Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CPR-1992 MINUTES June 15 , 1992 The meeting began at 7 : 20pm with introductions and personal purposes of attendance . We discussed the purpose of our group- to work with the police , but at the same time set guidelines- and we were informed that we must complete a list of recommend- ations in to the Human Services Committee by the week of August 17 . We agreed that the police force will be represented at one of our meetings , but also that we should wait until we have ourselves organized so we do not appear to be attacking the officer( s) . The consensus was reached that we should also have the youth of the Ithaca Community represented . These rep- resentations will give us a better idea of what is really going on and will aid us in making our recommendations . The suggest- ion was made that the Community Police Board should let the community know what the bard' s function is and how the commun- ity can gain access to their services . The process of filing a complaint against the police can be intimidating , so it was suggested that there be an advocate to go through the process with the victim or a mini-training to prepare them for the process . We hope to have a few youth in our next meeting to tell of their experiences with the police . The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday , June 24 at 7pm. It will be held at the Greater Ithaca Activities Center ( GIAC) 318 North Albany Street , in conference room #2 . �9 ( 14 co i i c Lisp faRun d POLICE ABUSE: R€,C� THE NEED FOR CIVILIAN INVESTIGATION 711 � v AND OVERSIGHT a i f 1 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION June 1990 Executive Director ti Norman Siegel Police Abuse Report Protect Coordinator Martin Gottlieb Project Video Coordinator Jeff Clapp Proiect Principal Researcher Leslie Gevirtz Project Consultants Mary Talbot Maxine Smith C.M. Hardt Janet Graham Andrea Kannapell 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2 : From Lindsay to Now 11 Chapter 3 : Measuring Failure 20 Chapter 4 : Tompkins Square Park Experience 39 The Night 43 Non-Complainants 51 The Investigations 56 The Hearing 66 Conclusions 68 Chapter 5: The Example of Other Cities 70 Reforms Elsewhere 72 Brutality vs. Corruption 80 Chapter 6: Recommendations 83 Appendices Notes A-i New York City Charter, §440 -- Civilian complaints against members of the police department B-1 Letter, dated February 8 , 1990, from Martin Gottlieb to Deputy Commissioner Sandra Marsh C-i Letter, dated February 26, 1990, from Deputy Commissioner Sandra M. Marsh to Martin Gottlieb D-i . . $ li CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS ° An effective Civilian Complaint Review Board must be j independent, powerful , and worthy of public trust. It should be ? ;' able to investigate charges of police abuse as exhaustively as t the Police Department is expected to investigate criminal acts of °' r ._ t all kinds and to treat police brutality as seriously as the department treats police corruption. •'' While the police commissioner should maintain broad r = fig` authority in determining discipline, the CCRB should be expected . r to comment on and criticize police policy and action and, in 4 extraordinary circumstances, to overrule the police commissioner c' To that end, we believe the CCRB should: (1) be established outside the Police Department and made up of 12 civilians who are representative of the city's population. The mayor should appoint three members and designate one as the chair; the president of the City Council and the Comptroller should both appoint two representatives each; the 1" ls City Council majority leader should appoint two members and the City Council minority leader should appoint one member. The remaining two members of the CCRB should be the New York City criminal justice coordinator and the chair of the City's Commission on Human Rights. This would make the CCRB responsive A to both elected officials and the public. Chairing the CCRB should be a full-time job with pay comparable to that of other F f'. - 83 - I Icity agency heads. The chair should be assisted by a full-time i general counsel to lead the staff-of- investigators; allegiance: o rs should ave thvePtigatoDewh ertcivilianvwtth t ; i be professionals, paid on a higher scale and be able to compete for career track promotions. This would help to attract and retain an experienced and talented staff; (3) have expanded jurisdiction that includes police or peace officers employed by any city or quasi-city agency. This should include, but not be limited to, the city's Police Department, Transit Authority Police, Housing Authority Police, Sanitation Police, and Health and Hospitals Corporation _.Police; It (4) operate with the understanding that great power over discipline remains with the police commissioner and his counter- parts at the other law enforcement agencies in the city, but that, in exceptional cases, it could overrule them, and impose sanctions on officers. A suggested way of implementing this is detailed below; (5) be given the power to issue subpoenas and requisition copies of reports related to the alleged acts of misconduct from law enforcement agencies. These tools are necessary