2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'd like to hear the panel discuss the notion of "embarrassment" as it relates to the police contract, and oversight of the police force.  Repeatedly, the police union has invoked article 20.2 of their contract, which ostensibly protects them from being "embarrassed" in front of their peers or the public, and urged its members to avoid cooperating with performance review boards and use-of-force review boards. 

Scott Westerman, head of the PPA, said, "When our members are subjected to unprofessional questioning where the member is grilled, embarrassed or berated by members of these boards, it is unacceptable."

This seems like a false step to me, and something of an insult to the citizens that Westerman and the force work for.  How does the city interpret such a response to attempted oversight?  And what does it mean for future attempts?

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context