Chapter 2

The Commission on Civil Rights and its Advisory Committees do not look at individual cases, but only at patterns of civil rights violations. As a consequence, the California Advisory Committee did not investigate events surrounding each incident officially declared to be justifiable homicide by a police officer and alleged by the community to be unnecessary use of deadly force. The general perception of those community members who testified at the factfinding meeting was that police were acting inappropriately, and the level of police violence was alleged to be excessive.[1] Don Casimere, investigative and appeals officer, city of Richmond, told the Advisory Committee:

The Advisory Committee begins this summary with concerns about law enforcement expressed at the factfinding meeting and at interviews conducted by Commission regional staff.

The use of a firearm, commonly termed an officer-involved shooting, is a major law enforcement incident and is sometimes referred to as a critical incident.[3] It is tragic when such an incident results in a fatally of a police officer, victim, or suspect. Elizabeth Anderson, executive director, Sonoma County Center for Peace and Justice, stated, In the first 4 months of 1997, four people died at the hands of law enforcement in Sonoma County, and community groups [meeting] with local police had many unanswered questions related to those specific incidents and the system in place for review of law enforcement. [4] Karen Saari of the October 22nd Coalition and a 25-year resident of Sonoma County, alleged that between April 1, 1995, and March 10, 1998, there have been 17 police-related deaths in Sonoma County, including 7 related to incarceration at the county jail.[5]

Judith H. Volkart, chair, American Civil Liberties Union of Sonoma County, told the Advisory Committee that the community is very concerned about the high level of police killings and general police violence in the community. She said, The eight deaths in the last 2 years have shocked our community and have created a great deal of concern, adding:

Karen Saari reported her research in the summer of 1997 uncovered that Sonoma County had the highest rate of deaths by police of any county in the Bay Area. She said Sonoma County had 11; Alameda, 5; Contra Costa, 3; Marin, 2; Napa, 4; San Francisco, 6; Santa Clara, 7; and Solano, 3. Five of those 11 deaths, she added, occurred as a result of 911 emergency calls.[8] In four of those five cases, she alleged, the people were killed within minutes of the arrival of the police officials on the scene. Saari said:

Tanya Brannan, victim advocate, Purple Berets, agreed, suggesting that the police unnecessarily escalate some incidents to a shoot or don't shoot situation. [In the Kao incident], it would have been very easy for the officer to do what his fellow officer, the first on the scene told him to do back up, wait for backup, don't get out of your car, [10] Brannan said. Nancy Wang, president, Redwood Empire Chinese Association, added, I think the officer created his own problem. If he stayed in the car until backup arrived, maybe a life would have been saved. [11] Brannan alleged, There is no doubt that the second officer escalated that situation unnecessarily. [12]

The Advisory Committee was intrigued by the idea of diffusing situations and explored it further. Penny Harrington, director, National Center for Women in Policing, told the Advisory Committee that in addition to teaching police officers how to defend themselves, we must teach them to de-escalate violence, how to mediate some of these situations. She added, They may have a legal right to kill and take a life, but is it always necessary? [13]

Barbara Londerville, a 10-year resident of Sonoma County and a volunteer at the Santa Rosa police station, said, Any officer I have ever spoken to about [deadly force] would rather never have to use a gun or never have to use force. Every day an officer out on patrol can encounter anything: child abuse, domestic violence, accidents, public intoxication, fights, and personal attacks. [14]

Michael A. Dunbaugh, chief of police, city of Santa Rosa, said, We have had 7 officer-involved shootings in the last 5 years, and in the 5 years prior to that there were 11. From our point of view, 1 is too many. [15] Patrick Rooney, chief of police, Rohnert Park, added that since its formation in 1966, that city has had two officer-involved critical incidents involving a death.[16] Rooney also agreed that one is too many.

Given the number of police shootings, the Advisory Committee questioned the adequacy of the use of force policies used by the departments. Chief Dunbaugh stated, Our use of force policy is in conformance with State law and with our city attorney s recommendations, [17] adding:

Dunbaugh noted that the policy is routinely reviewed. Cathy Harvey, mayor, city of Healds burg, believes that law enforcement policies, practices, and positions are well written, well followed, are certainly not set in stone, and commonly get changed to reflect community sentiment and wishes.[19] Phyllis Carter, mayor, city of Sonoma, wrote, Internally, our police department and I am sure the others of this county, regularly review their respective policies, procedures and practices as well as identifying appropriate additions and/or changes to training protocols. [20]

Jim Piccinini, sheriff, Sonoma County, said that his department is fully compliant with State and Federal guidelines [on] the use of firearms. [21] Chief Rooney noted that Rohnert Park's use of force and officer shooting policies are consistent with other departments because it follows the county protocols[22] which are a set of guidelines developed and adhered to by the county's various law enforcement jurisdictions.[23] The countywide protocol requires that each critical incident be investigated by a police agency other than the agency involved in the critical incident.[24] The investigation is reviewed by the individual department for possible violations of departmental policy.

The protocol states that an investigation should be performed in a manner that provides both the appearance and the reality of a thorough, fair, complete and professional investigation which is free of conflict of interest. [25] In some cases, the State attorney general and the Federal Bureau of Investigation evaluate the officer's actions.[26] Chief Dunbaugh wrote:

It is a function of the office of the county district attorney to investigate those incidents where deadly force is used by law enforcement officers to determine whether criminal charges may be necessary. This is not unique to Sonoma County and is the procedure in place throughout much of the State. J. Michael Mullins, district attorney for Sonoma County, told the Advisory Committee:

Mullins added that the critical incident protocol defines a number of scenarios where the law enforcement officer may be either a victim or the one who uses deadly force, and is designed to ensure that there is a concurrent investigation of the facts surrounding a particular incident.[29] He noted that the district attorney's perspective is to look at issues of criminal liability and administrative discipline if policies and procedures have been violated. In reviewing the record of one 1996 critical incident, the 1996 1997 grand jury found that the District Attorney made his decision of justifiable homicide based on a report that contained incorrect information and the backgrounds of two different men. [30] The grand jury also found that the deputy district attorney assigned to the incident was not positioned in the interview room, but only observed the interview on closed circuit television and allowed personnel and ex-personnel of the venue agency to conduct the interview.[31]

The district attorney's office has the option of breaking away from the concurrent investigation and investigating the incident solely with its own resources. But Mullins said that during his tenure as a deputy and as district attorney, he has never used that particular option.[32]

In addition, the district attorney's office, prior to the Advisory Committee s meeting, did not keep statistical records on the number of critical incidents. Mullins noted that to his knowledge, in the past 5 years the office has not filed a criminal complaint against a police officer for the use of deadly force. In the past 3 years, however, it has filed a complaint against a police officer for misuse of his authority.[33] Although the district attorney has not filed any criminal charges in such incidents, Mullins suggested that the individual departments may have imposed some form of discipline.

