State Rep. Lew Frederick entered the 2011 Legislature with
a package of bills he hoped would respond to the six officer-involved
shootings last year in Portland.
Halfway through the
session, Frederick (D-North/Northeast Portland) now says all four
measures to reform police oversight are either dead or dying.
“There’s not a block
on it, but there’s not a lot of enthusiasm by any means,” says
Frederick, who’s in his first full session in the Legislature.
Who killed the bills?
Asked for his view on whodunit, Frederick points a finger at four
ex-cops elected to serve in the state House—including three on the
10-member House Judiciary Committee that holds life-or-death power over
most police-reform efforts in the Capitol.
The
committee is co-chaired by Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), a retired
Portland police lieutenant, and Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), a
retired trooper for the Oregon State Police.
Rep. Andy Olson
(R-Albany), a retired State Police lieutenant, also serves on the
Judiciary Committee. And Rep. Sherrie Sprenger (R-Scio), a retired
Benton County sheriff’s deputy, is not on Judiciary but is viewed as
influential on law-enforcement issues in Salem. (Rep. Greg Matthews, a
Democrat from Gresham, is also a former cop.)
The fact that 8
percent of Oregon’s 60 House representatives (and 30 percent of the
House Judiciary Committee) are ex-cops points to the respect that police
enjoy among voters.
And
the twist that four of those reps take credit for killing Frederick’s
bills highlights the remarkable influence they enjoy over efforts to
change state laws on police oversight.
“When
you have the police making the laws, what have you got?” asks Dan
Handelman of Portland Copwatch. “I’m not saying Oregon is a police
state. But it has the taint of a police state when you have so many
law-enforcement officers sitting on committees where they’re deciding
whether the police should be held accountable for shooting people.”
Among other effects, Frederick’s bills would have:
- Mandated drug
tests and expanded psychological counseling for cops who use deadly
force. (See Murmurs, for the latest on testing Portland cops for
steroids.)
- Required the
Oregon Department of Justice to probe deadly-force incidents instead of
leaving those investigations to local agencies.
- Mandated sporadic psychological evaluations as a condition for continued police certification.
- Required a state study of racial profiling, community policing and minority hiring in police agencies.
- Mandated a statewide study of police training.
Krieger, Barker, Sprenger and Olson say they worried the bills mandated a statewide fix to a Portland-specific issue.
“I’m not saying
Portland doesn’t have a problem. I’m not in a position to decide,”
Sprenger says. “But let’s look at other remedies before we look at
[changing state law].”
Krieger is even more blunt.
“The mayor, the city
commissioners, the district attorney [and] the city police need to take
care of their own house,” he says. “I’m not gonna have some outside
influence come in.”
Barker says he
consulted Portland Police Chief Mike Reese and Officer Daryl Turner, who
heads the 900-member Portland police union. The chief and union
president found common ground in opposing the bills.
Barker says Reese
assured him many of the issues were already being addressed inside the
Police Bureau. But Barker says he was also concerned about creating
additional expenses for the cash-strapped state.
In the end, Barker
says, his opposition to the bills came from his own experience as a
lawmaker and a cop—not out of favoritism to the police.
“There’s a lot of
myths of the thin blue line,” Barker says. “If there’s a problem, I
would take a look at it. But these weren’t the solutions.”
State Sen. Chip
Shields (D-North/Northeast Portland) tried to push a similar bill in the
Senate to mandate DOJ probes, drug testing and more counseling after
deadly-force incidents.
Shields
says the Senate bill also is dead. He blames Portland police-reform
advocates in part for failing to make their presence felt in Salem.
“The groups that are interested in this need to be down here working the bill,” Shields says.
Rev. T. Allen Bethel
heads the Albina Ministerial Alliance, an outspoken group on police
reform in Portland. He says his community faces significant barriers to
access in the Capitol.
“The community does
not have a lobbyist who is paid full-time to be down in Salem,” Bethel
says. “What the community does is go to the polls and vote, and we elect
these officials to represent our interests. If they cannot do that, the
community has the right to go back to the polls at election time and
remove them.”
Sounds like all of these bills did nothing but throw money at the problems (whether they are real or perceived). That solves nothing, especially at a time when what little money is available has better uses elsewhere.
These bills were rightfully killed in committee.
Oregon is a police state.
It is a typical one-size-fits-all, statewide solution to a Portland-specific problem. In other words, for everybody outside the Portland community; a solution in search of a problem. Legislation that affects Oregon generally is not a proper remedy. Maybe you should start by reining in the "keep Portland wierd" crowd.
Good luck with that, BTW.
This is another indication that police are not interested in anything that exposes their own corruption. In most cities, the police budget is the SINGLE highest expenditure in the budget. So they have a strong union and they protect themselves in any way from "looking" bad to the public. They spend a fortune every year protecting themselves from lawsuits and try to make the complainants appear to be money-grubbing, "mental" people with "pre-existing" injuries. The police could NEVER have caused the problems, even if they actually exist.
Why are cops so afraid of drug testing? That's the real question to ask.
Nothing in this bill is onorous unless there is something to hide. The US courts have been clear in their opinion that it's OK for employers to drug test their workers. Silly me I though I employed the police. I know I pay their salaries.