Chief Hurtt’s decision to assemble a small group of community members to review incidents that involved the use of Tasers by HPD officers, has generated a number of inquires to the HPOU with respect to what can or can’t be done about the chief’s decision.

First, we must all remember that Chapter 143 of the Local Government Code (State Civil Service) and our legally binding bargaining agreement does not allow the establishment of a citizen review board that can subpoena, question, or discipline HPD officers.  That being said, back during the Lee P. Brown administration, Chief Brown assembled a Citizen Advisory Committee in order to enable members of the community to understand the transparency of the HPD investigation and discipline process.  That committee has been in place for many years now and they have participated in the Administrative Disciplinary Committee (ADC) review process along side HPD officers of various ranks.  The only thing the ADC committee can do is make recommendations to the chief and ultimately, the chief of police makes the final decision regarding any disciplinary action that is in excess of two days.  Until recently, it was all discipline, however, now, division commanders (Captains) have the contractual ability to make some disciplinary decisions of two days of less.

With that reality in perspective, we must all understand that even though none of us asked for the Tasers, we have them. We all knew that once we began using them, complaints, criticisms, and accusations would not be far behind from the usual folks who utilize any and all opportunities to either accuse or imply that HPD officers are the bad guys rather than the suspects we are required to deal with.  Therefore, even though we may not be happy with the Chief’s decision regarding the newly formed Taser Advisory Committee, the HPOU demands that the following requirements must be strictly adhered to in all cases in the TAC’s advisory process:

• The committee members must not have been convicted of any Class B misdemeanor or greater nor can any committee member have any current or past involvement with any civil action against the City, Department, or individual officer.

• The location of the Taser incidents can not be revealed to the committee.

• The name, sex, race, age, or any other identifying characteristic of the HPD officer, suspect, reportee, or wittiness involved in a Taser related incident can not be revealed to the committee.

With the above listed requirements in place, we believe that TAC members will have the opportunity to see how professional HPD officers are in their utilization of Taser technology on the street.  For the ones who choose not to embrace that view, then my guess is that we must continue to perform our calling as professional police officers and not get bogged down by those who may have agendas other than helping the Houston Police Department.

In conclusion, keep in mind, that through the vision of Chief Brown and his creation of the CAC, we have been able to prevent numerous attempts in the Texas Legislature to pass civilian review legislation that would give significant control of our investigative and disciplinary process to political appointees outside of the department.  In addition, due to past administrative actions that opened the department to citizen involvement, we don’t have the Justice Department involved in the operations of our department like they have been in numerous other major cities in America.

News Archives