Penny Harrington said the district attorney probably did not take any action on police officers because they were within their legal right to take a life but suggested that the community should ask, considering the circumstances, if there were other things they could have done first.[34] She believes there must be a commitment to alternatives on the part of law enforcement command and training in mediation techniques for officers.

Harrington added, There is always going to be those situations where a police officer responds and somebody pulls a gun and it's over; that is going to happen. James Carlson, a law enforcement officer, said people are refusing to disarm and comply with the commands of the police, forcing officers into situations of self-defense.[35] Eric Goldschlag, an 11-year veteran of the Santa Rosa Police Department described an incident that quickly evolved into deadly force:

The Advisory Committee is aware that the threat of violence is an inherent aspect of police work and agrees that an officer who takes longer than a millisecond to react may suffer severe consequences. When an individual commits to a career in law enforcement, the specter of a violent confrontation sometime in the officer s career is a real possibility. According to statistics provided by the Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Department of Justice, countywide in Sonoma, 65 officers were assaulted in 1998, 64 in 1997, 64 in 1996, 85 in 1995, 60 in 1994, and 62 in 1993.[37] During the period 1993 1998, in Sonoma County one officer was killed in the line of duty.[38]

Cathy Harvey, whose husband is a police officer, said once while on duty he was in a position where he was at threat of losing his life. Fortunately, it ended with minor injuries to the man that he had chased down and arrested and my husband was not killed. [39] She added:

Community spokespersons, however, told the Advisory Committee that there are situations where actions other than a shooting may suffice and alternatives must be considered. Officers are not always confronted by suspects or victims carrying or pointing firearms. Karen Saari suggested that the officer confronted by the screwdriver could have protected himself by simply backing up. [43]

Donald Casimere, investigative and appeals officer, city of Richmond, agreed and said there is a need for officers to be trained on options in a given situation. What is justified for an officer to do legally may not be the most appropriate action, and one inappropriate action, although justified, can inflame a community and set you back months or years in community relations, he said.[45]

From those who presented criticism of law enforcement in the county, the Advisory Committee detected an underlying fear of officer motives and actions. Duane DeWitt, a resident of Santa Rosa, asked Is there a shoot-to-kill policy for Sonoma County law enforcement agencies, and if so, does it violate the civil rights of people who are killed while only suspected and not convicted of a crime? Isabel Huie, civil rights officer, Chinese for Affirmative Action, noted that the Asian American community questioned whether a warning shot could have been fired before the shooting death of Mr. Kao. She added:

Vicki Vidak-Martinez, vice mayor of the city of Rohnert Park, said that the officer and the public safety department have been exonerated by four investigations into the Kao incident, but allegations continue.[47] Louis Beary, a former mayor and councilman in Rohnert Park, alleged that there have been other deaths in that city that have not been properly investigated.[48] Cornelius Hall, a retired fire captain whose son had been shot said, The families do not get reports from the police and reports from the district attorney are verbatim from the police [record]. He also alleged that police policy is shoot to kill, adding, When police train they learn to shoot at torsos; they kill no matter whether they see people with a gun or not. [49]

The Advisory Committee noted that fear of police was pervasive. Kit Mariah said:

Jaime Gutierrez of the Salomon Hernandez Justice Committee alleged that one witness to the Hernandez incident has been intimidated into exclusion and is in hiding because he is scared for his life.[51] Sherryl Nives commented that before a recent incident her opinion of the sheriffs and police was one of trust, respect, and safety, but she is now more afraid of her local sheriffs than of anybody in her neighborhood. She described the incident:

Some community representatives agreed that calls for help could be deadly. Karen Saari of the October 22nd Coalition told the Advisory Committee:

Steven Campbell, staff, Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, said, Far too many people have unnecessarily lost their lives at the hands of overzealous, poorly trained, and undersupervised police officers [willing to use] a homicide as a means of expediting a situation which offers multiple alternatives. [54] He alleged that bad and even sadistic police officers are protected by their peers under a strict and criminal code of silence. [55]

John Gurney, chief of police, city of Sonoma, believes his department has excellent dialogue with the community and that the police chief and city council members are accessible. He believes the law enforcement community in Sonoma County is excellent and his colleagues are equally accessible and concerned about professionalism and the work they do in providing public safety services to Sonoma County.[56] Sean Jones, a resident of the county, disagreed stating, The only community that they are part of is a community of cops. [57] The Advisory Committee notes that these opposing two sentiments characterized the comments it heard throughout the factfinding meeting.

Judith Volkart told the Advisory Committee that a segment of the county population believes there is an absence of accountability by law enforcement to the community and to any organization that they cannot control.[58] She said:

Sheriff Piccinini, following a lengthy description of sheriff-officer involvement in a myriad of community activities,[60] said he believed he had a fair assessment of how the citizens feel about law enforcement in Sonoma County and that they are confident in what the sheriff s department is doing. He was concerned that the Advisory Committee may have been misled by certain special interest groups who have distorted or misstated factual information.[61] Judith Volkart disagreed with this assessment, stating:

Chief Dunbaugh reported that the entire structure of the Santa Rosa Police Department has been modified and streamlined to provide superior professional services to the people in the community. He said:

Chief Rooney added that his department and all of its employees are committed to the community, with 92 percent living within the city and 100 percent of sworn strength living within a 4-mile radius of the community.[65] He said, The officers and staff of [the Rohnert Park police] are members of this community and feel a sense of ownership and pride in preserving the personal sensitivity and friendliness that is the hallmark of the community. [66]

Chief Dunbaugh[67] and Chief Rooney[68] also described community activities and volunteer efforts of their officers. Mayor Harvey of Healdsburg wrote of a variety of programs offered by the police department and listed off-duty hour community involvement of police personnel.[69] The Advisory Committee was told that officers of the other law enforcement jurisdictions are similarly engaged in departmental programs and off-duty community involvement. These efforts provide the basis for a positive relationship with the community, and while the Advisory Committee finds officer involvement in volunteer activities laudable, they are not unique or unusual. Many individuals in a community volunteer their time and efforts in a myriad of ways. A community is enriched by its level of volunteerism on the part of all its citizens. However, the focus of the Advisory Committee's factfinding meeting was police practices and procedures that affect Sonoma County citizens, and accountability should be a major element in the police-community relationship.

