again, none were sustained.
Are we to believe that there were no instances of the use of excessive force or harassment by police officers? Those of us who are a part of the poor minority communities know better, we've seen different, and the IID's clean statistics only say to us that they are adept at covering up their dirty work. When people do complain to the IID, they're often ignored. Charges are seldom acted upon, and many times, the people filing the complaints are not contacted as to the disposition of the charges.
At STOP's last meeting with Mr. Revelle, he agreed to press for the consideration of an individual complaint, instead to turn over to him personally other cases that have been ignored by the IID. Although this kind of political pressure can force consideration of one or two individual cases, it is no answer to the problem facing us. The only method of guaranteeing fair handling of complaints is objective consideration by an impartial board, independent of the police department and therefore immune to police pressure. [applause]
We know that the concept of a civilian review board is a controversial subject and is much maligned by many persons and organizations, especially organizations of police, but in general, their criticisms are based upon error. The most frequent and seemingly devastating criticism of civilian review boards, and one would expect you will hear again tonight, is that they have not been successful. This is a perversion of the reality that a civilian review board as an entity capable of controlling the actions of the police individually and capable of changing police discrimination, brutality, and harassment has never existed anywhere in the United States. Let's get that straight. To defame the idea of review boards on the basis of, for example, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, is like defaming the reasoning power of humanity on the basis of a lobotomy victim. [laughter]
There have been no boards with power to enforce their determinations. There have been no boards except for Berkeley's with sufficient legality to withstand political manipulations. No boards have been independently and adequately staffed, and no boards have been controlled by the community. Those that have been brought into existence have been sold out by mealy-mouthed compromise, dropping the substance of accountability for the phantasm of name.
However, these boards have not been a total loss. Besides injecting the idea of citizen control into the police apparatus, they have taught us much of what we should avoid in the structure and composition of a board. If you study the fact sheets on civilian review boards, is research - excuse me - as researched by the STOP membership, you too can see the obvious pitfalls that must be avoided. If we are truly concerned with making the police accountable to the public, there are guidelines we must follow.
One - the board must be totally independent of the police force, and legally secure in the structure of government. Time and again, we see in the history of past boards how they were either unable to function adequately, because they were internal to the police department, or because they were vulnerable to political pressure and changes of administrations.
Two - they must be composed entirely and strictly of civilians. In each case, we researched the presence of police or ex-police on the board tended to make the board a whitewash for police crimes. There have been a number of studies of police officers done in the United States, the most extensive being the supplemental studies to the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders, commonly called the Kerner report. But in these studies, we have called a typical characterization of the police officer which is at odds with both the general populace and with the requirements of justice.
Particularly germane is a survey made in 1953 on the reasons for use of force, with "disrespect for the police," quote unquote, being by far the main reason cited by the police surveyed. 37% of the respondents cited this reason, as opposed to 23% citing the need of force to make an arrest. An additional 19% considered force justifiable and - get this - to obtain information, and another 10% (and this is even worse) if they knew the suspect was guilty. It is no wonder that Jessica Mitford in her recent book "Kind and Usual Punishment" questions who in reality should populate our prisons if we insist on having them: the poor who fill them to overflowing because of their poverty or their jailers? [applause]
Three - the board must have an adequate and independent investigative force with the sufficient power to obtain all pertinent information from all agencies of government. Without such a staff, the board will be greatly hampered in its attempts to fully and fairly adjudicate the complaints brought before it. And unless the investigators be independent, the board will only know that with those in control of the investigators with them to know.
Four - the board must have direct access to all complaints of wrongful conduct by the police. To this end, the review board must be open to the people both to gain their confidence and to inform as many as possible of their existence. By dissolving the internal investigative system and taking control of its sources of complaints, the board may play an important role in ridding the city of police abuse. In New York City, the Citizens Complaint Board by virtue of widespread political campaigning and its position as the internal investigative division of the NYPD was able in the four months of its existence to obtain half as many complaints as the poorly informed employee publicized Philadelphia Police Advisory Board garnered in 11 years.
Five - the board must be adequately funded - an obvious point but one often overlooked in the past.
Six - but perhaps most important, the membership of the board must be comprised of those who feel the brunt of police lawlessness. Not only is it a refreshing change that a governmental agency be comprised of the people rather than for the people, it is only those who are confronted by the reality of police violence who can adequately judge cases of police abuse. The citizens review board as proposed by STOP follows these guidelines.
Let's understand that police brutality does exist. It exists in every city in the United States. It exists in Seattle. If we are ever to be rid of brutality, we must take control of our police forces. [applause]
Mark Levin, head of SPD's Internal Investigations Division (listen to audio)
Chairman Revelle, Council President Smith, Councilman Larkin and Benson - I think first we should address the problem before addressing the proposal. In 1973, the Seattle Police Department made 24,000 arrests, issued 109,000 traffic citations, handled 203,000 calls in which police cars were dispatched, plus thousands of other incidents of citizen-police contact on the street. During this time, there are 85 police officers assaulted with weapons, 846 assaulted in other means. During the same period of time, there were 375 complaints filed against policemen. This represents about one in every 1000 police actions. This does not indicate a department that is routinely engaged in brutal or repressive tactics and certainly does not indicate a police problem.
As far as citizen review boards or civilian review boards in general, we have attached a report titled "Advantages and Disadvantages of Civilian Review Boards and Alternates" as evidence of our remarks here that they are not uninformed. The bibliography appended there too is lengthy and we think complete.
We also append a study by William H. Rogers, associate professor of law at the University of Washington, dated July 1970. Our current disciplinary procedures are modeled very closely after the recommendations contained in this study. These procedures have been and are subject to continuous review and refinement. Since these procedures are incorporated by reference into the Police Guild labor agreement with the City, major changes are made with great care and only after significant negotiation with and concurrence by the Police Guild.
