A police oversight board, which reviews officer discipline in misconduct cases, may finally get to see complete police records to aid in their work. The records have been partially redacted since the review board was established in 2002.

To the chagrin of the police union, a state labor board issued a decision today that says members of the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board can receive complete police records without violating the terms of a police labor contract. In doing so, the commissioned overturned a previous decision. The civilian board may also issue reports on police misconduct and be protected from liability lawsuits, according to the Public Employment Relations Commission, a state agency that settles labor disputes. But the local police union, which demanded a contract that withheld names of officers from the review board, may appeal the ruling in court.

Today's decision is a major blow to the Seattle Police Officers' Guild (SPOG) and City Attorney Tom Carr, which both fought for years to hamstring the board by denying them complete police reports and refusing to protect the members from lawsuits.

But it’s a “huge win” for Pete Holmes, who chaired the review board for six years and fought with Carr and to divulge the findings without risk of personal lawsuits. “They used that confidentially agreement as a way of chilling our reporting,” he says. Holmes is now challenging Carr in the November 3 election.

“Transparency is the citizens’ assurance that police power is being wielded appropriately," Holmes says. "The only assurance people have that the police force is acting legally in a free society is if we can see how misconduct is investigated by the police. Otherwise, you have to just take their word for it.”

But police may try to appeal the decision in King County Superior Court, says SPOG president Richard O’Neill. “It’s just the commission, so our attorneys are reviewing it.” The police union has 20 days to decide. “If we don’t appeal, then I guess [the decision] would stand and they could start reading unredacted reports,” O’Neill says.

In a strange twist, Carr had to argue the case for transparency, even through he had opposed the legislation that opened up police records. After Carr refused to provide protection for OPARB members, in 2006, City Council Member Nick Licata sponsored an ordinance to provide access to closed disciplinary records while imposing a confidentiality agreement, which the council passed unanimously. The police guild argued that the legislation, which was at issue in today’s decision, was an “unfair labor practice” because it violated the term of their collective bargaining agreement. (The decision is here.)

But the commission found the law “did not impact the terms and conditions of employment.”

Says Carr: “After years of work, my office has successfully defended the city from exposure. This is a good example of how I do my job, despite any personal feelings.” He will have to continue to defend the law if police union, which have endorsed Carr’s bid for reelection, appeals the decision.

Licata said in a written statement, “I hope to hear that SPOG accepts the decision so that we all, police officers, city officials and citizen watchdogs can together put this chapter behind us.”