Don Casimere, investigative and appeals officer, Richmond Police Commission, told the Advisory Committee that people must be aware of, be comfortable with, and have confidence in accountability mechanisms that are established.[70] Casimere added, There needs to be some place where people can go, not feel intimidated, and get a fair shot at getting the answers that they deserve. [71] Penny Harrington, director, National Center for Women in Policing, agreed, noting that public accountability is necessary. You cannot have police agencies today that do not have public accountability and oversight. Departments are not here to serve the police, but to serve the public, she said.[72]

John Parker, executive officer, San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board, added that effective civilian review partnered with response from police management can benefit officers at all levels.[73] Casimere and Parker agreed on the importance of periodic public reports to city councils, the board of supervisors, and the community at large those who receive police services. Casimere noted, There are certain things that you can measure, such as citizen complaints filed [and their] disposition, numbers of police policies reviewed, policy recommendations made and implemented, numbers of investigations, [and] number of claims filed and paid out. [74]

Law enforcement management in Sonoma believes their services are responsive and well received. Chief Rooney said:

Sheriff Piccinini added that the sheriff's department contracted with a private consultant in 1994 to assist in the construction of a credible survey for the purpose of determining public sentiment regarding delivery of service. Eighty-five percent of the respondents rated the sheriff's department s overall service as excellent or good.[76]

Chief Dunbaugh said professional surveys were conducted in 1993 and 1995 by the Results Group, a private firm, and 82 percent of citizens gave the police department an overall rating of good to excellent. He noted that in 1997 the city conducted a voter survey on a pending utility tax issue which also sought a simple rating of police services. Seventy-eight percent of those responding provided a high evaluation of the quality of police services in the city of Santa Rosa.[77]

Bill Stirnus and Cindy Pilar of the Santa Rosa school system shared a letter signed by the superintendent of schools, district office personnel, and administrators of 22 elementary, middle, and high schools:

Vicki Vidak-Martinez added, Sonoma County law enforcement has demonstrated its responsibility, accountability, and capacity for discipline which has earned them little respect or acknowledgment. [79] Sean Jones disagreed stating, The police kind of just go around and do whatever they want and harass people pretty much for nothing, show no respect at all to anybody. [80] Kalia Mussetter said, There are many police of good heart in this county because I know them . . . though on the other hand there is a lack of ethical treatment of people in the community by law enforcement. I've experienced that personally. [81] She alleged that there are some officers who are abusing their power and one person being mistreated in that way is one person too many.[82] Claudia Rickman, a 14-year resident of Cotati who has lived in Rohnert Park for the past 2 years, described her June 3 encounter with some Sonoma County sheriffs:

Kalia Mussetter told the Advisory Committee, I need to feel safe with my local police and I don t. [84]

The law enforcement jurisdictions reviewed by the Advisory Committee have systems and procedures in place to handle citizen complaints. However, the Advisory Committee heard concerns about the system and allegations that the departments discourage complaints and are unresponsive. For example, the Santa Rosa Police Department's official complaint procedure allows supervisors to unilaterally label any complaint a mere inquiry. According to John Crew, director, Police Practices Project, American Civil Liberties Union, labeling any complaint a mere inquiry ensures that the complaint will not be formally investigated, reported in the complaint statistics, and apparently, will not be maintained in the officer's file and produced pursuant to discovery requests in litigation. [85]

Elizabeth Anderson said that filing a complaint to the alleged perpetrator is intimidating, and many victims or alleged victims of police misconduct are very reluctant to do so. She added that the 1996 1997 grand jury report noted that many Sonoma County law enforcement agencies had a lackadaisical attitude toward civilian complaints.[86]

Tanya Brannan said that two grand jury investigations have criticized the sheriff s department for its complaint procedure. The 1996 1997 Sonoma County Grand Jury found that not all Sonoma County law enforcement agencies had complaint forms displayed and available to the public. [88] Brannan alleged, It is almost impossible to figure out how to make a complaint, and when you do, you don't get advised back. [89] Sheriff Jim Piccinini disagreed and said complaints can be filed in a couple of different ways:

Piccinini reported that the results of an October 1997 survey indicated that there was an increase in the number of people who felt comfortable calling the department to offer information or make a complaint.[91]

Chief Dunbaugh said, Inside the Santa Rosa Police Department we take pride in policing ourselves, adding that during the 5-year period 1993 1997, there were 121 administrative investigations, and 77 resulted in findings of sustained, 10 were unfounded, 31 were exonerated, and 3 were inconclusive.[92] He noted that the cases that were sustained resulted in 48 written reprimands, 2 corrective interviews, 22 suspensions totaling 910 hours, and 4 terminations.[93]

Chief Rooney said all complaints received by the Rohnert Park department are investigated as an internal affairs issue. He told the Advisory Committee that all complaints receive a tracking number and are investigated.[94]

Some within the community were still dubious of the process. Brannan provided an example of a recent incident with a local police department:

Chief Dunbaugh said, If an officer was discovered to be playing a role in trying to prohibit, eliminate, or dissuade an individual from making a complaint, discipline in a case like that would probably be termination. [96] Termination for that cause, however, has not occurred in his brief tenure with the department.