to develop effective investigations of acts allegedly involving personnel from law enforcement agencies; (6) hold regular public meetings and engage in education and media campaigns to spread awareness of its existence and the rights of citizens in encounters with the police. The CCRB 1 - 84 - • ::':'1 P-' should (A) hold open, public meetings in each borough twice a ' year; (B) publish monthly reports in the City Record as well as ,- in the department orders of each law enforcement agency containing the results of all cases in which sanctions were approved; and (C) issue quarterly reports on the total number of complaints filed in each borough and recent dispositions. The report should include the number of cases recommended for sanctions by a CCRB panel, an appropriate law enforcement agency head, the full CCRB and how many complaints were dismissed; (7) have the authority to investigate, hold hearings, and issue reports on patterns and practices of police abuse. Beyond disciplining individual cases of police brutality and abuse of 1 power, the CCRB would track systemic patterns of abuses and hold departments and commissioners accountable for their actions or l'i inactions; (8) maintain procedural safeguards to protect the rights of ::-:i: ' civilians and police officers. This would encourage both to have - more faith in the proceedings. Detailed operating procedures for K the CCRB and its investigators should include a provision " excluding from an officer's personnel file at the Police -' ` !jam. Department or other law enforcement agency information about a 7 I case against him or her that was not substantiated. i� 1 Here is a how a new procedure could work. All complaints against law enforcement officers should be referred to the CCRB. They could be made in writing or to a 24- hour telephone hotline that would be publicized extensively. - 85 - • b° 3!! Complaints should then be assigned to investigative teams. Their findings of fact and recommendations for action should go to a panel of three CCRB members. The panel would consider the investigators ' report and make its own recommendation to the full board. s, I The full board, considering the panel ' s and investigatory team' s reports, would make recommendations to the police i commissioner or appropriate law enforcement agency head or to the district attorney. T The panel and board could also reject the staff' s findings and dismiss the complaint before it is forwarded to the police commissioner or other law enforcement agency head. Law enforcement agency commissioners could either accept or i reject the CCRB' s recommendations. Previous police commissioners have frequently disregarded the board' s recommendations, and officers involved in brutality or abuse cases have received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. To convince both the commissioners and the public that police brutality will be taken seriously, we recommend that the CCRB have the power to override the rejection of its recommendations by a commissioner in extreme situations. I i When a commissioner discards the CCRB recommendations, the 1 matter should be returned to the board for review. The full 12- member CCRB, would need a 2/3 vote, to sustain its original • i disciplinary recommendation over the commissioner's or other law enforcement agency head's veto. If the override is effected, the - 86 - Ili: • • case would go to an administrative law judge for a formal hearing. If the 2/3 vote is not obtained, the decision of the police commissioner or other law enforcement agency head would become effective. Of course, if a commissioner accepts the CCRB recommendations, the officer also should be entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge and to be represented by counsel. J. The administrative law judge should be empowered to hear evidence, make formal findings and recommend sanctions to the appropriate law enforcement agency head. The administrative law judge should apply a "clear and convincing" standard of proof. jam-7 If the findings of the administrative law judge are ignored by the head of a law enforcement agency, the case could be reconsidered by the entire CCRB. If 3/4 of the CCRB's members vote to restore the sanctions, the agency head would be overruled and the sanctions imposed. The sanctions could include fine, reprimand, suspension and 4- = dismissal. If the case against an officer is dismissed or the officer exonerated, the complaint should be expunged from his employment file at the Police Department or other law enforcement agency. Finally, we recommend that citizens engaging in demonstrations, picketing or other public activities, bring videotape cameras to those events and activities. More than anything else, it was the presence of such cameras in the crowds - 87 - kis .ry • of citizens at Tompkins Square Park that forced city officials to acknowledge publicly the police misconduct, and has raised anew the issue of effectively monitoring the police in New York City. