Shawn Vestal: Accountability requires answers, not slogans

Apr. 25—The accountability mayor held a press conference — backed by a Greek chorus of supporters, applauding her every utterance as if she were at, say, a campaign stop — to make it clear that she would not follow the city charter and investigate the police chief.

She suggested Monday that there's no need to look into the chief's VIP concierge service for Chud Wendle and Sheldon Jackson, businessmen who were vocal about cracking down on homeless encampments and critical of Spokane City Council members. Because our police department is above reproach and anyone who says different is anti-police.

It was what you might call a pre-Otto-Zehm performance, a relic of the days before Spokane's public officials began to at least act like police accountability was an important public value.

Meanwhile, even as the applause was echoing, another accountability challenge was tick-tick-ticking away inside the department: a new complaint of excessive force against the officer who hoisted a police dog into a car to attack a surrendering suspect while screaming vulgar death threats in 2019.

Security camera footage released in a public records request and posted online by local police watchdog Brian Breen shows a team of police officers rushing into Bath & Bodyworks, guns drawn, surrounding a man who immediately raises his empty hands and kneels. The lead officer, immediately and without apparent provocation, kicks the man in the chest, knocking him from his knees to the ground, where officers handcuff him.

The kicker? The man wasn't guilty of anything, Breen reported, and the officer who delivered the blow was Sgt. Daniel Lesser, whose conduct in the police dog case — in which he repeatedly shouted "I will (expletive) kill you!" — led to a city settlement of a lawsuit, a public apology ... and a one-day suspension.

The January incident is now under investigation by the department's internal affairs unit in response to a complaint of excessive force. SPD spokeswoman Julie Humphreys said the department cannot release any information about the ongoing investigation but the incident was initiated by a call from a store employee reporting that a man with a gun and wearing a bandanna had entered the store.

Nothing like that is visible on the eight screens of store security video released to Breen, which begin about 15 minutes before police enter the store. During that time span, customers and employees move about in a seemingly routine fashion.

There are lots of remaining questions about the incident. Maybe there is some good explanation — something the brass would deem reasonable.

But it demands an accounting in any case. Not a blanket, knee-jerk statement of undying support, but specific answers to the specific questions it raises and an appropriate response from those in charge.

It's an open question whether that's available from the current leadership in the city and department.

You can watch the video for yourself at Breen's blog (https://examplepro.me/2023/04/06/11520/). Breen is a retired police officer who is frequently first to learn about problems within the department and who uses the public records laws regularly to dig out the truth.

He posted the security camera footage earlier this month. He received it as a partial response to his request for "records relating to a recent investigation into an excessive force complaint involving Sgt. Daniel Lesser."

Breen was told he could expect the next batch of records in June.

The 2019 Lesser case involving the police dog was a part of Meidl's spotty record with regard to holding his officers accountable for misconduct. While the chief has sometimes struck a hard line — firing an officer who kicked a handcuffed suspect in the genitals — he gave Lesser such a gentle pat on the wrist that it was shocking.

Lesser was disciplined for his comportment and not turning on his body camera, but not for excessive use of force. Meidl's decision that Lesser's use of the dog was reasonable contradicted the conclusions of two previous officers, each of whom concluded that Lesser was not responding to an imminent threat. The city later paid about $50,000 to settle a lawsuit over injuries the dog inflicted on the suspect.

Meanwhile, it should come as no surprise that Woodward is turning a blind eye to the conflicts of interest and favoritism suggested by an ombudsman's report regarding Wendle and Jackson. She's prejudged the department as above reproach and pre-dismissed any criticism as anti-police.

Members of the City Council have called on Woodward to investigate the chief's continual emailing with the leaders of a group of property owners — including sharing information that the ombudsman found was, on some occasions, not publicly available, developing special reports on crime and safety issues, and providing information for "lobbying purposes."

A group of 21 community organizations called for the chief to resign after the details of the ombudsman's report, which was finalized in December, were published in The Spokesman-Review and Inlander in March.

In her performance on Monday, Woodward dismissed her responsibility under the city charter — which says complaints against the police chief should be directed to the mayor and investigated by the human resources department — with a royal wave of her hand.

"I am not obligated to do so," she said.

It was all just politics, she said — a bizarrely ironic claim, given the whistle-stop bursts of staged applause that punctuated her comments.

Not surprising, but a failure of leadership nevertheless. Specific, detailed questions of accountability — whether it's vulgar death threats or a kick in the chest or the chief's chummy bromance — deserve specific, detailed answers.

That's what accountability means.