The concerns about the Department of Public Safety and its oversight committee just seem to keep on coming. A report by the Daily yesterday revealed that citizens' problems with DPS rarely go before the oversight committee. Instead, most citizens file a complaint with the department itself. Complaints don't reach the oversight committee until after the matter has been handled by DPS. Instead, the oversight committee hears only those cases filed as grievances, not complaints. The distinction means that the oversight committee only sees complaints once a year, after they have been handled by the department. The system must be reformed so that all cases of suspected misconduct, regardless of terminology, are reviewed by the oversight committee.

The Department of Public Safety was formed in 1992 after a 1990 state law allowed four-year universities to create their own police force on the condition that an oversight committee of faculty, students, and staff exist to check its power. In accordance, the University created the DPS Oversight Committee. A special investigation by the Daily in November revealed that the oversight committee’s members were being improperly — and in some cases illegally — chosen. The committee’s stated purpose is to review grievances against DPS filed with the committee, of which there have only been five over the last six years, according to yesterday's Daily report.

But according to that report by the Daily, the oversight committee isn’t hearing most citizens’ concerns. There are two ways to bring forth an objection with DPS. The first is to file a complaint with DPS, which are dealt with internally. The second option is to file a grievance directly with the oversight committee. Complaints and grievances are indistinguishable in terms of subject matter.

Disturbingly, it seems most of those who approach DPS end up opting for a route that doesn't bring their concern before the oversight committee. Individuals are, in effect, filing their complaints with the very organization they accuse of wrongdoing. At best, this is a conflict of interest.

DPS has argued that, though the committee doesn’t receive all complaints directly, it is made aware of all complaints filed internally through the annual report DPS submits to the committee. But DPS has failed to provide a report to the Oversight Committee every year since 2006, according the Daily’s November investigation. If DPS is going to use the report as a substitute for the oversight committee, it at least has an obligation to present the report each year without fail.

Despite differences in terminology, complaints and grievances are the same thing. It’s redundant that two options even exist. The process could — and should — be streamlined into a single route. There’s no reason for DPS to handle complaints at all, since the purpose of the oversight committee is to provide a fair third party to make sure that DPS is acting properly and within its boundaries. And with only about a dozen complaints filed a year, the committee wouldn’t be overburdened.

It would be wrong to imply that DPS suffers from egregious corruption. Complaints are often filed by people unhappy with their treatment at a traffic stop or after being ejected from a football game for intoxication. But there are serious complaints that warrant the review of a third party. And the committee, not DPS, should decide which complaints deserve to come before it.

The oversight committee must be established as the only judge of DPS complaints. Issues, not terminology, should warrant oversight committee attention.