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION June 1990 N.B. The NYCLU gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the following persons in connection with the preparation of this report: Donna Lieberman, Esq. , Arthur Eisenberg, Esq. , Eve Cary, Esq. , Fran Bisagna, Steven L. Glauberman, Esq. , Earl Ward, Esq. , Carmen Santiago, Georgette Todd, Tom Tyburski, Jim Drobnick, Massimo De Rossi, William Futornick, Amy Held, Kathleen Kermian, Geoffrey Simon, S. Wyeth McAdam, Sarah Margolies, Clayton Patterson and Paul Garrin. - 88 - POLICE BOARD COMMITTEE GIAC; ITHACA, NY; 14850 Minutes from the Police Board Committee on July 14, 1992 (7:00pm - 8:45pm) Present: Mayor Ben Nichols, Alfredo Rossi, Chief Harland McEwen, Carol Peterson, John Marchum, Marilyn Ray, Gregg Thomas, Richard Williams Introductions were made. Chief McEwen made a presentation on the history of the Police Board that included handouts of articles as well as the oral presentation. The next meeting was agreed upon (Tuesday; July 21, 1992) . The meeting was dismissed. Minutes submitted by Richard Williams TASK FORCE ON POLICE - COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY POLICE BOARD Notes from meeting held 7/21/92 Present:John Marcham, Alfredo Rossi, Sara Snenk, Lillie Tucker, and Marilyn Ray (note-taker) . 1.John presented some thoughts for consideration by the sub-committee (copy attached) . He also discussed the limitations of current journalistic understandings and reporting on issues related to the Police Board and suggested education of the local members of the press. 2.Sara reported that not everyone on the Police Board had been available to attend the meeting as planned. Most of the Police Board will be available for a meeting next Wednesday. Therefore, we decided to CHANGE NEXT WEEK'S MEETING FROM TUESDAY TO WEDNESDAY/ pv 4/ € 3.We briOns_torme0 some of i9leaq th t m}.ght 1e d to our recommendations: leciep 7 04,/-P ` C04 77E al * Develop Advocacy leaders•n differe�ft areas of the city to act as P Y Y liaisons to the Police Board * Have the Police Board train advocates * Police Board hold some sort of community meetings to hear grievances —t are not coming though the formal channels * Police Board to be required to make au,_..Annual.._Reportt to the Community eate By-laws for the Police Board that include 3 unexcused absences by a member would result in being ousted from the Board * Request the Mayor's screening for Police Board appointees include a description of and commitment to spend the time required for active participation * Police Board to expand the explanation to the complainant regarding the Board's findings and action taken, especially when the complaint is unfounded * Request the/Police Board to find some way to survey the �clommunity ��.regarding - Ud // 04 o %1c ,f 4i7;cI p�GL �/yl•�e1`5 4 We deci ed to ASK RICK TO GO THROUGH HIS NOTES AND MAKE A LIST FOR THE SUB- COMMITTEE OF ALL THE OTHER IDEAS WE HAVE ALREADY GENERATED 5.We decided to HAVE A LONGER MEETING NEXT WEEK. THE FIRST HOUR WILL BE WITH THE POLICE BOARD AND SHOULD FOCUS CLOSELY ON THEIR WORK, PROCEDURES, STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING WILL FOCUS ON NARROWING DOWN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECIDING WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE NEED AND HOW TO GET IT 6.Sara reported that the PBA is planning to appoint an officer to the committee. In light of previous discussions regarding our work and committee membership, we agreed to reconsider this issue. 1' Id 070, 4 de- ?ar l 04 /e lrc�ll;nift ,C'a', 1 IFS ` fhe, / Y q �crre (dor l� ocr) re /riff i, )/ l'm/ ;..r CORNELL U N I V ER S I T Y Dean of Students Office 103 Barnes Hall Telephone:607-255-6839 Ithaca,NY 14853-1601 Facsimile: 607-255-1116 Ithaca Community Police Board Committee July 29 meeting summary Present: Sara Shenk, Alfredo Rossi, John Marcham; and Kirby Edmonds of the Police Board. We met from 7 p.m. until the last two left at 9 : 45. This was Alfredo Rossi ' s last meeting. He leaves for New York August 3 . He was thanked him for his regular attendance and many contributions. Full minutes were not kept, and we didn't have minutes of the July 21 meeting, but we charged ahead, debating a couple of key issues, disagreeing on occasion. Marcham, the writer of these notes, said he would try to frame some of the discussion in the form of "resolutions" or statements that could be debated at the next meeting to focus thinking, and if adopted or modified could be included in our committee ' s final or interim report to the full Task Force and Common Council. He also reported on the Task Force steering committee meeting of Monday, July 27, which he attended as representative of the chairman of our committee, Rick Williams. He and Sara Shenk from our committee were both present. They noted that the minutes of our July 21 meeting, which he carried to the Steering Committee from Rick Williams, included two ideas that had not been discussed at the July 21 meeting but apparently had been discussed at earlier meetings: 1) that the city hire an investigator for the Police Board, and 2) that additional members be elected to the Police Board by the GIAC and Southside communities. Early talk July 29 focussed on Kirby Edmonds 's experience as a Police Board member. He said he had done a lot of thinking and planning about the liason function of the board, which he thought was at least as important as the investigation