In response to concerns that citizens feel intimidated entering a police building, Chief Dunbaugh said individuals walk into the offices of the city council and mayor who have open door policies and are not confronted by uniforms, guns, or the law enforcement presence.[97] Community spokespersons alleged that approaching elected officials has proven unproductive. Elizabeth Anderson said, We approached the Santa Rosa City Council asking for a dialogue about the high number of deaths, and their response referred to our scheduled meetings with the police chief, and we have not heard anything from them since. [98] In conversations with council members, she alleged she had always been encouraged to speak directly with the police chiefs. But she said, All our attempts to reach out to an open dialogue with our elected officials and local leadership have been met with closed doors. [99] Sharon Wright, mayor, city of Santa Rosa, wrote:

The district attorney's office is also available as a resource for complaints. J. Michael Mullins, district attorney, said, If a citizen walks into my office and wishes to make a complaint about a particular police officer, the direction to the receptionist is to contact our investigative section and have that citizen interviewed by one of our investigators, not to send the citizen back to the internal affairs division. [101] When questioned regarding whether the option of filing a complaint with the district attorney s office was public information, Mullins said, I can't say that I've made an effort to broadcast that information. [102] Thomas Twiddy questioned whether filing a complaint with that office would go anywhere, alleging that the district attorney has never found one officer guilty since he has been there. [103]

Community representatives also expressed concerns to the Advisory Committee that the time involved in resolving the complaint and notifying the complainant was excessive. The grand jury wrote, Many law enforcement agencies internal investigations required six to eleven months, leaving the complainants with the impression that they were being completely ignored. No progress reports were made during the course of the investigations. [104]

Claudia Turner alleged her complaint about police sexual abuse and excessive force following an October 15,1995, incident was never handled seriously:

Kit Mariah said she intended on being arrested for civil disobedience in front of the Federal Building while protesting the Gulf War, but alleged she was not expecting to be beat up by the police. She told the Advisory Committee:

Don Casimere said, People want more than just putting a complaint into the process, sitting back, not hearing anything for months, and then waiting for a letter to come in the mail. [107]

Penny Harrington, director, National Center for Women in Policing, told the Advisory Committee that domestic violence is a national and global problem with which all law enforcement is struggling. In Sonoma County, there were community complaints that allegations of domestic violence are not handled with sensitivity or adequately by any of the county's police departments, sheriff's department, or the district attorney's office, which sometimes leads to tragic results. Tanya Brannan told the Advisory Committee about one case as a way of highlighting the problems that exist for women vis- -vis law enforcement in the county :

Harrington said the passage of the Violence Against Women Act and other national initiatives have forced States and local agencies to take domestic violence seriously and treat it as a crime.[109] But some community spokespersons do not believe it is being taken seriously in Sonoma County.

Since the incident she described occurred, Brannan alleged five more domestic violence homicides have occurred in the county, adding, The California State attorney general launched two investigations into domestic violence policies and procedures and both turned up glaring ineptitude and deep-seated attitudes that virtually assured continued failures of the system for women. [110] Virginia McCullough, a freelance journalist from Alameda County, also looked at that murder case and suggested that the victim was worse off than she would have been had she never sought enforcement of the restraining order because the sheriff's department merely informed her ex-husband of her calls and requests which, she alleged, increased the risk of serious assault.[111]

Jim Piccinini, sheriff, Sonoma County, said he is aware of the issues of domestic violence and told the Advisory Committee of the sheriff's department s current strategy and programs:

At the time of the Advisory Committee's factfinding meeting, Brannan was working with a victim whose ex-partner had violated a restraining order 15 times and was not in jail. She alleged that despite the mandatory arrest policy, she had never heard of a violator being arrested if his only crime was violating a restraining order.[113]

According to Harrington, the real problem in domestic violence is that police officers are often the offenders: national self-reporting studies show that domestic violence occurs in 40 percent of police families.[114] She said:

This pattern was evident in Sonoma County. Brannan noted that two brothers, both sheriff's deputies, were the subject of domestic violence restraining orders. She added:

District Attorney Mullins said he has no written policy regarding police officers convicted of domestic violence.[117] Harrington added, No one does anything with police officers that get convicted of domestic violence except fire them. [118]

Harrington alleged domestic violence within police agencies also affects how police deal with it in the larger community and the attitude police officers have toward it.[119] Brannan noted an officer who responded to many domestic violence calls had complaints against him for that issue. She said, He was arrogant, made denigrating comments about how women are more responsible for domestic violence than men and things like that [120] She added that he was no longer with the department but she continues to see police reports that only vaguely resemble the incident they are documenting with key information, including physical evidence provided to the police at the scene [either not mentioned or so distorted] that it is rendered meaningless. [121] She also alleged that the district attorney was unresponsive to domestic violence, stating, Victim's rights are constantly being violated by police and district attorney personnel [and] victims are denied their right to have an advocate present in interviews with law enforcement in defiance of the law. [122]

In response to the suggestion that his office is unresponsive to domestic violence, Mullins noted:

Brannan countered that the district attorney's office continues to refuse to give stay-away orders in domestic violence cases and the domestic violence/sexual assault vertical prosecution team has never been weaker, with only two prosecutors working felony cases, down from four.[124] She said:

There were community allegations that the law enforcement departments lacked ethnic and gender diversity among their sworn employees. Elizabeth Anderson noted that following a fall 1997 meeting with the Justice Department's Community Relations Service, the Peace and Justice Center and a coalition of community organizations expressed concerns over the lack of gender and ethnic diversity among the ranks of sworn officers.[126] Larry Shinagawa said the lack of diversity, particularly gender diversity, is an area of concern.[127] He alleged that for Sonoma County overall, the composition of the entire police force is 8.7 percent minority and 6.9 percent female.[128] Tanya Brannan added that the number of female sworn officers in the county is extremely low. She told the Advisory Committee:

Sheriff Piccinini said a series of harassment lawsuits has plagued his department. He stated:

Brannan said the Santa Rosa Police Department also has some serious sex discrimination problems. [131] Chief Dunbaugh noted that in the summer of 1998, the entire organization went through professional diversity appreciation and sexual harassment prevention training.[132] He added:

Dunbaugh told the Advisory Committee that in the Santa Rosa Police Department 10 percent of the sworn ranks are female, adding, We do not have good gender representation throughout the supervisory and management ranks and that is something that we are focusing on improving. [134]

Chief Rooney noted that his department is made up of a diverse group of employees and targets its recruitment program to solicit applicants of diversity.[135] He said his department has been sending out recruitment teams, which include minorities, to southern California and the Fresno area trying to broaden the pool of applicants and encourage them to come to Sonoma County. We have put a lot of energy in the last few years into broadening our recruitment base and the applicant pool, he said.[136] Sheriff Piccinini said all his departments participate in career fairs for youth coming out of high school. The sheriff's department's outreach program, he noted, also goes beyond the county to try to target minority groups to work in Sonoma County.[137]

Penny Harrington, director, National Center for Women in Policing, said that job fairs are great but questioned what will be done with these potential recruits between the ages of 18 and 21. She added:

