Debate over citizens board heats up

Adrienne Packer

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 1999 | 11:48 a.m.

In January, County Commissioners set aside one month to polish a proposed ordinance that would provide guidelines for a controversial citizens police review board.

During the 30-day period, a 12-year-old boy claimed Metro Police broke his upper arm while detaining him after he and a friend playfully chased a can of potato chips that rolled into the street.

The incident, which is being investigated by Metro, crystalized the point by proponents that Clark County needs an independent board to scrutinize questionable police behavior.

"The community is fuming," Islamic minister Duke Muhammad told commissioners Tuesday as they reviewed recommended policies for the proposed board. "You are reaching a very dangerous point."

Clark County is one of a few major metropolitan areas without a police review board; 75 percent of the country's 50 largest cities have similar boards, according to Commissioner Dario Herrera.

"The passage of this ordinance and the creation of a citizens police review board is long overdue," said Gary Peck, executive director of Southern Nevada's American Civil Liberties Union.

About 20 community leaders, mostly minorities, attended Tuesday's meeting about the creation of a citizens review board, an issue so contentious that some county commissioners have received threatening phone calls and nasty e-mails.

Herrera presented his changes to the original review board ordinance that was submitted to the county board Jan. 19 by an ethnically diverse 16-member citizens advisory committee.

Most elements of the ordinance remained the same: The citizens review board would be made up of 25 residents who would meet in panels of five. It would have 90 days to investigate citizens' complaints against officers.

Still in question is the review board's investigative powers and whether former Metro officers could serve on the board.

Herrera, who was a member of the 1997 Legislature that passed a law to allow police review boards, said he tried his best to create an ordinance that would satisfy all factions of the community. "I believed then and I believe today that a review board will be an instrumental tool in providing a good relationship between the public and the Metropolitan Police Department," Herrera said.

He said some elements of the ordinances are controlled by state law. For example, review board hearings must be closed to the public.

Also, Herrera said, Metro must be given the opportunity to investigate citizens' complaints through its Internal Affairs Bureau before the review board can initiate its own probe.

Once the review board has made a ruling, it will forward its findings to Sheriff Jerry Keller, who will decide on his own whether the officer under investigation is punished.

According to state law, neither the board nor the complaining resident can appeal, a policy that drew groans from the public.

The element that generated the most controversy is whether former Metro officers or their families can serve on the citizens review board.

While most county commissioners suggested that eliminating a segment of the population is unfair, the committee that created the original ordinance feels strongly about its position.

"It should be obvious that their (retired Metro officers) actual and perceived objectivity would be in question given their ties to the department," said Peck, a member of the advisory committee.

Muhammad insisted that no matter where former law enforcement officers have served, they should not be permitted to be board members. He added that many minorities tend to be the targets of police brutality and simply do not trust officers.

"Racism is a national epidemic," Muhammad said. "What makes you think the same racist mindset will not exist?"

Franny Forsman, chairwoman of the advisory group and a federal public defender, said Metro will be represented because its fiscal affairs committee will be responsible for appointing members to the review board.

One of the final controversial issues to be resolved is how much investigative power the review board will hold.

Commissioners discussed allowing the board access to an officer's personnel files only if the documents are relevant to the case. For example, an officer's file may reveal a pattern that will assist the review.

The county board suggested the review board be given the same documents that were studied by the Internal Affairs Bureau. Critics, however, argued that the bureau may not wish to be as thorough as the citizens board.

Advisory committee members argued that the board should be able to obtain additional documents or subpoena more witnesses if it feels it will strengthen its investigation. If Metro declines to release personnel files, a District Court judge will determine whether the paperwork is relevant to the case.

Herrera estimated the review board would cost the county and the city of Las Vegas a total of $200,000, money that will come from the general fund.