In this week's paper, I reported on attempts by two local programmers to hold Seattle police officers accountable through massive public records requests of the department's internal investigations into alleged misconduct. Eric Rachner and Phil Mocek—who formed a nonprofit called the Center for Open Policing—found, among other things, that from 2010 to 2013, SPD's Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) sustained only seven out of 569 allegations of excessive or inappropriate use of force, meaning 99 percent of those cases were dismissed. "We're trying to do OPA's job for them because OPA was so explicitly not interested in doing their own job," said Rachner.

In the email below, OPA director Pierce Murphy responds to the story, saying he's "thrilled" by Rachner and Mocek's interest in police accountability.

It's important to note that most of the data obtained by Rachner and Mocek covers a period during which Murphy's predecessor, Kathryn Olson, was in office. Murphy came into the job in July of 2013.

Murphy is a civilian who is credited with reforming the Boise Police Department during his tenure as ombudsman there. In Seattle, he is equipped with a staff of internal investigators drawn from the ranks of SPD. He's also requested that Mayor Murray and the city council give him the ability to hire civilian investigators. That policy change is among five things the city could do to strengthen police oversight, as I reported in February.

Below, I'm printing Murphy's response to our story, with emphasis and links added.

I am thrilled to see that Mr. Rachner and Mr. Mocek have taken such an active interest in OPA and police accountability. This public interest in police oversight underscores the purpose and importance of OPA as a source of independent and impartial investigations of alleged misconduct.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the practices and outcomes of cases prior to my tenure as OPA Director, beginning in July, 2013. However, I am eager to learn of any specific concerns noted regarding OPA cases opened and investigated under my direction as Director. I am committed to the continuous improvement of OPA investigations to make certain they are thorough, fair and impartial.

Since becoming OPA Director in 2013, OPA has made major advancements in increasing its independence and transparency. We have completely separated our offices and web presence from the Police Department. OPA now posts detailed case summaries on our website in real time. These summaries include details of facts discovered in the investigation, the final findings, and any discipline imposed. These case summaries are also updated when an officer appeals his or her discipline and when that appeal is decided. The website also contains each and every recommendation I make for systemic change to SPD policy or training, as well as the response received from SPD. I encourage the public to regularly go to our website and read about OPA’s closed cases.

I know that discipline of employees who have engaged in misconduct is important to the public. In 2014, 55 out of 215 completed OPA investigations resulted in one or more sustained findings. Twenty-four employees received suspension without pay, ten received a written reprimand, nine received an oral reprimand and three employees had their employment with SPD ended (one employee was named in two cases for which the Sustained finding resulted in termination). The remaining eight cases did not have discipline imposed either because appropriate action had already been taken by the employee’s supervisor, the employee no longer worked for the Department, or the violation of policy was considered to be minor.

I encourage the public to continue to hold a healthy degree of skepticism, as this is how a just system is held accountable. I also know that every action I have taken as the Director promotes public trust and has sought to increase transparency. OPA has the large challenge of not only maintaining trust, but re-gaining trust from actions that occurred historically within the Police Department.