City, Police Accountability Commission respond to [Yolo County] grand jury critique

The city of Davis and its Police Accountability Commission offered mixed reactions to a Yolo County grand jury report from last fall that found shortcomings in how the PAC conducts its business.

City officials provided the responses in December to the grand jury, which posted them Monday on its county website.

At issue: whether the PAC — formed in late 2018 in response to a violent Picnic Day brawl between civilians and three plain-clothed police officers that occurred the year before — has fulfilled its mandate to address police accountability issues.

Much of the grand jury report focused on that April 2017 altercation, which triggered public outcry when it came to light that the Davis Police Department minimized the involved officers’ roles in the incident.

That in turn led to a police internal-affairs investigation and a revamped police oversight system that includes the 10-member PAC and the hiring of Michael Gennaco as the city’s independent police auditor.

The grand jury issued 11 findings stemming from its investigation, to which the city and PAC responded, addressing matters including police representation at PAC meetings, commissioner training on law-enforcement issues and the committee’s working relationship with the city and Gennaco.

1. The practice of excluding DPD leadership and officers from meetings of the Davis PAC limits candid dialogue between the PAC and the DPD.

City: Agree. See PAC response.

PAC: Agree. The PAC agreed on this practice based on concerns expressed by multiple people from the public and our commission liaisons. The PAC now has DPD staff come to meetings when discussions of police policy/practice are on the agenda.

2. The practice of excluding DPD leadership and officers from meetings of the PAC limits the PAC’s ability to obtain the specialized knowledge it needs to make recommendations to the City Council.

City: Disagree partially. The PAC does need technical expertise if they are expected to make technical recommendations, and the PAC does not regularly have police representation at every meeting. However, the commission is working to identify agenda items where law enforcement presence is necessary and beneficial, and is inviting representatives to those meetings for those specific items.

As for the police chief’s ability to attend meetings, the chief, along with other city staff, must balance a variety of meetings and other work obligations into schedules. Staff attempts to meet the requests for attendance at city-related meetings, schedule permitting.

This balances the need for technical expertise with the role of the PAC in reaching disenfranchised groups or individuals in the community, who may not be comfortable at a meeting with law enforcement present. Part of the reason for the PAC is to provide outreach to disenfranchised groups in the community.

PAC: Disagree partially.The PAC does not exclude DPD leadership from meetings and lists DPD participation on agendas, which are publicly posted. In the past, the PAC has wanted the chief to attend a number of meetings but there has been reluctance on his part. The PAC created a subcommittee to have regular meetings with the chief and his staff. One meeting was held.

There was agreement that the chief or his designee would attend PAC meetings as appropriate. This has occurred several times (see finding 1). The IPA also supplements the PAC’s understanding of DPD policy and procedure, although in a limited manner as he is not within DPD.

3. Sensitivity to a limited number of individuals has outweighed the claims of the larger community to benefit from hearing the insights and perspectives of the DPD as the PAC attempts to fulfill its responsibility to provide meaningful guidance to the Davis City Council with respect to police policies, procedures and practices.

City: Disagree partially. The PAC tends to attract individuals who are interested in police accountability, however it is not unusual for a small portion of the population to be actively involved in any city commission.

It is the Council’s role and responsibility, however, to take information from all sources, including commissions, and weigh all information appropriately, in order to make well-rounded decisions to benefit the community. Further PAC outreach and engagement with the broader Davis community to gauge community wide topics of interest and perceptions is strongly encouraged.

PAC: Disagree. We are unclear who the grand jury is referring to related to “the claims of the larger community.” The PAC has heard multiple specific requests for the police to not attend. We have not heard specific requests for the police to attend PAC meetings.

4. The PAC has not fulfilled its responsibility to provide annual written input to the city manager and the City Council on the effectiveness of the IPA.

City: Agree. The PAC discussed the IPA evaluation at their November meeting and completed an evaluation at their December meeting.

PAC: Agree. As a new committee, members have asked about the evaluation and have not gotten responses that led us to make this a priority.

5. During calendar year 2019 and the first quarter of 2020, the PAC did not coordinate with the IPA to identify and prioritize topics to be audited by the IPA.

City: Agree. In the original structure, it was thought that the IPA and the PAC would coordinate on topics to audit, however, that has not turned out to be the primary focus of either entity. Instead, the IPA is auditing complaints and bringing information to the PAC to advise them of trends, issues, and concerns. The City Council formally revised the PAC’s authorizing resolution in November 2020 to clarify the roles Council expects of the group.

The PAC refers to recommendations made by the Auditor earlier in 2020. Many of those recommendations require further review, and staff resources have been redirected since the spring to address COVID needs. The staff liaison is aware of the recommendations and will continue to work with the Police Department to determine whether/how to implement

PAC: Agree. The PAC did ask the IPA to confirm whether IPA recommendations have been implemented by the DPD. In the DPD report, it was noted that several recommendations were not fulfilled and the explanations provided were not complete. In the May 2020 meeting, the PAC asked the IPA and city staff to request further explanations from the chief. So far, no further explanations have been received.

