Pasadena Star-News

2/21/04

What don't PCC trustees want to know?

COMMENTARY

By Richard McKee

ELEVEN months have passed since allegations of brutality and civil rights violations were leveled against Pasadena City College police. Yet, after spending more that $150,000 of taxpayers' money on an investigation that produced what the college's legal counsel called "a voluminous report,'' the board of trustees has learned absolutely nothing about what happened.

No, it's not because they can't, it's because the majority of the trustees has decided it doesn't want to know what the investigation revealed, and doesn't want anyone else to know either. On March 20, 2003, an antiwar demonstration turned bloody when student marchers entered a campus building and were confronted by college police officers. Arrests were made, demonstrators were injured, and the board of trustees placed its police chief and a lieutenant on months of paid administrative leave.

The board demanded a completely independent investigation into the incident and hired a retired judge as an administrator to review the investigative findings and to make recommendations. But once the report was finished, even though the police chief quit, saying he had been treated unfairly and would sue the district, a majority of the board said it didn't want to know what the investigation found. And so far, the trustees in the minority have been kept from seeing what is contained within the report's volumes.

So, why was the $150,000 spent if the investigative findings were to be kept secret from the very people elected to hire, fire, and discipline PCC employees? And why are the few trustees who want to see that report being kept from such a review? Is there something embarrassing within? Or was there some illegal conduct uncovered by the investigation the board doesn't want the people to know about? California Penal Code Section 832.5 requires local public agencies to investigate and remedy police wrongdoing. In 1988 the California attorney general issued a formal opinion (71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1) specifically addressing the issue of just who is authorized to have access to investigative reports on alleged police misconduct. That opinion says access is provided to those who have a duty or authority to advise, impose or review discipline of a police officer.

In addition, the California Public Records Act says nothing shall limit the ability of elected officials to access their agency's records in the administration of their duties (Government Code 6252.5). So the questions remain:

Why doesn't the board majority want to review the investigative report? And even if they don't, why would they keep those individual trustees who want to review the report from doing so in the performance of their duty? Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger once observed, "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing...'' (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980) 448 U.S. 555, 572.)

If that's true for the electorate, imagine how an elected official must feel when facts essential to the performance of their duty are kept secret from them by their peers. None of this is about whether we are antiwar or pro-police. Instead, this is entirely about whether government officials --in all agencies -- are going to do the job they were elected to perform. In this case, that includes doing everything necessary to protect the rights and well-being of PCC staff and students. Such a job is never performed by choosing to bury your head in the sand, and then demanding that others do likewise.

Secrecy only breeds more distrust.

-- Richard P. McKee is professor of chemistry at Pasadena City College, a La Verne resident and past-president of the California First Amendment Coalition.