Jerry Schoenstein, director, basic law enforcement course, Santa Rosa Training Center, said the center shares costs with its law enforcement partners in recruiting women and other underrepresented groups to law enforcement careers.[139] In the (then) current training class of 25 students, there were 5 Asians, 2 blacks, several Hispanics, 2 females, and the rest were white males, he said.[140]

Penny Harrington believes one of the things that is very important for any police agency today is to look at utilizing more women in policing. She said:

Law enforcement training can be divided into at least two main categories: academy and ongoing. In Sonoma basic training is provided by the Santa Rosa Training Center, a regional public safety training center, at Santa Rosa Junior College.[142] According to Jerry Schoenstein, director, basic law enforcement course, the center provides a basic course, continuing professional training, advanced officer training, supervisory training, specialized training such as dispatch, and partners with four local jurisdictions to provide citizens police academies.[143] The basic course provides 20 weeks of academy training, which Schoenstein believes is a very short period of time.[144]

Barbara Londerville told the Advisory Committee that she has seen and experienced the extensive training that a candidate must go through before he or she is considered to be a police officer or even a trainee. She added, I know of no other job that has an 18-month probation period during which your trainee is under constant supervision by a training officer, his fellow officers, and all of the supervisors. It is a constant thing and the training continues throughout an officer's life. [145]

Judith Volkart said the community believes there are some gross deficiencies in the preparation of officers for their careers, alleging a lack of training in cultural sensitivity and training that promotes responsible practices in dealing with members of the community who are incapacitated due to drugs, alcohol, or mental illness.[146] Councilwoman Pia Jensen also believes training is needed.[147] R.D. Wishard, founder and past president, Julliard Park Neighborhood Watch Association believes that the officers of the Santa Rosa Police Department receive the training that is necessary for them to survive.[148] Most community spokespersons told the Advisory Committee more is needed.

Professor Shinagawa agreed with the need for training in cultural sensitivity, stating, I think it is very important for us to realize that we are living in a multiracial, multiclass society and that there are an increasing mix of native-born and foreign-born persons in the United States. We need to have the kind of training that will give this attention. [149]

Although cultural sensitivity training utilizing specialists within their own ranks or hired from outside the organization is mandatory for most jurisdictions,[150] Professor Shinagawa believes it to be fragmented. Between 1992 and 1994, Shinagawa participated as a training officer for law enforcement focusing on the Asian American community, an experience which led him to the belief that the approach must be broadened. He noted, That type of training was not as sufficient for the changing realities of Sonoma County. I would have preferred that we have a more holistic, broad-based, and comparative approach [for officers] to deal with diversity. [151]

In response to the community's concern about increasing the amount of diversity training, Schoenstein said, As a regional training center we have students from outside this community and county, so bringing in people from the community to address special needs [would be difficult]. He added, It is a lot simpler to do that in a program where an academy is run by a police department serving a specific community. [152] The Advisory Committee was interested in the kind of diversity training being provided. Schoenstein noted, Basically, we are talking about self-awareness. He stated:

Schoenstein said that of the 50 instructors at the center, 85 percent are white males.[154] The Advisory Committee questions whether the dialogue over perceptions that Schoenstein describes can be meaningful with limited diversity in the instructional ranks.

Basic curriculum also deals with the use of force and firearms proficiency. However, Schoenstein noted:

Community spokespersons alleged that the efforts on training for nonuse of deadly force have not been apparent in critical situations. Penny Harrington believes that instances of inappropriate use of force will decrease if the chief or sheriff is sincere and committed. She said:

Chief Rooney said training is one of the highest priorities for Rohnert Park s police, and in 1997 the organization provided 2,072 hours of internal training using experts and 2,009 hours of outside training, taking advantage of the numerous Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) sponsored courses throughout the State.[157] All three law enforcement executives noted that training is an ongoing process. For example, Chief Dunbaugh said that in the last 4 months all officers in the Santa Rosa organization have gone through training for dealing with situations where the suspect's or victim's mental health may be a factor.[158]

Community representatives agreed with the need for basic and ongoing training, but said the focus needs to be altered to decrease what they perceive to be a high level of law enforcement violence, arrogance, and abuse of authority within a police culture that they alleged shows disdain for citizens. Some law enforcement officials believe efforts to increase citizen awareness of the police environment will help foster understanding and have embarked on training to accomplish that goal.

Sheriff Piccinini said that beginning in 1997, the department has hosted a citizens academy as a tool to educate citizens on the complexity of law enforcement and to solicit their ideas and suggestions. The citizens academy seeks to provide factual information and to dispel television cop show tactics by providing an indepth view of our organization, what it does, how it does it, and why, he said.[159]

The Petaluma Police Department, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, and the Santa Rosa Police Department, in partnership with the Santa Rosa Junior College, also sponsor citizens police academies. The Santa Rosa Police Department s citizens academy had 75 graduates through the date of the Advisory Committee s factfinding meeting.[160] Chief Dunbaugh added that there are nearly 30 people in the department s Volunteers in Police Service Program. Jerry Schoenstein, director, basic law enforcement course, Santa Rosa Training Center, told the Advisory Committee that the center partners with these four local law enforcement jurisdictions[161] to provide citizens police academies that allow citizens the opportunity to gain insight into the officer's perspective on providing law enforcement services.[162]

Ken Davenport completed the 12-week citizens police academy sponsored by the Santa Rosa Police Department and now volunteers with the department. He told the Advisory Committee:

Earl Herr, M.D., said, I consider that the police are part of our community; they are professional people for whom I have respect, and we all want to respect our officers, want them to be part of our community. [164]

Elizabeth Anderson, who also attended a citizens academy, said the 15 community organizations and many more individuals who are actively working on police issues are not anti-law enforcement. But she said many community members have come to the conclusion that the current system of review does not work for the public interest.[165]

When a community creates an entity for oversight of its police department it is usually termed a citizen or civilian review board. Although its creation may be proactive, such an oversight board is normally the result of a community s frustration with aspects of its law enforcement, including a perception that concerns about critical incidents are not being answered. Usually, a community s interest in the creation of a civilian review board is met with resistance from law enforcement executives, command structure, and rank and file who believe they can police their own. The Advisory Committee saw such community frustration in Sonoma County and heard citizens calls for a citizen review board.

