HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2000 CommunicationResponse to Press-Citizen Editorial ~F~
The Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) has received a great deal of news
coverage since its formation three years ago. For the most part the reporting has been fair
and accurate. There have also been several editorials about the PCRB, some of which we
felt were on target and some not. Up to this point, we have refrained from responding to
media coverage and opinions.
However, the Iowa City Press-Citizen editorial that appeared on August 14 so distorted
our consistent desire and efforts to be open and accessible to the press and the public, and
to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of Iowa's wonderful "sunshine" laws, that we
feel compelled to respond.
The editorial states: "Iowa City's Police Citizens Review Board wants to limit access to
public information. Again." And later: "One of the first things the board and council did
was figure out how to keep much of the work secret." Nothing could be further from the
truth.
The editorial goes on to make several other baseless assertions too numerous and silly to
respond to. What we can do, however, is inform the public regarding the important and
serious issues discussed with Chief Winkelhake at our August 8 meeting - something the
Press-Citizen failed to do.
First, let's talk about this secrecy. The PCRB, like other public boards and commissions,
must operate in accordance to Iowa's open meeting and open records laws. The board has
received training and advice from the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and our own legal
counsel regarding compliance with these laws. Board members are individually subject to
legal sanctions if we violate them.
Our meetings are divided into two parts: a public session and an executive session. The
executive session is required for the discussion of confidential matters by the same law
that requires that others matters and information be conducted in public session. It is just
as illegal to reveal confidential information as it is to hide public information. On this
issue, the Press-Citizen's argument is with the state legislature, not with the PCRB or the
City.
The Board's recommendations to the Chief regarding a designated spokesperson for
high-profile incidents and officers refraining from making comments "not factual in
nature" were certainly not made with any intent to restrict public access to information.
In fact, as was stated at our meeting with the Chief on August 8, the intent was to help
insure that the public, through the press, would receive complete and accurate
information as quickly as possible.
These recommendations were made in a comment section of our public report relating to
an event that received a great deal of attention by both print and electronic media. One
newspaper report contained a quote from an officer that cast a general cloud of doubt
about the credibility of the complainant and her family.
The PCRB felt that this comment was "imprudent and potentially prejudicial." However,
the written policy that governs public statements from police officials was so broad that
we concurred with the Chief that there was no violation of policy. Therefore, the PCRB
made the following recommendation:
It is the Board's opinion that Section 402.3 of the ICPD policy manual is too
broad. We agree with the basic premise that police officials should be responsive
to requests for information from the public and the news media. However, we
recommend that the policy be changed to 1) permit the Chief to designate a
primary spokesperson for the Department for issues or incidents that are
potentially sensitive or high profile; and 2) more clearly restrict the release of
information that is not factual in nature.
It is a well-accepted and media-supported practice for organizations, both public and
private, to designate a spokesperson for events and issues that are high profile or
potentially sensitive. This person has the responsibility to obtain the most complete and
accurate facts and to make those facts available to the media and public as quickly as
possible. Other persons, who may not have access to all the facts, are expected to refer all
inquiries to this designated person. The intent of this practice is to provide information,
not hide it.
Certainly police and city officials, with their years of experience in dealing with the
public and the media, have the ability to discern which issues and incidents are likely to
attract wide public attention and need extra care and attention.
Our recommendation regarding the release of information based on personal opinion,
given the context of the officer's quote in the news report, seemed clear to us. Certainly
we have no intent to discourage officers from giving their professional opinions about
matters of public safety or public interest. Officers' personal opinions that impugn the
character ora citizen, however, are not in the public interest and should be discouraged.
Page I of I
John Watson
From: "John Watson" <jwatson@goodwillseiowa.org>
To: "baldw[nc" <cbaldwin@press-citizen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Request for Guest Opinion Space
Chuck,
Thanks for the reply. We will try to cut the length, but I think it will be
difficult. I will pass your request on to the Board.
John
..... Original Message .....
From: "baldwinc" <cbaldwin~.press-citizen.com>
To: "John Watson" <jwatson~.qoodwillseiowa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Request for Guest Opinion Space
John,
Happy to publish a response. Will get it in as soon as I can after receiving
it.
Could you cut the length a little? I'm trying to keep guest opinions/columns
to around 600-650 words,
Chuck Baldwin
Press-Citizen
..... Original Message .....