function of the board. He stressed the importance of nailing down regular meeting dates for the board. After the regular date for meeting was changed, he had not been able to attend for a period of time, and had therefore been unable to follow up on some of his earlier ideas. Sara Shenk agreed that having only three of five members present made continuity and follow-through difficult. Both stressed the importance of a commitment to attendance before board members agree to serve. Possible statements for the committee report: General observation: The complaints mechanism alone is not going to bring about changes, particularly improvements, in community-police relations. Community contacts, police involvement in the community, advocates, etc. are much more likely. Board appointments: 1. The committee favors a continued five-person board, as at present, with three-year, staggered terms. 2 . The committee does not favor election of additional representatives from any particular neighborhood or segment of the community. Election would not necessarily assure more dedicated commissioners. It could create two classes of commissioners, cutting down on the cohesion of the board. The way would be opened to adding representatives of other factions, and making the board larger and potentially even less cohesive and dedicated. 3 . The mayor should take greater responsibility to assure that commissioners once appointed are able to serve, and to propose replacements as soon as a commissioner proves unable to serve. 4 . The board should adopt bylaws to require review by the mayor after a commissioner misses two meetings, and replacement after missing three. Investigator: The committee does not favor the hiring of an "independent" investigator. Many reasons: Not clear exactly to whom such a person would report, but in any case would diminish the role of commissioners in carrying out investigations. Not clear how such a person would be found in this community (former FBI, state police, or policemen?) , if hired hourly for current 12 cases (4 hours times 12 investigations) might have 50 hours or work a year. Reporting lines: to chief, to mayor, to chairman of police board? Would person be trusted in community? Confidentiality. How much would be available to the person? Community "advocates" : (Also could be called ombudsmen/persons, associates, whatever. ) Seek volunteers in key places, offices in the community, etc. where complainants may appear--people available to discuss the opportunity to complain and be available to help a person in the process. Give volunteers basic training in complaint and other procedures of the Police Board, and give them a supply of forms. Some offices mentioned were GIAC, Southside, OAR, DSS, schools. Individuals: Lucy Brown, a person in the boxing program at GIAC, Ray Waller, community director at Southside. Complaint documents: Further refinement of the language on the complaint form and procedures sheets is possible. (A committee member [me] has volunteered to undertake this and the board chair [Sara] said she'd welcome the offer. ) Board reports: A more complete annual written report of the board's complaint and other activity is possible. Until community belief in the process increases, quarterly verbal reports to the Common Council might be considered. (Again, a committee member agreed to work with the board to the extent confidentiality rules allow, to make the written report more complete, understandable, and believable. ) Staff for the Community Police Board: We discussed pros and cons of having the chief 's secretary as the staff of the board and came to no conclusion. Board might ask help on more matters, or one or more community volunteers might help with phone calls, reports, etc. Board role with the police department budget, as "advocate" with Common Council: Marcham said he'd apparently misunderstood earlier testimony before the committee, and now that he had mentioned this, he found no support for it among police board or committee members and withdraws it. We don't need to include the idea in any recommendations or report we make. Community interest and support: Everyone is glad so many people expressed initial interest in the task force's work, and hopes to retain that interest, both through the "advocates" mentioned above, and in other ways. But few people have been regular in attending meetings, and the problem of keeping interest among any volunteers is great. No solution proposed. And the job of maintaining a list of advocates, training them, and supplying information adds to the time demands on the board. The task force might be continued after September, possibly as one or two committees, to concentrate its busyness? John Marcham, 414 E. Buffalo St. 273-5754 P. S. : For persons not present July 21, I enclose a copy of a memo I gave out at that meeting. It has not been discussed in detail at the July 21 or 29 meetings. I 've greatly revised some of the ideas as a result of talk at later meetings. To: Committee on the Community Police Board of the Police-Community Relations Task Force From: John Marcham July 21, 1992 A couple of early thoughts by a new member 1. What are the "other community groups" mentioned in the task force mission statement? How are we reaching them? 2 . With an Aug. 17 deadline for task force recommendations, when will our committee' s recommendations need to be done? and when will the four committees meet together? 