11 Candidates Don’t Want Job on Panel : Prospects Criticize Makeup of Committee to Review S.D. Police Probes of Misconduct

Seven retired judges and four black former grand jurors have said they are not willing to serve as consultants to review San Diego Police Department investigations of officer misconduct under a plan announced last week by City Manager John Lockwood.

“I would have absolutely no interest in it,” said Earl H. Maas Jr., who retired earlier this year as a Superior Court judge. “It would be a waste of my time because it really has no authority and would just appear to me to be another board that is set up for public-relations purposes.”

Lockwood last week decided to limit the pool of potential candidates for the police review panel to retired Superior and Municipal Court judges, former grand jurors and former city Civil Service Commission members. The plan has been widely criticized because it limits the number of minorities in the pool and does not permit civilians to independently monitor police investigations of citizen complaints.

Police Chief Bill Kolender will select 12 consultants from the pool to monitor police investigations of alleged officer misconduct, according to Lockwood’s plan. Kolender, who said he will send invitations soon to retired judges and former grand jurors and Civil Service commissioners who have served during the last five years, said he is confident that he will be able to choose 12 people who represent a cross section of San Diego.

Small Minority Pool

Only 10 blacks and five Latinos are among the 129 former grand jurors, Civil Service commissioners and retired judges who have served within the last five years, according to government rosters. In interviews with nine of the minorities, most of them were critical of the police review plan. Four blacks said they would not even consider participating as consultants.

In addition, of eight retired judges interviewed, all but one said they were not interested in reviewing police investigations. One judge said he did not know enough about the program to decide whether he would consider volunteering his time.

All 24 Superior and Municipal Court judges who retired within the last five years are white men, and legal experts could not think of a single retired black or Latino judge in the county.

The grand jury did not have a single Latino on three panels between 1981 and 1984, and the 20 members of the 1982-83 county grand jury did not include a black or Latino. Since 1981, the grand jury has had nine blacks and three Latinos. Two Latinos and one black have served on the Civil Service Commission in the last five years, according to the city clerk’s office.

Plan May Change

Lockwood said he would be willing to expand the list of potential candidates to include more minorities if blacks and Latinos do not respond in sufficient numbers.

“Maybe none of these people will respond,” Lockwood said. “All I can do is ask them to participate. If they choose to participate in any kinds of numbers at all, I think we can come up with an appropriate balance. If they don’t, obviously I’ve got to come up with some kind of different approach.”

Lockwood refused to specify how many minorities would be sufficient for the 12-member review panel.

“I don’t want to put numbers on it, but I would be uncomfortable if the board, for example, was made up of 12 middle-aged, white males because that’s what I am,” he said.

The under-representation of minorities in Lockwood’s pool has led at least four blacks who served on the county grand jury since 1981 to reject any role as consultants in monitoring police investigations.

“I’m not sure that my opinion would be of any weight,” said Allie Mae Oden, 74, a member of the 1983-84 grand jury. “ . . . I’m afraid I feel that my time would be wasted and I don’t like to spin my wheels.”

Oden called her fellow grand jurors “nice rubber stamps for the most part.”

Lurean Taylor, 56, a retired real estate agent who lives in Southeast San Diego, said, “I’m sorry. I feel like it would be very unjustifiable . . . to give just that particular group of people the opportunity to evaluate the Police Department. No, it is not right.”

Taylor described her colleagues on the 1983-84 grand jury as “very prejudiced” and “hostile.”

Younger Candidates?

Rufus DeWitt, 71, a retired community college administrator, said he believes Lockwood should include younger people in his pool of potential candidates.

“With my grand jury, there were a bunch of tired old men, including myself,” said DeWitt, who said he did not want to serve on the police review panel. “You see, we had maybe two younger people on there. Today’s problems really need younger people and young minds to deal with these people. We can be very biased about some of the things happening now.”

One former grand juror, John Celis, who is black, said he agreed with critics who have assailed Lockwood for restricting the pool of potential consultants to so few minorities. But Celis said that would not prevent him from volunteering to serve as one of the 12 consultants.

In addition, the three minorities who served as former Civil Service Commissioners since 1981 said they would be willing to consider volunteering their time to monitor police investigations.

‘Give Plan a Chance’

Nick Atma, a labor relations arbitrator and college teacher, said he would “call the shots as I see ‘em” regardless of the makeup of the review panel.

“I think they need to give the plan a chance to work,” said Atma. “It’s the best plan we’ve got so far. At least the parties are buying into it. We didn’t create these problems overnight. We’re not going to resolve them overnight.”

Vira Williams, a former teacher, said she needed to learn more about the amount of “power” the police consultants would have before making a decision on whether to participate.

Raul Zalazar, a bank vice president, said he would be willing to serve on the review panel.

None of the eight retired judges interviewed by The Times said they were interested in becoming unpaid consultants for the Police Department under Lockwood’s plan.

Retired Superior Court Judge Alfred Lord said he was busy with other matters and the panel “sounds extremely controversial.”

Daniel Leedy, who left the Superior Court in 1983, said he lives outside the City of San Diego and is not involved in city affairs.

“There may be merit in the plan and I think probably to have retired judges involved in it would be one way of getting competent people, but personally I don’t think I would care to take part in it,” Leedy said.

Other retired judges who did not express an interest in joining the review panel were Charles Froehlich Jr., Joseph A. Kolgarif, Donald W. Smith and Charles Roick.

Former Superior Court Judge Robert J. O’Neill said he did not have enough information to state whether he would consider an appointment.

Assistant Police Chief Bob Burgreen admitted he is concerned that the Lockwood plan may not work because of a shortage of volunteers.

“I’m not ready to give up on his proposal,” Burgreen added. “Sometimes what people tell a reporter and what they tell the chief of police is not the same thing. I will be anxious to hear what people have to say when they hear from the chief of police.”

The refusal of retired judges and grand jurors to serve on a police review panel comes as no surprise, Lockwood said.

“I’m going to be retired someday myself and I can understand that people who are retired have other plans,” said Lockwood, who is 55 and has worked as a government employee for 38 years. “There’s no question there is no money in it for them. It is a civic gesture they would be making. I would hope in the whole group there would be a number (willing to volunteer).”

Controversial Plan

The city manager said he is concerned that the police review panel has become so controversial that potential volunteers will no longer be interested.

“I can understand why someone might want to avoid getting involved in it now,” Lockwood said.

Lockwood’s decision to limit the consultants to three groups that are dominated by elderly, white males who are widely perceived as a part of the city establishment has drawn the most criticism in recent days.

John Cleary, a private defense attorney for 27 years who formerly ran Federal Defenders, lambasted the city manager’s plan as “a paper-thin, cosmetic evaluation” by an “elitist” group of individuals who are biased in favor of police.

“All three of these groups are vested, insulated, pro-government groups,” Cleary said. “Unfortunately, Mr. Lockwood’s compromise is more of a joke than anything else. This is nothing more than an old-fashioined, old-boys club getting together to determine what the good-old cops have done . . .

“This whole bias is against review . . . it is not review, it is hypocrisy . . . I’d rather have a jury. Give me just 12 people off the street at random to come in and evaluate the cops.”

Lockwood said he settled on former judges, grand jurors and Civil Service commissioners because he wanted a pool of three groups that would be large enough to provide the “mix and match and balance that I was interested in.”

The city manager, who said he knew his plan would attract criticism, disclosed that he also has received complaints that the Police Department did not need any kind of review panel.

“I knew there was not going to be unanimity of opinion. The only way to avoid that would be to do nothing and continue to roll along with what we’ve been doing . . . “