Open Rebuttal to Stephen Downing

On several occasions now, frequent Patch contributor and habitual Long Beach Police Department critic Mike Ruehle has re-posted and linked comments from retired LAPD Deputy Chief Stephen Downing.

Ruehle appears to be quite enamored of Mr. Downing, no doubt because Downing is very direct (and in some cases quite insulting) in his criticism of LBPD personnel, policies, practices and procedures. One of Ruehle's re-posts of a Downing missive occurred here on 2/13. Downing's original comments, entitled:

"LBPD needs serious reform"

were published as a "guest column" in the Orange County Register on 12/20/2013.

In this column I consider Downing's comments and recommendations and offer my perspectives on each:

"I am personally convinced that the current practice related to investigations, review, officer tracking and retention and disposition of use-of-force matters has resulted in a culture of impunity within the rank and file."

I find it interesting (and a bit convenient) that Downing reaches this conclusion without offering any specific information about his methodology for developing it. Other than to claim to have had occasion during his "three-year residency" in Long Beach [wow, three whole years?] to evaluate the investigative processes used by the Long Beach Police Department, he doesn't really tell us how he actually conducted this evaluation. Did he interview any LBPD employees? If so, how many, who, and under what circumstances? Did he review department records? If so, what records, when, and who granted him access to them? Did he observe any investigations as they progressed? If so which ones and who authorized him to do so? "A culture of impunity within the rank and file"? To be considered valid, such a conclusion would require that Downing had an opportunity to observe, first hand, a clear majority of the hundreds of rank and file sworn *and* civilian employees at LBPD. Yet Downing offers no evidence that he has done so. So on what does he base his perception? Periodic news reports? Internet hit pieces by habitual complainers in the community like Ruehle and some others?

"I strongly believe that the recent announcement by the LBPD establishing a Use of Force Review Committee is just one more Band-Aid in a decades-long series of ineffective patch jobs designed to calm an outraged community."

Through these insulting characterizations Downing, again, offers no rational justification for his conclusions. "An outraged community?" Where? How did Downing determine this? Did he conduct a scientific survey of a random sampling of Long Beach residents and businesses? If so, when, under what circumstances, and according to what accepted methodology? Or is he, again, basing his perception on periodic news reports and internet hit pieces by habitual complainers in the community like Ruehle and some others? Further, Downing seems to overlook the fact that in forming the new advisory committee Chief McDonnell did only what is within his authority to do. He has no authority to re-write the City Charter, to reorganize the City's Civilian Police Complaint Commission, to create a separate "Police Commission", or to appoint members to such a creation. What more would Downing have Chief McDonnell do? Downing conveniently omits these observations as well.

"...the charter amendment was designed by the city attorney in such a manner that the CPCC had no real authority or ability to change the status quo.."

Charter Section 1153 provides the CPCC with considerable authority, including the power to conduct hearings and investigations, issue subpoenas, and recommend discipline as appropriate. Whether the CPCC actually uses its significant authority as fully or effectively as it might is another question entirely.

"Its decisions are not detailed in a manner that provides policy or training guidance, and its findings are compromised by the lack of expertise and the whim of the city manager, who also exercises total authority over the chief of police and the police disciplinary process."

Perhaps what Downing actually means is that CPCC does not publish the details of its findings and recommendations. Because CPCC often investigates internal personnel matters, it is constrained -by law- from publishing the details (as a former police executive, Downing surely knows this). This does not mean, however, that the details are not available to policy makers who are authorized to review them. We do not expect the City Manager to possess "expertise" in municipal law enforcement. This is not his function in city government. The City Manager is the City's Chief Administrative Officer. We expect him to manage the experts we do hire to run our various City Departments. Similarly, the City Manager does not have "total authority over the...police disciplinary process." If there is a final arbiter on police discipline in Long Beach, it can be said to be the appointed Civil Service Commission, not the City Manager. The Civil Service Commission can change the Police Chief's disciplinary decisions and those changes are not subject to appeal or reversal other than in a court of law.