3 . After reading all the stuff from the chief, I think our task force might recommend a new complaint form and explanation, with the explanation drawn largely from the "Police Board Notes, " which are much clearer than the official explanation. And I 'd be glad to take a crack at simpler words for the form itself. Also, the summary of a year's complaints is not adequate to give anyone understanding or confidence in what the board really does. I 'd be glad to explore what more info could be added to the report of each complaint. 4 . Some people expect us to recommend "strengthening" the Police Board. One way is by legislation, which would mean state and city laws, which I seriously doubt could be accomplished. Certainly not quickly. Should we discuss that question? More likely to be achieved would be a strengthening of the board as a working group by giving it more staff, providing for quick questioning and removal of members who can't do the work, and holding the mayor responsible for the board's performance. Can we discuss this? 5. Is our committee or one of the other committees of the task force going to explore what other agencies in the neighborhoods and community can assist the Community Police Board in discussing police-community problems? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. " How do we get at festering gripes before they break out in serious complaints? As an example, the board does not seem able to do more than investigate complaints. Have any groups (churches, GIAC, Southside Center, neighborhood associations) been approached or come forward to talk about the problems which our task force was formed to address? 6. Long run: What role did the Common Council or individual aldermen and women or the mayor play in raising questions and seeking solutions regarding community-police relatins? To some extent the creation of our task force can be seen as evidence of a failure of existing machinery. Our deadline is so short that we' ll be lucky to identify more than a few quick fixes, but we could fix responsibility on existing organizations rather than try to invent any new wheels. Police-Community Relations Task Force Committee on the Community-Police Board Notes of the 8/tV/92 meeting .z6 PRESENT: Birthe Darden, John Johnson, Myra Malkin (for Gregg Thomas) , Sara Shenk, Irene Stein, Lillie Tucker, and Marilyn Ray (notetaker). 1- Report of the Steering Committee Meeting held 8/24/92: a- The Report of the Jury Committee was unanimously accepted for transmittal to Common Council. b- I was asked to present a summary of our report and Chief McEwen and Drew Martin (PBA) gave responses to several of our recommendations: * The Chief objected to increasing the Board from 5 to 7 saying that it would not necessary if the members fully participated; * The Chief stated that the Union contract "forbids the use of an independent investigator" and it was not needed, Drew agreed saying that the officers only cooperated with the Board now "out of curtesy to the Chief"; * The Chief also said he was opposed to designating seats for any group because it had caused problems in Albany and because the Mayor was in fact appointing a representational membership so it wasn't needed, Drew agreed and objected to designating seats to a group because they made a fuss. 2- After discussing these objections and their ramifications for our work, we reviewed the working draft 8/26 of our report. 3- The major recommendation which remains for us to work on relates to the necessity of recommending the life of the committee be extended for us to look into the feasibility of recommending an independent investigator. If we can get sufficient information to make a decision by next week, it may not be necessary to continue. I offered to talk to the City Attorney and the Mayor's office regarding this question and report at next week's meeting. Sara offered to look into feasibility issues as they relate to the Board (e.g. stationery, etc. ) . NEXT WEEK WE'LL GO OVER A FINAL DRAFT OF THE REPORT AND, IF WE CAN WORK THIS OUT, NEXT WEEK MAY BE OUR LAST MEETING! ! ! Lillie offered to make arrangements for our next meeting. NEXT MEETING: 7:00pm. WED. SEPT. 2 SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY CENTER ,S FP 0 4 IQQP Police-Community Relations Task Force Committee on the Community-Police Board Notes of the 9/1/92 meeting PRESENT: Sara Shenk, Irene Stein, Gregg Thomas, Lillie Tucker, and Marilyn Ray (notetaker) . 1- The Community-Police Board requested a formal meeting with the Steering Committee in order to object to some of the recommendations our committee is working on. The Steering Committee referred the request to us for response. 2- The Board has the following three primary objections: a- Apparently, the name 'Civilian Review Board' is a5'loaded for the police as the current name is for some sections of the community, and the Board objects to changing the name to the Civilian Review Board; b- The Board is split 2 to 2 on the idea of increasing the Board from 5 to 7; and c- The Board is opposed to designating seats for any group because it would become difficult to limit the numbers of designated seats. For example, last year the Asian-American community had some complaints and might be justified in seeking a designated seat. etc. 3- We reviewed Draft #3 and changed some language in response to the Board's objections. 