6. As stated in its authorizing resolution, the PAC is to provide community-based police accountability by way of interactions with the public, the IPA, the DPD and others. The PAC’s responsibility to provide police accountability is not limited by the non-action of the Davis City Council at its July 30, 2019, meeting (declining to re-open the Picnic Day investigation at the PAC’s request).

City: The City Council has a number of advisory commissions that assist the Council with information gathering, public outreach and decision-making. The Council considers recommendations of all its commissions carefully, but ultimately, may not agree with every recommendation. That does not mean the recommendations or the process by which the recommendation was made and considered are not worthwhile.

The PAC exists in an advisory capacity to the City Council, but remains a resource for the community, regardless of the Council’s action on one recommendation. Further, the use of the terminology “non-action” by the City Council is misleading.

The City Council did take definitive action — to elect to not investigate further. This decision was reached in a public hearing and based on information and options presented by the PAC, a staff report, considerations presented by the IPA and after hearing public testimony.

PAC: Disagree. When PAC received a Picnic Day review by IPA and asked the Council to take action to reopen an investigation into the incorrect press release, the council declined. The PAC is unsure what else it can do because our authorizing resolution does not include investigatory privileges.

7. With IPA input, the PAC is charged with systematically reviewing DPD policies, procedures and training for topics to be audited by the IPA. To meet this obligation, the PAC is authorized to inquire into departures from DPD policy, procedure and planning during and following the Picnic Day 2017 incident, including the DPD press release of April 24, 2017, and the release of the edited dash-cam video on May 10, 2017.

City: Agree. The PAC was created in late 2018 in part because of the 2017 Picnic Day incident, after a lengthy community process, an enhanced auditor position, and changes to the Police Department’s policies. The PAC can inquire into the 2017 Picnic Day incident and to make recommendations to the Police Auditor and/or the City Council. The PAC is not, however, an investigatory body.

PAC: Disagree. Three pieces of information provided by the grand jury are different from pieces PAC heard at the time: that the dash-cam video was slowed down, that there were protocols related to congestion management that were not followed, that there was the ability to know who sent out the incorrect press release.

The DPD changed their policy regarding crisis press releases, now requiring that supervisors must review any crisis press communication prior to its release to the public. The PAC has agreed to review adherence to this policy after any further crisis DPD press release.

8. The PAC, with input from the IPA, is authorized to provide community-based police accountability by inquiring as to why the (outside) attorney investigators (probing the Picnic Day incident), working under the direction of the Davis city attorney, failed in following the procedures set out in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, which led to no DPD officer being held individually accountable for the inaccuracies in the April 24, 2017, press release.

City: Disagree. See PAC response.

PAC: Disagree.This finding appears to suggest that the PAC has investigatory privileges which it does not. It is a question that could be made to the IPA to clarify as it is under his scope of work.

9. PAC commissioners lack understanding of how internal affairs investigations are conducted, how findings based on such investigations are made, how (police accountability law) SB 1421 requests should be presented, and how the DPD responds to SB 1421 requests.

City: Agree partially. See PAC response.

PAC: Agree partially. The PAC is a citizen commission whose members have a variety of backgrounds and who represent the community. The group has access to utilize the IPA and the Davis Police Department for training and information.

10. The PAC, with input from the IPA, is authorized to provide community-based police accountability by inquiring into the DPD’s public misrepresentation of the decision-making process for the release of records under SB 1421. The DPD misrepresented in January 2019 that the Custodian of Public Records made the decision to refuse release of the Picnic Day 2017 investigation.

City: Disagree that there was misrepresentation on the part of the DPD

PAC: Disagree (See finding 6).

11. Because appointment to the PAC is limited to people who do not have law-enforcement backgrounds, training is critical for existing and incoming commissioners. For PAC commissioners to be justifiably perceived as knowledgeable on topics of police accountability, both by the public and by the DPD, commissioners require training in a wide variety of best practices for policing, including specific training in DPD police practices, policies and procedures.

City: Agree partially. The PAC is a citizen commission whose members have a variety of backgrounds and who represent the community. The group has access to utilize the IPA and the Davis Police Department for training and information. That said, their required monthly time commitment is two hours, with additional time as individual schedules permit. The PAC is also able to act as a conduit for community concern about policing, without technical training.

PAC: Disagree partially. To fulfill the training required, a commitment of more hours per month will be required of volunteer citizen commissioners and the city will be required to allocate time and funds to provide training. PAC should join the National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) to be kept up to date on best practices of policing and oversight.

Davis Enterprise
By Lauren Keene
March 9, 2021