Our review of all available literature, and particularly the history of civilian review boards where they have been implemented, convince us they have been largely unsuccessful and have little likelihood of success. Given all of the foregoing, we think it would be unwise to abandon a process that is working reasonably well and improving with time in favor of a process which has been largely discredited by its own history. We would recommend against the civilian review board in any form.
Now addressing the STOP proposed ordinance, the proposal calls for an autonomous board, which is a violation of our City Charter and would require amendment. Section 3 entitled "Powers" and Subsection B "Enforcement Disciplinary Actions" is not only a violation of our City Charter, but our civil service rules and regulations. Section 4 "Composition and Qualification" disenfranchises over 50% of the residents of the City, and we question the constitutionality of such restrictions.
There is no provisions made in this proposal for removal of any of the members of the board. Section 12 - it is proposed that this board have access to any documents or records that it deems pertinent, a provision which goes well beyond existing law. Section 13 - existing Internal Investigation Division files have been created under case law and Guild agreement that such files would remain confidential. This provision for transfer of files would be in violation of all previous agreements entered into by the City with the employee group and is therefore of questionable legality.
Now the police department in closing does not totally lock out citizen participation and we have proposed and would be amenable to citizens' review of our review process, our disciplinary hearing review processes. This presently, though, is under negotiation between the Guild and the City, and I don't think that we can address it at this time.
The study that that I've alluded to here from Dr. William Rogers is quite detailed and I think it gives you gives you a pretty good idea of how we feel about civilian review boards. Major Connery is here now to answer any parts that you may have or any questions you may have regarding this process in this reporting.
Judith Freel, Radical Women (listen to audio)
My name is Judith Freel and I represent Radical Women. Radical Women support Seize the Time for Oppressed People's ordinance in establishing a citizens review board. Or as a socialist feminist organization, we recognize a secondary position - powerlessness, and discrimination women have been regulated to in society - we recognize and demand the protection that a citizens review board would provide.
Radical Women are fed up waiting for the police to end brutalizing racial minorities, homosexuals, and women, and the omnipotent structure with which the police department functions. We need and demand a comprehensive solution to policing brutality, which a citizens review board such as STOP has outlined in their ordinance would provide. The board would be comprised of those who are the most oppressed by the police - women, minorities, and sexual minorities. It would be independent of the police department.
STOP has clearly shown that this mandate is supported by the people and should be implemented now. A citizens review board would put the end to discrimination and prejudice in the police department's handling of citizens’ complaints or brutality by police. In the event of a citizen's complaint of discrimination and illegal procedures, the board would have full authority to investigate, fine, suspend, or terminate individuals responsible. This also ensures protection to those who are employed within the police department. All of the people must be represented and protected equally if we are to have justice and freedom under the law.
Elmer Dixon, Black Panther Party (listen to audio)
My name is Elmer Dixon. I am a member of the Black Panther Party, Washington State chapter, address is 169 19th Avenue. I want to speak in support of a citizens review board on behalf of the Black Panther Party on behalf of a lot of Black people in the Black community who have felt the brunt of police brutality.
I don't think it's necessary for me to respond to quite a few attacks that have been leveled at progressive people that are trying to seek change in government and in a city, in a world that is desperate to change and needs change very badly. I think that if we look at in the streets, if we look at the very fact that complaints are being registered, the very fact that people are up here testifying that there is a problem, and that there is something wrong with things not being dealt with correctly by the present, internal investigations committee.
I do support and favor an internal investigation committee that is made up of people from cross sections of black communities, brown communities, white community, red community, the gay community, etc. to review police complaints on the part of citizens, because of the very fact that we have seen that it is impossible for corrupt politicians to look over issues of corrupt, more corrupt politicians. Speaking in terms of internal investigations committee, trying to decide whether or not the fellow parties have done wrong, the situation outside of the police department. There has been very clear evidence that bipartisan law has been applied when a police complaint has been registered, and people try to administer the law properly.
I suggest that laws in this country, the laws of this land, did not serve adequately the needs of the people. Because the crime rate is so high, I suggest also the government bodies in the high parts of the government are also not serving the needs and the rights of the people because there's so much turmoil in this country, and also further submit that a police internal investigations division in the city of Seattle cannot and will not serve the interests of the people because it has to serve the interests of the fellow partners. I submit further, that we not only need a citizens review board to investigate activities of the police department, but we also need a people's governing review board to investigate the activities of this government. [applause]
Coming from a personal standpoint, on the issue of people who support a citizens review board, I'm not shocked, but I'm disappointed in fact that certain elements have come forward to attack the fellow human beings who're trying to seek some type of positive change. I find it very difficult to understand a man attacking the person who has had a job, tried to work to support his family and try to earn wages to get through school, to try to obtain a better job, who has been laid off or fired from his job because of conditions would not allow the job to continue, who has been put on unemployment rolls, and in order to at least try and feed his family one meal a day has had to go on food stamps. I find this hard to believe that human beings will attack other human beings who are trying to eat and survive high cost of food here today.
And I think that the City Council here, people in the audience, whether they're for or against the citizens review board, to try to sit down and be more a little bit more human, and try to understand each other's problems rather than attacking people. But I'm sure there's a lot of change that can be accomplished. We sit down and realize that we all have certain human needs. We all have certain human ideals and certain human goals. And they're very much basically the same. That is, we want to live a very - the most comfortable, peaceful life that we can. And I submit that by attacking one another, and defending the defenders of wrong, and defending the defenders of brutality and oppression, we're not going to get anywhere and we should stand together as a people and try to solve these problems together. Thank you.
Additional local residents can be heard in the full recording of the August 20th meeting (Event 2469, hearing starts at 3:24:04).