4- It was decided to invite the Board to meet with us for an hour on Friday afternoon, September 11. Since GIAC and Southside are both undergoing renovations and not available for our meeting, Sara and Irene will make time and place arrangements and notify everyone. 5- After the meeting with the Board on the 11th, the Committee will meet for an hour to finalize our recommendations. The goal is us to finish our work so that I can have the final draft to present to the Steering Committee at their next meeting, Sept. 14th. 6- Please read Draft #4 and come prepared to discuss it with the Board and recommend final changes in the following Committee meeting. NEXT MEETING: FRI. SEPT. 11 TIME (4:00 or 51-04-pm) AND PLACE TO BE ANNOUNCED FT-4(7j � ?n, Ct//y All''// MEMO TO: TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY- POLICE BOARD: Birthe Darden, John Johnson, John Marcham, Alfredo Rossi, Sara Shenk, Irene Stein, Cynthia Telfair, Gregg Thomas, Lillie Tucker, and Rick Williams FROM: Marilyn Ray SUBJECT: (1) Final Version of our Report (2) Report on Steering Committee Process for Release DATE: 9/22/92 At our last meeting, on 9/16/92, after we reviewed our report, you requested me to clarify with the Steering Committee the process it will follow now that most Committee Reports are completed and also to request an opportunity for our committee to participate in the public release of our report. These subjects were discussed at the Steering Committee meeting yesterday and that committee agreed to the following process: 1- All Committee Reports will be passed on to Common Council's Human Services Committee as presented; 2- The Steering Committee will write a Memo to accompany the reports in which the Steering Committee will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the individual reports from a comprehensive perspective and discusses the various recommendations it supports; 3- The goal will be for the Steering Committee to complete this work by mid to late October; 4- There will be one public meeting called to present all the reports; and 5- Each Committee will be invited to present their report at the public meeting. When I presented our final report to the Steering Committee, the name we had finally selected, Citizen's Commission on Community Relations, continued to generate a lot of discussion. The Mayor, Chief McEwen, and Sara were opposed to our suggested name, saying it did not clearly explain what it was about and needed to have the word "Police" in it. Enclosed is the final version of our report. I'll be in contact when we need to meet to discuss the public meeting. Final Version THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPORT OF COMMUNITY-POLICE BOARD COMMITTEE September 21, 1992 INTRODUCTION At a rally and two subsequent community meetings held in May and early June, 1992, African-Americans, members of other minority groups, and other residents of Ithaca expressed various concerns about police - community relations; ques- tioned the Community-Police Board's complaint procedures and the complaint investigatory process; and expressed dissatisfaction with the jury selection process. As a result of these meetings, the Mayor created the TASK FORCE and designated four committees, one of which is the Community-Police-Board Commit- tee. The Committee was charged with investigating the causes for and substance of the lack of confidence in the Community-Police Board, and with making recom- mendations to the Mayor for changes in the Board that would address the prob- lems. This Committee began meeting on June 15, 1992 and has met thirteen times since then. The Committee reviewed: articles on how Community-Police Boards in other communities are organized, and membership, investigative procedures, and the success or lack thereof for such Boards; the Police Benevolent Association Union contract with the City; the history of the present Board; current civil- ian complaint procedures, forms, and reports; and current Board policies. At the Committee's invitation, Chief Harlan McEwen attended:one meeting, answered questions, and talked at length about his role regarding complaints against members of the Police Force, and the police relations with the Board. Although Sara Shenk, chair of the Board, was an active member of the Committee, the Committee also invited the other three Commissioners to several meetings, and Kirby Edmonds and Carol Seligmann met with the Committee a number of times. It is clear from this Spring's public meetings and from previous such meet- ings that many people do not see the Board as a "useful, accessible or respon- sive resource". The Committee did not take upon itself the job of evaluating the quality of the Board's past work. Instead, the Committee has responded to the concerns expressed by those who attended the public meetings and our charge by examining the policies, procedures and