Still in Check

A Tuesday appeals court ruling reaffirmed excluding public access to civilian police review board hearings. At first glance, the practice might seem to teeter on a breach of transparency, but there's a rationale for keeping the information in these proceedings in-house.

These review boards are set up to keep police misconduct in check. The Police Review Commission, the city of Berkeley's own board, listens to citizen complaints about police behavior and relays these incidents to the police chief.

In effect, the purpose of the review board holds officers accountable-a goal that can be accomplished whether the hearings are public or private. While the American judicial system stresses the importance of a public trial, these hearings are not quite like trials. For one, the Police Review Commission has no power to punish, unlike a judge, and instead serves as an outlet for alleged victims to air their grievances.

Imaginably, some of the material presented before the board is sensitive. And since police officers are not elected public officials, there's no obligation to reveal personnel issues.

Since it's composed of nine everyday citizens, we should have faith that the police review board would treat their fellow citizen who is bringing the complaint fairly. One point to consider, however, is that these nine board members are appointed by the Berkeley City Council. Perhaps there should more minimum qualifications for board candidates.

But even if the Police Review Commission failed to do anything about an officer indulging in a power trip, there's a second safety net. The internal affairs board that is already a part of the Berkeley Police Department is responsible for looking into such abuses.

The existence of a civilian review board is just another way to keep the force from being exerting too much force, and it's functioned for years without public meetings.