WHITEWASH?

If the CenTac board wanted an independent audit ignoring its critics, the
Southern Police Institute has delivered

CenTac, Summit County's drug and organized crime task force, has done good
work in spite of itself. That's the conclusion of a team from the Southern
Police Institute in Louisville, Ky. CenTac cops who have been around, know
what they're doing, care about the work and teach newcomers the ropes have
mostly offset poor leadership from the CenTac Board of Control.

Unfortunately, the Investigative Quality Study, which is in final draft
form, also suffers from that same lack of leadership. The SPI team followed
the CenTac board's guidelines, which apparently did not include talking to
anyone who might have a contrarian view of the joint operation of county law
enforcement agencies.

The team, based on its report, looked at one side of the fence. It talked to
CenTac officers, board members and three people from the prosecutors'
office, which is as close as it got to a CenTac critic.

Where are the opinions of the Summit County Common Pleas judges? Jane Bond,
who had to sort out justice in CenTac's recently unraveled escort case,
might have had some interesting thoughts for SPI. So might defense lawyers
who lament CenTac tactics.

The team might have gotten a different perspective from Tom Tomsho, a former
CenTac detective who has been critical of the operation, or Lance Belka,
Sheriff Richard L. Warren's assistant whom he fired in the wake of the
escort case.

In this comparative whitewash of CenTac, Callahan comes in for more
criticism than the task force, some of it deserved. He quit the CenTac
board, a decision SPI recognizes as adding to CenTac's problems instead of
helping to solve them.

But by complaining that CenTac's morale and efficiency have been damaged by
Callahan's decision to remove CenTac's staff prosecutor, SPI fails to
address the issue that Callahan did: Was CenTac's in-house prosecutor so
involved with CenTac's success that questionable tactics were allowed in
unwarranted situations?

The SPI team discovered what is generally acknowledged: CenTac has done
commendable work since its inception in 1987. Given its leadership
deficiencies, CenTac's work might even be considered extraordinary. But
that's the issue. CenTac has no policy manual, no annual budget, no
appointment and training process, no cash spending limits, no goal-setting
and assessment. The list goes on.

Despite laying out what amounts to a nearly total lack of oversight, SPI's
team labels public and media criticism of CenTac as ``knee-jerk reactions.''

The report, for which the county is paying $53,500, suggests the CenTac
board become more involved. It is made up of voting members from the Akron,
Barberton, Copley, Stow, Twinsburg and Cuyahoga Falls police departments, as
well as Sheriff Warren. In addition, the board has non-voting members
representing the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and four federal
agencies.

The SPI team proposes a number of changes to restore public confidence in
CenTac, including distribution to participating police departments of the
cash and property seized by CenTac. The procedure would respond to criticism
that CenTac pursues cases based on the assets the case might contribute to
support future work.

In addition, the SPI team would like to see a spokesman for the CenTac board
address public issues and make people more aware of the task force's
accomplishments. The report stops short, however, of what it should do and
that is to fully define a leadership structure.

Should the sheriff be in charge? Should the board chairmanship be rotated,
as detectives assigned to CenTac will be in the future?

SPI has discovered a CenTac respected in law-enforcement circles despite its
many operating deficiencies. What the SPI team hasn't done in its 103-page
report is provide a critical, multifaceted look at CenTac and offer
leadership specifics. Of course, the CenTac board could do that.