"The city of Long Beach is of such a size and complexity that supervision of the police department and authority over the police disciplinary process by the city manager are outdated, ineffective and subject to the many conflicts that arise with respect to the city manager's relationship with the city attorney, police union, liability concerns, campaign contributions and the like."

Sigh...apparently during Downing's exhaustive "three year" observation, he didn't have time for even the most cursory review of the City's organization chart. The Police Chief supervises the police department. The City Manager supervises the Police Chief (among others). The Council and Mayor supervise the City Manager. The Electorate supervises the Council and Mayor (among others, including the City Attorney). The police union represents its members. Period. It does not influence policy other than through it's legal political activities and it's right to engage in collective bargaining during contract negotiations. Does Downing suggest that LBPD officers should not enjoy these legal rights?

"Most all of these conflicts have served to suppress proper administrative processes within the Police Department..."

Once again, based upon what specific, quantifiable, and provable evidence, Mr. Downing?

"The people need to change the city charter and bring the authority, structure and control of the Police Department out of the Dark Ages."

The "Dark Ages"? Truly? This despite that most municipal police departments in the nation of comparable size are organized and overseen in precisely the same way as LBPD? I realize that, coming as he did from LAPD, a Police Commission is what Downing knows and, so, is most comfortable with, but LAPD has, what, 10,000 or so officers? Long Beach has less than a 10th of that number. Does Long Beach truly need an additional layer of government bureaucracy to address occasional challenges in its police department? I don't think so. Downing clearly does.

"The authority, powers and duties of the Police Department should be outlined in the city charter and the chief of police given disciplinary authority over all members of the department subject to civil service or court appeal."

The purpose of the City Charter is not to outline the "authority, powers and duties" of any specific general fund department, police or otherwise. Further, as I previously demonstrated, the Chief of Police already has disciplinary authority over all members of the department subject to civil service or court appeal.

"The chief of police should be made subordinate to a board of five citizen police commissioners, selected from residents, who serve as the policy head of the Police Department."

This method of organization (and the several suggestions related to a Police Commission Downing also offers) may make sense for larger agencies such as LAPD, but not for those the size of LBPD. All they do is add an unnecessary level of government bureaucracy between elected government representatives and the Police Chief. This recommendation smacks of nothing so much as Downing trying to create a position for himself as a Police Commissioner in Long Beach. 

"The City Council should have the power to remove the chief of police by a two-thirds vote."

The City Council already has the authority to remove the Police Chief. Like all other general fund department heads, the Police Chief is an at-will city employee. The Council can have him removed with a simple majority vote which directs the City Manager to do this. If the City Manager refuses, the Council can remove the City Manager in the same manner, and replace him with someone who will do as they instruct.

Mr. Downing desires to make LBPD's policies and procedures more "contemporary, thorough, transparent and effective". Those are noble and reasonable goals. Improvements can always be made in any city agency, including the police department. Long Beach does not, however, need to adopt Downing's LAPD-centric recommendations to accomplish these goals.

A Better Approach:

All Long Beach needs to do is:

• Correct the City Charter to require the existing CPCC to answer directly to the City Council, rather than to the City Manager
• Increase CPCC investigative staffing to six with support staffing sufficient to accommodate this increase
• Require CPCC to review and provide recommendations on all allegations of police officer misconduct including allegations initially received and investigated by police department internal affairs and other personnel
• Require the CPCC to report monthly to the Council's Public Safety Committee and semi-annually to the full Council (primarily in open session [for public transparency] but also in closed session as necessary)
• Require the CPCC to publish quarterly reports on its website (this currently only occurs annually and the most recent annual report published is from 2010)

These very basic changes to existing CPCC structure, policies, and procedures could:

1. Enhance LBPD accountability to elected city officials and make that accountability more transparent than it is currently
2. Improve the public's perception of police accountability
3. Increase police oversight
4. Improve public reporting of, and access to, police oversight activities

The author is a Long Beach native and retired LBPD Sergeant currently residing in the Pacific Northwest.