Steven Campbell, Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, opined that based on his observations and personal experiences with law enforcement, he has concluded that the Sonoma County police departments are out of control, that their administrators do not have the skill or will to constrain their actions, and that it would serve communities well to initiate a citizen oversight commission with subpoena power.[166] Rabbi Michael Robinson, emeritus, Temple Shomrei Torah, Santa Rosa, said the polarization evidenced at the Advisory Committee's factfinding meeting was an absolute demonstration of the need for an independent civilian police review board to stand by and support the police, reassure the community that there is true oversight of the police, [enable everyone] to work together on policy, and to improve relationships between the police and the community. [167]

Judith Volkart said, The community push for police reform is local, it is not outside this community. There is a strong, broad-based movement crossing racial, cultural and socioeconomic lines for police reform; it is not just a few fringe elements and political activists. [168] She continued:

Claudia Rickman of Rohnert Park agreed with Volkart's suggestion and said that there should be an independent review board within every town because currently there is no one to appeal to. [170] Sean Jones thought a citizen review board would be brilliant. [171]

Pia Jensen, councilwoman, Cotati, said her experience leads her to believe a civil review committee would be a good idea. She added, When people come to me complaining about things happening with our police, the only thing I can do is to refer them [and tell them] to lodge a complaint with the police department, which she said, disempowers her and the people.[172] Cathleen Harvey, mayor, city of Healdsburg, wrote, Sonoma County and particularly the city of Healdsburg are close knit small communities. The Healdsburg Police Department has and will function as a quality organization, serving the citizens of our town, without the need for a citizens review panel. [173]

J. Michael Mullins, district attorney, noted that conceptually he does not oppose a civilian review board and has stated that publicly. However, as a citizen he had some concerns:

As district attorney, he said, a citizens review board would not change his mandated duty. For example, he said that if a civilian review board cleared a police officer and he disagreed based on the evidence gathered, he would be duty bound to file a criminal charge.[175]

In response to the district attorney's concerns and Advisory Committee s questions about the administration, composition, process of appointment, and time constraints imposed on a civilian review board, Volkart said that those decisions have to be made locally by the community to whom law enforcement is accountable.[176]

Don Casimere, investigative and appeals officer, Richmond Police Commission, agreed that a considerable amount of discussion must take place before considering what kind of civilian oversight agency will be implemented and cautioned that all involved parties should be invited to the table.[177] He said:

In the course of his professional responsibilities, Casimere has met with civilian oversight practitioners and law enforcement executives throughout the United States and other countries. From these contacts, he has developed a list of characteristics for an effective civilian oversight agency. He shared these with the Advisory Committee:

John Parker, executive director, San Diego County Police Review Board, noted that Casimere's comments covered the full realm of civilian review.[180] Casimere also believes that citizens can objectively and fairly affect police services. If you select the right staff to do the work and gather the information and it is done fairly and objectively you can have an impact, he said.[181]

Penny Harrington agreed that there are all kinds of roles that a citizens oversight group can play, but also cautioned that how they are appointed and how representative they become are important.[182] She suggested that these panels should be able to ensure that complete investigations are being done and should also have some review over what the district attorney is doing,[183] adding:

Sonoma County law enforcement officials told the Advisory Committee that they have been discussing the possibility of an oversight agency and/or grand jury review of officer-involved deaths and serious injuries. Chief Dunbaugh said at the time of the Advisory Committee's factfinding meeting, that a review mechanism had not yet been created, but there had been much discussion on the topic and the Chief's Association had established a subcommittee to explore the issue.[185] Sheriff Piccinini added, The advisory panel is not actually formalized yet because we are in the process of taking the idea back to our respective governments, city managers and individual city councils, the county administrator and board of supervisors to get their input as to how we select members to represent the [various jurisdictions]. [186] He said, Our ideal goal is be as reflective of all of the good citizens of Sonoma County as possible. [187]

Penny Harrington said the grand jury does not work as a citizens oversight group because it is secret; the citizens cannot go in and hear what is going on. She said outside review is needed.[189]

Some community representatives alleged they were skeptical of the Chief s Association's motives. Elizabeth Anderson noted that following two meetings with the community in fall 1997, and 3 days prior to the next scheduled meeting, the community first heard about important law enforcement plans when the Chief s Association announced it was creating a civilian advisory panel that would review the policies and procedures of law enforcement and that it would be selecting the people to be on this panel.[190] The Press Democrat of November 5, 1997, reported that relations between Sonoma County law enforcement officials and a coalition of organizations seeking establishment of a citizen police review commission continued to disintegrate with dueling charges of unilateral actions and bad-faith negotiations. [191] Anderson said, All of the groups involved with these meetings felt completely betrayed. Law enforcement had made unilateral decisions affecting the community without asking at a critical time when community-police relations were already strained. [192] The Press Democrat reported that representatives of the coalition [were] furious [alleging] that law enforcement officials cut them out of the process and made unilateral decisions to establish new procedures for investigating incidents in which citizens are killed or injured by police officers and form a citizen panel for reviewing police policies. [193]

Chief Dunbaugh disagreed, saying, The idea was discussed at the second meeting coordinated by the Department of Justice and it was thrown out as an idea that [law enforcement executives] were interested in pursuing. [194] The response at that meeting, he alleged, was you can do whatever you want but that is not what [the community is] here to discuss and we want a civil review board with subpoena power. [195] Judith Volkart said the community had no opportunity for input into the development of the panel, and at the time of the Advisory Committee s factfinding meeting had seen nothing in writing.[196]

When questioned by the Advisory Committee on the value of independent civilian review boards, Sheriff Piccinini responded that the department had mechanisms in place and viewed their creation as a bureaucratic duplication of services and something that will be costly when the department is struggling to put more dispatchers in the dispatch center, more officers on the street, and more detention people in the jail. [197] Chief Rooney also believes that his department has existing processes that can be used and suggested that if there were a review process it must be objective without predetermined findings and nonpartisan participants. Much depends on how it is formulated, structured, and how the process takes place, he added.[198]

Chief Dunbaugh is not opposed to the concept of civilian review but said the findings, whether popular or not, need to be supported by the community. Investigations need to be completed in a timely fashion, he added. He was also concerned about finding money in the budget for such an oversight agency, adding, The San Francisco model has a budget of $1 million, the Berkeley model has a budget of half a million, and my preference would be that we put the money out there for services, but I am open to the concept. [199] He wrote:

Many in the community alleged civilian reviews are necessary because so much of police investigation is conducted without oversight. District Attorney Mullins said he was mindful of the problems in dealing with the release of information and how, of necessity, we are almost secret with what is going on when we are doing the investigation. [201] John Parker, executive officer, San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board, said that open hearings are essential. He told the Advisory Committee:

Casimere believes civilian review boards are a strategy that can bring police departments and communities closer together. He tells police chiefs:

While suggesting that information be released that shows a fair and open investigation is taking place, Casimere was cognizant of limitations. The Peace Officer s Bill of Rights ensures that certain information cannot be released, he said, adding:

The Advisory Committee agrees with those at the factfinding meeting who proposed that communitywide, open dialogue is essential to the creation of an effective civilian review board.

