Message from Chief Lowe on Settlement with Churna Family
 |
| Chief Darrell Lowe Internet |
Dear Redmond Community,
At a special meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, Redmond City Council approved a $7.5 million settlement to the family of Andrea Thomas Churna, who was shot and killed by a Redmond Police officer on Sept. 20, 2020.
The original Redmond Police Department news release on Sept. 21, 2020, included an error, stating, "During the interaction, she confronted officers with a handgun, multiple shots were fired, and the subject was struck several times."
While Churna was armed with a handgun earlier in the encounter with Redmond officers, when she was shot and killed in the hallway just outside of her apartment, Churna was unarmed. Following the shooting, the officers found Churna’s gun on the balcony of her apartment. I apologize to Andrea Thomas Churna's family and loved ones for the inaccurate statement made regarding the circumstances surrounding her death.
The policy in place when the shooting occurred does not allow me to elaborate specifically on the internal findings until the conclusion of the inquest process and an actual filing determination by the prosecutors' office. These rules include only taking punitive administrative or disciplinary actions based on clear and available facts.
Working to continually seek improvement, the Redmond Police Department has since updated our policy and procedures manual to align with industry best practices. These include access to additional less-lethal options, implementing a body-worn and in-car camera program, and increasing mental health resources.
While no amount of money will bring Ms. Churna back, this settlement closes a painful chapter. I again offer my sympathies to Ms. Churna’s family and loved ones. It is a tragedy that this ended with a loss of life.
Sincerely,
Chief Darrell Lowe
The policies restricting administrative action in this case were in place before Chief Darrell Lowe joined the City. The chief has since worked to reform those policies to align with current industry best practices. He has also implemented a body-worn and in-car camera program for added transparency. These will be installed and implemented in July.
ReplyDelete-- Redmond Police Information Officer
Correction: Jill Smith is the Communications Manager. Jill Green is the Police Public Information Officer.
DeleteHas the police officer been fired and if not, WHY?
ReplyDeleteThank you for asking. I realize I misspoke when I said July – which was the original target date. You are correct. The camera installation is delayed until the levy vote.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying.
Yes, and the Levy must pass to implement the body-worn camera program even though the City's already purchased the hardware!
DeleteThe more I think about it the less I want to vote for this Levy. I really liked that they juiced up mental health services but can't stand having to pay for in-car cameras. That money should go right back to Thrive programs (mental health, rental assistance, homelessness care, food, etc.) I asked Captain Coats twice: 1) what other cities in WA and OR use in-car cameras (no answer), 2) are there studies proving their effectiveness? (no answer.) I'm also bothered by the lack of transparency with the camera proposal. They ALWAYS "lump in-car cameras" into "body-worn camera" language. Thus, in-car cameras are hidden from the public and rightly so, they aren't proven.
ReplyDeleteWhat really bugs me is the City already purchased the hardware/software/maintenance in advance of the Levy! Originally, the police were hoping the Levy would fund $900,000 annually for 6 full-time-employees. Now, the plan to put most of the FTE costs in the operating budget so they can shift the Levy proposal 6 extra mental health workers. The voter's hot-button and rightly so.
Finally, there's the cost. I'm 71, on a fixed-income and nowhere close to Redmond worker's approximate $160,000 income. Our local governments are asking a lot of $$ in November: 1) $750 King County taxes (and double digit taxes in 2023,) 2) $370 Redmond Public Safety Levy. 3) $350 LWSD Levy, 4) 1% City tax, who knows what all else?
Anyone else have a problem with this Levy?
Rosemarie Ives says -- Dear Mayor and City council members,
ReplyDeleteFor a City that espouses "Budgeting by Priorities," I believe that if Public Safety is a priority, it should be paid for from the General Fund rather than going out for another tax increase.
After being responsible for four annual budgets and six biennial budgets I have a good grasp of city finances. I have examined the increase in the overall budget over the past 15 years, and the increases in both the police and fire departments budgets/FTEs over the same period. I don't see the data being presented that substantiates a 100% increase of the already $180 per year I have paid every year since 2008 and will continue to pay.
With the amount of growth that the City has willingly facilitated over the same 15 years, good and responsible budgeting should have figured out what is most important and how to fund it .
I feel physically safe . However, what scares me are the rising expenditures and the City's unwillingness to "live within its means!" With inflation up at 8?% and our assessments rising which inevitably results in paying more taxes (our property bill has gone from $4000 to close to $9000 over the past 15 years), this is the wrong time for a "special purpose" levy even if it's public safety.
Though I applaud the initiation of mental health counselors in both departments, I believe this program should come from the general fund. Also, these staff/services would be an ideal collaboration with Kirkland and perhaps other Eastside cities insuring 24/7 coverage.
I hope that the council will decide that the time is not right for asking/suggesting people vote to raise their taxes. I hope I don't hear the words from any council members saying "let's give the public the right to decide." That is no way to govern! Each of you ran for elective office to be a decision maker.
Should you make the unwise decision to proceed during these challenging times, please accept this email as an application for the "opponents" arguments in the Voters' Pamphlet.
Rosemarie Ives