From: John Watson <jwatsont~.goodwillseiowa.org>
To: <cbaldwin(~..press-citizen.com>
Cc: Sandy Bauer <Sandy_Bauer@iowa-city.orR>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:15 AM
Subject: Request for Guest OpM[on Space
> Chuck - As chair of the PCRB I have drafted a response to your editorial
of
> August 14 and would appreciate space to respond in the form of a "Guest
> Opinion." My response is about 830 words at this point, and will be
reviewed
> by the PCRB at a meeting on Thursday morning. Once approved I can e-mail a
> copy to you.
> Please respond as soon as possible.
> John Watson, President
> Goodwill Industries of Southeast Iowa
> Tel: 319-337-4158
> Fax: 319-337-7369
> E-mail: jwatson@goodwiilseiowa.org
0815/2000
Response to Press-Citizen Editorial
The Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) has received a great deal of news
coverage since its formation three years ago. For the most part the reporting has been
fair and accurate. There have also been several editorials about the PCRB, some of
which we felt were on target and some not. Up to this point, we have refrained from
responding to media coverage and opinions.
However, the Iowa City Press-Citizen editorial that appeared on August 14 so distorted
our consistent desire and efforts to be open and accessible to the press and the public,
and to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of Iowa's wonderful "sunshine" laws,
that we feel compelled to respond.
The editorial states: "Iowa City's Police Citizens Review Board wants to limit access to
public information. Again." And later: "One of the first things the board and council did
was figure out how to keep much of the work secret." Nothing could be further from the
truth.
The editorial goes on to make several other baseless assertions too numerous and
silly to respond to. What we can do, however, is inform the public regarding the
important and serious issues discussed with Chief Winkelhake at our August 8
meeting - something the Press-Citizen failed to do.
First, let's talk about this secrecy. The PCRB, like other public boards and commissions,
must operate in accordance to Iowa's open meeting and open records laws. The board has
received training and advice from the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and our own legal
counsel regarding compliance with these laws. Board members are individually
subject to legal sanctions if we violate them.
Our meetings are divided into two parts: a public session and an executive session. The
executive session is required for the discussion of confidential matters by the same law
that requires that others matters and information be conducted in public session. It is just
as illegal to reveal confidential information as it is to hide public information. On this
issue, the Press-Citizen's argument is with the state legislature, not with the PCRB
or the City.
The Board's recommendations to the Chief regarding a designated spokesperson for
high-profile incidents and officers refraining from making comments "not factual in
naturc" were certainly not made with any intent to restrict public access to intbrmation.
In fact, as was stated at our meeting with the Chief on August 8, the intent was to help
insure that the public, through the press, would receive complete and accurate
information as quickly as possible.
These recommendations were made in a comment section of our public report relating to
an event that received a great deal of attention by both print and electronic media. One
newspaper report contained a quote from an officer that cast a general cloud of doubt
about the credibility of the complainant and her family.
The PCRB felt that this comment was "imprudent and potentially prejudicial." However,
the written policy that governs public statements from police officials was so broad that
we concurred with the Chief that there was no violation of policy. Therefore, the PCRB
made the following recommendation:
It is the Board's opinion that Section 402.3 of the ICPD policy manual is too
broad. We agree with the basic premise that police officials should be responsive
to requests for information from the public and the news media. However, we
recommend that the policy be changed to 1) permit the Chief to designate a
primary spokesperson for the Department for issues or incidents that are
potentially sensitive or high profile; and 2) more clearly restrict the release of
information that is not factual in nature.
It is a well-accepted and media-supported practice for organizations, both public and
private, to designate a spokesperson for events and issues that are high profile or
potentially sensitive. This person has the responsibility to obtain the most complete and
accurate facts and to make those facts available to the media and public as quickly as
possible. Other persons, who may not have access to all the facts, are expected to refer all
inquiries to this designated person. The intent of this practice is to provide information,
not hide it.
Certainly police and city officials, with their years of experience in dealing with the
public and the media, have the ability to discern which issues and incidents are
likely to attract wide public attention and need extra care and attention.
Our recommendation regarding the release of information based on personal opinion,
given the context of the officer's quote in the news report, seemed clear to us. Certainly
we have no intent to discourage officers from giving their professional opinions about
matters of public safety or public interest. Officers' personal opinions that impugn the
character of a citizen, however, are not in the public interest and should be discouraged.