[1] Generally, the majority of citizens do not have contact with law enforcement. The Advisory Committee also notes community support for law enforcement in the text of this report.

[2] United States Commission on Civil Rights, California Advisory Committee, Police Practices and Police-Community Relations in Sonoma County Forum, Santa Rosa, CA, Feb. 20, 1998 (hereafter cited as Transcript, 1998). Unless otherwise noted, all comments cited are from this transcript. Transcript, 1998, p. 138.

[3] In 1993 law enforcement agencies of Sonoma County adopted a countywide procedure to deal with critical incidents. It was revised in 1996. The policy defines a critical incident as an incident occurring in Sonoma County involving two or more people, in which a police agency employee is involved as an actor, victim, or custodial officer, where a fatal injury (including an injury which is so severe that death is likely to result) occurs. Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chief's Association, Policy 93-1, revised July 1996.

[4] Transcript, 1998, p. 6.

[5] Karen Saari, Supplemental Report for the California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mar. 20, 1998. She also alleged that between 1990 and 1998 there have been 14 deaths associated with the county jail, with 5 occurring between June 7, 1997, and Mar. 9, 1998.

[6] Cathleen N. Harvey, mayor, city of Healdsburg, letter to Philip Montez, regional director, Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mar. 12, 1998 (hereafter cited as Harvey Letter).

[7] Transcript, 1998, p. 15.

[8] Ibid., p. 37.

[9] Ibid., p. 39.

[10] Ibid., p. 45.

[11] Ibid., p. 169.

[12] Ibid., p. 45.

[13] Ibid., p. 119.

[14] Ibid., p. 177.

[15] Ibid., p. 62.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., p. 71.

[18] Ibid., p. 83.

[19] Ibid., p. 172.

[20] Phyllis Carter, mayor, city of Sonoma, letter to Philip Montez, regional director, Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Feb. 18, 1998 (hereafter cited as Carter Letter).

[21] Transcript, 1998, p. 72.

[22] Ibid., p. 83.

[23] In 1993 the office of the district attorney, office of the sheriff, and chiefs of the various law enforcement departments wrote a protocol or agreement that described what a critical incident was and how the district attorney would function when one occurred. Ibid., p. 85.

[24] Michael Dunbaugh, chief of police, Santa Rosa Police Department, Executive Summaries for the Record with Attachments, February 1998 (hereafter cited as Executive Summaries).

[25] Sonoma County Grand Jury, Final Report, 1996 1997, July 10, 1997, p. 9 (hereafter cited as Final Report, 1996 1997). The grand jury reported that under the existing protocol, the agency or agencies, within whose geographical jurisdiction the incident occurs (venue agency), may choose to lead the investigation of its own department or its own officers. The report recommends that the Chief s Association revise the protocol to make it mandatory that a noninvolved police agency take the lead in the investigation.

[26] Executive Summaries, p. 6.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Transcript, 1998, pp. 84 85. Mr. Mullins was elected district attorney in 1994 and has served as a prosecutor and assistant district attorney for Sonoma County.

[29] Ibid., p. 86.

[30] Final Report, 1996 1997.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Transcript, 1998, p. 86.

[33] Ibid., p. 99.

[34] Ibid., p. 119.

[35] Ibid., p. 141.

[36] Ibid., pp. 142 43.

[37] State of California, Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis, Criminal Justice Center, Peace Officers Killed or Assaulted by County, Annual Reports (hereafter cited as DOJ Annual Reports).

[38] DOJ Annual Reports. A law enforcement officer was killed in 1995.

[39] Transcript, 1998, p. 173.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Pia C. Jensen, councilwoman, city of Cotati, letter to Philip Montez, regional director, Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Feb. 20, 1998.

[42] Transcript, 1998, pp. 179 80.

[43] Ibid., p. 44.

[44] Ibid., p. 127.

[45] Ibid., p. 138.

[46] Ibid., p. 156.

[47] Ibid., p. 164.

[48] Ibid., p. 163.

[49] Ibid., p. 165.

[50] Ibid., p. 168.

[51] Ibid., p. 141.

[52] Ibid., pp. 176 77.

[53] Ibid., p. 39.

[54] Ibid., p. 35.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid., p. 170.

[57] Ibid., p. 173.

[58] Ibid., p. 15.

[59] Ibid., pp. 16 17.

[60] The department hosts community meetings in various parts of Sonoma County; hosts and participates in youth events and school activities, such as bicycle rodeos, DARE programs, Hug a Tree programs, police visits to schools, Floyd the Shark, and Stranger Danger; participates in community events with employees on their own time but representing the department, such as fundraising for youth sport activities, public educational television, American Heart Association, School Plus, Project Graduation, and a long list of other community events; provides several crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch, Farm Watch, personal safety programs; and hosts a citizens academy that began in 1997. Ibid., p. 50.

[61] Ibid., p. 51.

[62] Ibid., p. 26.

[63] Ibid., p. 54.

[64] Ibid., p. 57.

[65] Ibid., p. 60.

[66] Ibid., p. 61.

[67] Some of the Santa Rosa Department programs included: implementation of a Citizens Police Academy and a Volunteers in Police Service Program; development of a Mental Health Response Team; procurement of grants to improve conditions related to youth and substance abuse; development of the Domestic Violence Prevention and Response Program in partnership with the YWCA; acting as instructors at the junior college; and employee involvement in church youth and adult groups, Little League baseball, boys and girls scouting, softball, swim teams, and community service organizations. Ibid., pp. 55, 58.

[68] Some of the Rohnert Park police department programs included: host agency for Torch Run for the Special Olympics; DARE program; through a Federal Cops Fast Grant assigned a full-time officer to the middle and high schools; Beat the Heat; sponsored and coordinated a Youth and Family Services program; promoted diversion programs, including ride along; Neighborhood Watch; staffed a weekly sports center; initiated and developed Building Bridges to increase understanding of cultural diversity. Officers also volunteer in diverse community organizations for youth and adults. Ibid., pp. 60 61.

