The Seattle Times has written the first of a two-part story about the Ostling shooting and the Bainbridge Island Police Department. The Times article has some new detail about the case, gleaned from public records, depositions and conversations with the Ostling family.
Go here to read part one.
Update 2/27/12: Part two is on the Times’ website here. It focuses primarily on the hiring of Charles Arntz and the conduct of former police guild president Scott Weiss. (Sidebar—Who did that reporter talk to? “Mayberry with Audis”? What islander has ever said that? Priuses maybe. Mayberry, never. We’re not that friendly.)
Information that is significantly unfavorable to the police department emerges in the stories. On the other hand, the coverage of the Ostling shooting seems somewhat slanted toward the Ostling family’s version of events. Photographs and other details that were reported in our local press (here and here) were not reported by the Times. Also not mentioned is that an Ostling family member’s statements taken by a sheriff’s investigator at the scene differ from subsequent accounts by the family (reported by the Kitsap Sun). That changing statement was of enough significance to Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge that he mentioned it in a letter, in which he defended his decision not to prosecute the officers for the shooting.
Whatever the facts of the Ostling case, broader issues about police conduct remain. The controversies with the police department, questions about hiring, discipline and accountability (and related concerns about the role of the Civil Service Commission in hiring and disclipline), as well as the role the police guild plays in shielding officers from disciplinary efforts, continue to plague our community.
Over the weekend, two people have posted police-related comments on other articles on this blog. I am re-posting them here, as it is clear people have things to say about these problems. I’m not so much interested in re-hashing Ostling–none of us have the personal knowledge to add anything to what has already been reported. But the issue of police accountability and procedure is worth more questions, and more thought. Fee free to comment—respectfully!
I wish to thank city council member Bonkowski for raising the issue of police accountability at the Feb. 15th council meeting. The council agreed to work on this issue at its recent retreat. In response to Bonkowski raising the issue, council member Blair said it was already in their “work plan”. Then council member Hytopoulos said it was “another issue that may have to take a back seat…” despite her acknowledgement “the community wants this item to be executed”.
The city council has been putting this matter on the back burner for nearly five years. During that time period the city and BIPD have been sued at least four times for the excessive use of force and other constitutional rights violations. In addition the city has received at least three other claims for damages from Bainbridge residents alleging the BIPD violated their rights by using excessive force. Instead of talking to the complainants in an effort to resolve the problem or negotiate in good faith, the City met in secret “executive sessions” to discuss these matters. The City then hired multiple lawyers from another outside law firm to fight the matters in court. Although the city has been successful in providing a legal defense in some of these matters, while other lawsuits remain on appeal, the City’s multiple outside counsel have undoubtedly billed the city and its insurance carrier for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Still the issues have not been resolved.
In early 2010 I wrote to then mayor Scales and expressed my fear that if the council and manager did not do something to place a check on the apparent unbridled abuse of power by BIPD officers someone was going to get killed. The council did nothing and eight months later Douglas Ostling was shot to death, the victim of a BIPD homicide. Our City can no longer afford to put the issue of police accountability in the “back seat”.
In this same Feb. 15th council meeting the city’s Deputy Manager stated that it was a “high priority” for the City to begin “negotiating a new police guild contract”. Are you kidding me? The conduct of BIPD has resulted in five lawsuits in four years. The BIPD Police Guild “renegotiated” it’s last contract through intimidation by filing a public records request for the emails of all council members. The same same Bainbridge Police Guild President was suspended recently for harassing and intimidating a City council member whom he wrongly believed was plotting the demise of BIPD through meetings with the county sheriff. This is also the same department which found one of its officers had surreptitiously recorded the City Manager. This is the same police guild which lost a case in the WA Supreme Court last year when they tried to withhold investigative records of alleged police misconduct. This is the same police force which, according to a statement made by City Manager Bauer at the Feb. 15th council meeting, has yet to implement the recommendations for the police misconduct complaint procedure which were made by the City’s own consultant last year.
I am aware a budget has been presented to one or more City council members which states the City could save a million dollars a year by contracting for police services with the County. I urge the Council to make this significant cost saving proposal a “high priority” and take the issue of police accountability off of the back burner before someone else bleeds to death.
If the City insists on renewing its contract with BIPD I urge the Council to form a committee to explore the options for forming a citizen review board to investigate complaints of police misconduct. This is long overdue.
Kim Koenig
May we all assume that we can united behind our Police Chief’s outrageous management practices? Can we assume the members of the Council were not corrected by our City manager when she was updated about the actions of the policemen as outlined in the Seattle Times? It would be an interesting fact ck.
Did our city manager tell the elected leadership that their understanding of the facts was wrong? Who decided it was not important to do anything to correct the public view?
I am confident our Manager will explain this can’t be discussed in public b/c of the lawsuit, ok put that legal action aside, its quite reasonable and right to discuss the question about hiring processes, responsibility to inform the public etc.
It will be interesting to hear the council members response. Attempts to fix the police dept has been thwarted (interestingly using Roberts Rules of Order), now how will others feel about the timing of fixing this situation.
Louise Mooney
I agree that police accountability is a long delayed priority. Perhaps if the Council weren’t sidetracked by firing the current manager and a new Manager search, their decision to reconsider the Water utility and addressing the grant that was submitted on their behalf to a DOE by a private citizen regarding the cleanup of the Unocal site, they could make it the priority it should be.
