Mayor, Vice Mayor Express Opposition to Current or Ex-Cops Sitting on Oversight Panel

Exactly who will sit on Pasadena’s newly approved 11-member Community Police Oversight Commission, as well as what criteria will be used in vetting nominees and how transparent the selection process will be, remains a work in progress.

Indeed, all those questions are still in the very early stages of being asked, just days after the City Council gave its final OK to creating the oversight panel and its accompanying independent auditor.

But Wednesday, as the council’s Public Safety Committee gathered remotely to continue discussions on the matter, the question of whether current or former law-enforcement professionals should be appointed to the body got a resounding thumbs-down from two committee members.

Vice Mayor Tyron Hampton spoke at some length in opposing the idea, and Mayor Terry Tornek agreed – both indicating that appointing current or former cops would undermine trust in the oversight panel as the city looks to strengthen relations between the public and the Pasadena Police Department.

No decisions were made, nor were any recommendations formalized, as this was just one work session in what figures to be a long process.

But as the committee, and eventually the full City Council, seek to identify potential commission members across a variety of expertise areas related to policing, the question of tapping current or former officers, including from other jurisdictions, has been bandied about.

According to a Sept. 21 staff report from City Attorney Michele Beal Bagneris, “We also note, though not proposed in the ordinance, that some other cities’ police review boards have commissioner requirements that include … prohibiting current or former law enforcement officers from serving (or) conversely, encouraging current or former law enforcement officers to apply.’’

However, in Pasadena’s case, Hampton and Tornek on Wednesday indicated that such appointments would be unwise, given what the oversight model is trying to accomplish in a time of heightened distrust of police generally.

“The idea of a police officer serving on this body to me does not instill that level of trust or transparency in the process,’’ Hampton said.

“(The commission’s meetings will be) public, so anybody who wants to come and watch these meetings can definitely watch the meetings and see what’s going — but having a vote at the table when it comes to what the community believes is in the best interests for the community, having an officer in that position, in my opinion, is not the appropriate place.’’

When Councilmember John J. Kennedy, the Safety Committee chairman, asked Hampton whether he might be open to former officers sitting on the oversight panel, Hampton said no, and spoke about trust issues.

“I have great relationships with a lot of former law enforcement, but I just have to say that, I think right now, where we’re at … there has been a distrust for law enforcement in general, or authority in general, and there’s been a distrust in the city as a whole,’’ Hampton said.

Hampton also said he’s heard “loud and clear’’ opposition from community members.

“Right now, we’re trying to build trust, and until we get that trust, I don’t think a police officer being on the commission, or a former police officer being on the commission, is going to help us for doing what exactly we’re trying to do, or at least what I’m trying to do,’’ Hampton said.

For his part, Tornek pointed out that “the ordinance currently is silent on the issue’’ but that, “I happen to share the vice mayor’s position on that.’’

“But as it stands now,’’ Tornek added, “if a council member wanted to (nominate) a retired police officer or a police officer who might serve in another jurisdiction or something … that would be permitted the way the ordinance is written.’’

All nominations are subject to approval from the full council, and would need five votes to be approved.

The Safety Committee’s other members – Kennedy and Councilmember Steve Madison – did not weigh in with specific thoughts on the matter during Wednesday’s meeting.

The ordinance that was finalized this past Monday says that councilmembers from each of the city’s seven districts will nominate a commissioner, and the mayor will nominate another. In addition, three at-large commissioners from “community-based” groups will be nominated.

Some parameters for the eventual appointments were incorporated into the newly drafted ordinance, but many others still need to be worked out.

Among the already locked-in guidelines: Nominees will need to be city residents, though not necessarily residents of the particular district of the nominating councilmember. Another goal is for at least 50 percent of the commission’s appointees be women “if feasible.” In addition, practicing attorneys would not be able to serve if they or their firm or entity currently have pending criminal or civil cases involving Pasadena police officers.

As to how the nomination process might proceed from here, Tornek made several suggestions Wednesday.

First, he said, the application form that commission hopefuls will need to fill out should be expanded from the version that exists for other city commissions, to allow individuals to showcase a wider array of credentials and life experiences.

“I think it would be helpful in terms of evaluating what individuals would bring to the table in terms of their service on that (oversight) commission,’’ Tornek said.

“I think this is a relatively easy one in asking staff to expand the application form to identify expertise in the areas of, specifically police activity and law enforcement, but also with regard to social-justice issues and mental-health issues.

“Hopefully we’ll end up with a balanced commission that has a variety of expertise and experiences,’’ he said.

Tornek also suggested that the mayor and council members – who will combine to nominate eight of the oversight panel’s 11 commissioners – conduct their interviews with hopefuls in some public setting, in much the same way that the council vets a candidate to fill an unexpired council term.  

The goal there, he said, would be to add transparency, because the oversight panel is “somewhat unique, and the public is very much focused on the people that will be serving on it.’’

“The current process that each of us goes through (regarding nominations to the city’s other two-dozen commissions) is that we solicit applications or that we get unsolicited applications, we interview the applicants … and then we simply put it on the agenda for council approval,’’ Tornek said.

“In this instance … rather than simply popping a name on an agenda, it would be useful if the councilmember did his or her vetting or interviewing of the applicants in a public setting. I think it’s worth discussion to either urge councilmembers to do their interviewing in public or to require councilmembers to do it in public.’’

Hampton, meanwhile, said that one criterion that should be considered is age.

“One of those individuals (on the commission) has to be …  someone under the age of whatever the police department has its most interaction with, whatever age range that is, or within that age range,’’ Hampton said.

“I believe the age range is between 18 and 23. There should be someone on the commission that is in between that age range … (to) bridge the gap between the community that just has no trust in law enforcement.’’

As for the three at-large nominees, Tornek suggested that local community groups be tapped to do the initial vetting and present six names to the full council for consideration.

“We’ll have to agree on the list,’’ Tornek said, adding that the groups would be “organizations that have been active in the community in the area of police reform and oversight and social-justice issues, and that have some standing in the community.”

Said Hampton: “I’m definitely fine with that.”