@5

OPA’s reports, by my reading (at least the little bit that is available to the public, there’s more in the secret FOIA-proof vault somewhere) don’t contain confidential information.

Can you be specific with facts to back up your assertions? First, name one time that the oversight committee overstepped or named an officer? Do the City’s Attorney’s written opinions of the oversight boards reports would back you up?

What information did the oversight board incorrectly or illegally release? Specifics, please.

Where would this liability you reference come from, anyway? An unnamed officer that was not identified and therefore not harmed? There was an early report that the board did release (indemnified). It contained no confidential information (contrary to your claim). Suits were not filed.

Your argument is that Carr refused indemnification not to thwart transparency, but because the document contained false information and would open the city up to liability. Yet, Carr’s own office released that very report (accusing Holmes of the misdeed) and it has not been found to be incorrect, nor did it result in liability.

On Carroll, you must remember that he led the Mayor’s Police Review Panel and identified 29 changes to the accountability structure. That confirmed the accuracy and relevance of the oversight board’s work and made no mention of crusading, overstepping legal authority, liability due to the oversight committee, lying, inaccuracy, cheap political stunts, law-evasion, or not doing the job corrected or political intention. I hardly think a man of his integrity would fail to investigate and address the serious infractions contained in your accusations.

One man’s crusader is another’s careful, intentional performer. The board did their job. I think there were some uncomfortable truths, though.

So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, my assessment of your post is simple: specious.

Consider this: open government, with true accountability has some great upsides. One is that transparency brings some monetary savings. For example, reduced lawsuits by citizens, less legal time defending those suits, and in a little irony – less money defending the effort to NOT be transparent. Other upsides are better p/r, better respected forces, and the like. But THE most important think that comes from true transparency (and therefore accountability) is that the police themselves are safer. Public is safer, too. It’s a constant balancing act to protect the public, protect the forces, and protect the city.