[69] Harvey Letter.

[70] Transcript, 1998, p. 113.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid., p. 121.

[73] Ibid., p. 122.

[74] Ibid., p. 125.

[75] Ibid., p. 59.

[76] Ibid., p. 50. Neither the State Advisory Committee nor Regional staff were provided with a copy of the survey.

[77] Ibid., p. 56. Neither the State Advisory Committee nor Regional staff were provided copies of the survey.

[78] Ibid., pp. 160 61.

[79] Ibid., p. 164.

[80] Ibid., p. 173.

[81] Ibid., p. 193.

[82] Ibid., p. 194.

[83] Ibid., p. 188.

[84] Ibid., p. 194.

[85] John M. Crew, director, Police Practices Project, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, San Francisco, letter to Sharon Wright, mayor, and members of the city council, city of Santa Rosa, Oct. 9, 1998.

[86] Transcript, 1998, p. 9.

[87] Ibid., p. 109.

[88] Final Report, 1996 1997.

[89] Transcript, 1998, p. 42.

[90] Ibid., p. 66.

[91] Ibid., p. 51.

[92] Ibid., p. 56.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Ibid., p. 60.

[95] Ibid., p. 42.

[96] Ibid., p. 67.

[97] Ibid., p. 68.

[98] Ibid., p. 8.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Michael A. Dunbaugh, chief of police, city of Santa Rosa, letter and supplemental report to Philip Montez, regional director, Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Dec. 22, 1998. The supplemental report included a letter with documentation from Sharon Wright, mayor, city of Santa Rosa, to the California Advisory Committee, Dec. 9, 1998.

[101] Transcript, 1998, pp. 104 05.

[102] Ibid., p. 105. At the time of the factfinding meeting, the district attorney was considering the establishment of a Web site and stated he would consider putting a citizen complaint section on that site.

[103] Ibid., p. 190.

[104] Final Report, 1996 1997.

[105] Transcript, 1998, p. 158.

[106] Ibid., pp. 166 67

[107] Ibid., p. 135.

[108] Ibid., p. 29.

[109] Ibid., p. 117.

[110] Ibid., p. 30.

[111] Ibid., p. 183.

[112] Ibid., p. 52.

[113] Ibid., p. 30.

[114] Ibid., p. 118.

[115] Ibid. Harrington noted that in 1997 the Los Angeles Police Department audited 270 cases of police domestic violence and found that hardly any of the cases were referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. That study found that 29 percent of the men on the department who committed domestic violence were promoted after the fact.

[116] Ibid., pp. 31 32.

[117] Ibid., p. 102.

[118] Ibid., p. 131. Harrington added that the International Association of Chiefs of Police is developing a model policy on police family violence that includes mandatory reporting, arrest, etc.

[119] Ibid., p. 119.

[120] Ibid., p. 40.

[121] Ibid., p. 30.

[122] Ibid.

[123] Ibid., p. 102.

[124] Ibid., p. 31.

[125] Ibid.

[126] Ibid., p. 7.

[127] Ibid., p. 15.

[128] Ibid., p. 13.

[129] Ibid., p. 33.

[130] Ibid., p. 52.

[131] Ibid., p. 33.

[132] Ibid., p. 56.

[133] Ibid., p. 64. The percentages provided for police officers of each ethnic group are for 1998. The census data may be from 1990.

[134] Ibid., p. 65.

[135] Ibid., p. 59.

[136] Ibid., p. 69.

[137] Ibid.

[138] Ibid., p. 117.

[139] Ibid., p. 88.

[140] Ibid., p. 95.

[141] Ibid., p. 116. According to Ms. Harrington, the Los Angeles Police Department has about 16 18 percent women, and departments in Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Washington, DC, have about 30 percent.

[142] Ibid., p. 87.

[143] Ibid. The four jurisdictions are Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, and police departments in Petaluma and Santa Rosa.

[144] Ibid., p. 93.

[145] Ibid., p. 177.

[146] Ibid., p. 15.

[147] Ibid., p. 150.

[148] Ibid., p. 178.

[149] Ibid., p. 24.

[150] Ibid., p. 26.

[151] Ibid., p. 25.

[152] Ibid., p. 94.

153] Ibid.

[154] Ibid., p. 112.

[155] Ibid., p. 89.

[156] Ibid., p. 127.

[157] Ibid., p. 59. According to Chief Rooney, POST requires an average of 24 hours of training per police officer, and Rohnert Park provides approximately 120 hours per officer each year.

[158] Ibid., p. 77.

[159] Ibid., p. 50.

[160] Ibid., p. 54.

[161] The four jurisdictions are the Petaluma Police Department, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, Santa Rosa Police Department, and the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department. Ibid., p. 87.

[162] Ibid.

[163] Ibid., p. 145.

[164] Ibid., p. 148.

[165] Ibid., p. 6.

[166] Ibid., p. 35.

[167] Ibid., p. 140.

[168] Ibid., p. 16.

[169] Ibid., p. 21.

[170] Ibid., p. 188.

[171] Ibid., p. 174.

[172] Ibid., p. 150.

[173] Harvey Letter.

[174] Transcript, 1998, p. 98.

[175] Ibid.

[176] Ibid., p. 22.

[177] Ibid., p. 109.

[178] Ibid., p. 110.

[179] Ibid., pp. 111 13.

[180] Ibid., p. 121.

[181] Ibid., p. 113.

182] Ibid., p. 120.

[183] Ibid.

[184] Ibid., p. 119.

[185] Ibid., p. 69.

[186] Ibid., p. 70.

[187] Ibid.

[188] Carter Letter.

[189] Transcript, 1998, p. 120.

[190] Ibid., p. 7.

[191] Bob Klose, Negotiations unravel in officer-review furor, Both sides hit by criticism, the Press Democrat, Nov. 5, 1997 (hereafter cited as Officer-review furor).

[192] Transcript, 1998, p. 8.

[193] Officer-review furor.

[194] Transcript, 1998, p. 71.

[195] Ibid.

[196] Ibid., p. 17.

[197] Ibid., p. 74.

[198] Ibid., pp. 74 75.

[199] Ibid., p. 75.

[200] Executive Summaries.

[201] Transcript, 1998, p. 90.

[202] Ibid., pp. 122 23.

[203] Ibid., p. 126.

[204] Ibid., p. 135.