I’m not going to argue that Brenda Bauer is the perfect manager. She’s made some missteps that I think she could have handled differently. But she’s also accomplished what the City Council mandated in 2010 – fixing the budget problems. She’s also suffered some of the most venomous (and “creepy” in the words of Council member Blossom) attacks by citizens. The current Council majority could have chosen to work with her cooperatively, make clear their priorities for transparency (and follow them themselves) and make a longer term plan for change that would have allowed the Council to get to the staggering number of priorities they face.
Althea, thanks for highlighting the Times story on your blog. The second part in the series is now posted. Here are some questions I hope you and your readers will consider as we work through these unpleasant issues:
-Why were members of the civil service commission who supervised the hiring of Officers Benkert and Portrey (the former, we now know, had a troubling history at the LAPD; the latter, we now know, scored too low on exams to be hired as a “real” policeman) defended, by the 2011 Council, as being “the best members of the civil service commission we could ever have?” Why were so many efforts made (free legal counsel, modified removal rules) to keep these commissioners in their positions? Every councilmember was aware that these commissioners broke state law relating to temporary appointments. Every councilmember was aware that they had no standards in place to assess the qualifications of “temporary” officers.
-Why, after learning about the serious problems in reserve officer Charles Arntz’ background, did the city manager write a public memo stating that this officer was fit to serve with the Bainbridge PD? In a document still on the city’s website, the public is told that Arntz–despite beating up a man and having a weapons charge sustained against him”–did not have any disqualifying convictions.”
-Why was I given a gag order by the civil service commission–and then terminated from my position as commission secretary–after I raised questions about improper police hiring practices?
-Why was the public told that I lost the personnel file of Officer Jeff Benkert in a staged and public dialogue between the city manager and councilmember Bob Scales when the file was discovered missing, by the city, many months before? (Never mind, I just learned the answer to this from the Times piece. It seems the city neglected to pass along some crucial information about Mr. Benkert to our local prosecutor, and this may put a number of criminal convictions in jeopardy. Why take responsibility for a screw-up when you can blame the ditzy secretary?)
As a resident of Bainbridge, and someone who has been (too closely) involved with PD issues for the past several years, I want more than police department accountability. I want some council and city manager accountability, too.
-Kim Hendrickson
It would be good to know more about the BIPD’s hiring process, standards, background checks and training procedures. I understand the department met with mental health professionals after the shooting. What training and procedural changes came out of those meetings? Do those changes have to be bargained with the union?
What other issues arise as a result of positions take by the police union? Kim Koenig’s comment above makes several good points in that regard. It would be interesting to learn how many disciplinary actions are appealed or grieved and how much money taxpayers spend on the union’s protection of problem employees.
Also, I’d like to point out that the city manager mentioned by two commenters above has been fired. I don’t know anything else that can be done to her. The council is prohibited by law from telling the manager to hire or fire anyone. Many of these employees were hired before either the city manager or the chief worked for Bainbridge Island. In my observation, Chief Fehlman’s predecessor ran the department without any oversight at all.
Past City Councils–before the change of government—were highly supportive of the BIPD. I particularly recall how Bill Knobloch effusively praised the department at council meetings. His comment in the Times article made no sense at all, given his ten years on the council and lack of action or advocacy regarding police oversight or reform—even after he was well aware of developing issues, such as the Koenig incident, and the Scott Weiss/Hunter problem.
Problems like those in the BIPD don’t develop overnight. In our case, they go back 20 years or more. Recently, there’s been light shining on some of these neglected corners. It’s not enough–but it’s better than it was. It would be money well spent to get a policing expert to examine the problems, top to bottom. But we’re spending several hundred thousand dollars on a new manager—don’t know how much deeper the well is.
Fully agree with Althea that the troubling but conflicting stories of the Ostling case shouldn’t be tried in the press or blogs because absolutely nobody writing for the media or on blogs have all the facts, and laws prohibit the city from discussing a case in current litigation. There are also careers, reputations and very likely a lot of money at stake for both the plaintiffs and their lawyers, and that sometimes can color a case in pre-trial posturing, which might (or maybe the timing is just a coincidence) be happening.
Left out of the media ink and blogs are the extent of testing, screening, psychological evaluations, and number of individuals who vet a potential police officer before a hire decision is made. A regular police officer hire is a multi-person process. Reserve Officers, as in the case of Charles Arntz, do not go through the Civil Service testing and evaluation process.
If the city’s police evaluation and hiring process is broken, then it is going to involve a number of individuals, likely including one of the most professionally respected psychological evaluators in the country, and an recently seated justice on the State Supreme Court.
Of the number of cases filed against the Bainbridge Police Department, I personally can’t recall any the city has recently lost when the facts have been presented to a jury of citizens who hear the presentations from witnesses and lawyers representing both sides, and where both side can present their respective stories while under court oath.
That said, additional community Police oversight is clearly called for. Similar discussions are happening in a number of Washington State cities, and the City Council can look at models that have been successful in other small municipalities and select one, or come up with their own, that will help resolve some of the current public distrust and misgivings of our city’s Police Department.