Citizens panel wants retired cops’ relatives off board

Adrienne Packer

Thursday, March 11, 1999 | 11:25 a.m.

A proposed police review board ordinance released Tuesday and expected to be heard by Clark County Commissioners next week is not entirely supported by the citizens committee that helped draft the original policy.

Committee members who urged the commission to keep relatives of current and former Metro Police officers off the review board were disappointed to see that family members of retired officers are eligible.

"I am at this point both frustrated and perplexed with respect to those provisions governing who can and cannot serve on the review board," Gary Peck, a committee member and executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said.

"Everyone understood that in order for this review board to have any credibility whatsoever with the public, it must be viewed as entirely independent from any Metro ties or influence."

A law passed during the 1997 legislative session allowed Nevada cities and counties to establish police review boards. When the statute was approved, about 75 percent of the nation's 50 largest cities already had review boards.

A citizens advisory committee led by Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman was asked to create guidelines for the 25-member board.

Forsman said Wednesday she is pleased that former Metro officers cannot sit on the review board, which will subpoena witnesses and study personnel records after a complaint is lodged against a police officer.

Only three former police officers from other departments are permitted on the board, which will break up into panels of five to hear each case.

The majority of the advisory committee hoped the review board could initiate investigations before or during probes by Metro's Internal Affairs Bureau. Forsman said the state law was unclear about whether that would be permitted.

The county's ordinance states the review board must wait until internal affairs completes its investigation.

"The committee did not want citizens to be forced to go through the Internal Affairs Bureau before having someone independent hear it," Forsman said. "It's a major change but it came down to the commission counsel's advice."

The state law also says the police review board can only recommend punishments for officers found of any wrongdoings. Had the Legislature approved a police control board, it would have had the authority to impose penalties.

Findings will be forwarded to Sheriff Jerry Keller, who will determine how to punish the officer.

Forsman and Peck both expressed concern about the county's suggestion that investigations be limited to 90 days. While committee members say the hearings should be swift, they had hoped to have the power to obtain time extensions.

"We'd hate to see a good investigation cut off, but we understand that it's important that it doesn't become a long, drawn-out affair," Forsman said.

The committee won its battle over access to an officers' records. County commissioners have been hesitant to allow the citizens board to review any document it wished and recommended it be limited to paperwork used during internal affairs' investigation.

After Forsman argued that the Internal Affairs Bureau might not do as thorough a job as the review board, the ordinance was written to allow the board full access to personnel documents.

The ordinance must be approved by the county and Las Vegas -- jurisdiction that share Metro services -- before it is implemented.