structure of the Board. In this manner, the Committee's recommendations are forward looking and do not question the dedication, time, and hard work provided by members of the Board to the community. • We conclude that in order to gain the community's confidence, it is necessary r�= Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 2 that substantial changes be made as soon as possible in the manner in which the Board handles complaints, interacts with the community, and in its accountabil- ity to the community. As a result of our work, the Committee voted to respect- fully make the following recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS 1- Board Name: The name of the Board has been construed by many members of the community as indicating a lack of independence from the police structures. RECOMMENDATION I: The name of the Community-Police Board shall be changed to Citizen's Commission on Community Relations and members shall be known as Citizen Commissioners.1 2- Board Structure: The Board is composed of five Commissioners appointed by the Mayor and subject to the approval of the Common Council. The Committee found that attendance at Board meetings and involvement in the work of the Board has been sporadic and that the majority of the work has fallen to two or three Commissioners. Additionally, since this Committee is making several recommendations that will increase the work of the Board, in order to accomp- lish these tasks, additional Citizen Commissioners will be required. Finally, questions were also raised about how well the composition of the Board reflects the community. RECOMMENDATION II: The Commission will be increased from five to seven Com- missioners. RECOMMENDATION III: The Mayor's screening procedures for appointees to the Commission shall include a description of the work of the Board and time commitment required of Commissioners, and that before being appointed, a prospective appointee must make a commitment to spend the amount of time necessary for active participation on the Commission. RECOMMENDATION IV: When a Citizen Commissioner has been absent without good cause from three meetings of the Commission in any calendar year, the Mayor shall be informed and that person's appointment withdrawn. The Committee is strongly of the opinion that it is important that the Commis- sion be representative of the community as a whole and most specifically in- 'Hereinafter, "Board" will be used to refer to current activities and procedures, and "Commission" will refer to future activities and procedures. I.' —1 Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 3 clude representation by segments of the community that have traditionally not expressed trust in the Board or the fairness of the police such as the Gay and Lesbian and the African-American community, and specifically, young African- American men. Toward that end the Committee makes the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION V: The Mayor shall solicit the names of candidates from a range of community groups including but not limited to the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the African-American community, and organizations that work with youth AND shall appoint commissioners from these lists in such a manner as to ensure maximum diversity among sitting members. Further, before approving appointments to the commission, the Common Council will evaluate the effect each appointment will have on the diversity of representation on the Commis- sion. At the current time, the Board receives secretarial support from the Police Chief's secretary. This structure means that, although members may communicate in writing privately and confidentially, the Board cannot communicate official- ly in writing about any part of its work, however tentative or exploratory, independent of the organization it is among other things charged to investi- gate. This structure may contribute to the public perception that the Board lacks independence. RECOMMENDATION VI: Support services for the Commission must be located out- side the Police Department in some office that will provide it with complete confidentiality for their communications. 3- Board Procedures: The Committee found several aspects of the Board's cur- rent procedures serve neither to facilitate the filing of complaints nor to engender confidence in the investigatory process. * First, the complaint form itself is complicated, uses formal legal language, and can be difficult for some people to complete. RECOMMENDATION VII: The complaint form must be simplified and rewritten in plain language. * Second, it appears that the Community is not generally aware of the existence of the Board, the formal or informal procedures for filing complaints, how to get assistance with filing a complaint, nor what to expect after filing a complaint. In addition to our recommendation for addressing this situation, we encourage the Commission to seek speaking opportunities with a full range of community groups and organizations. Finally, we suggest organizations whose Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 4 members feel aggrieved also find a way to discuss police activities and rela- tions as a periodic part of their group's program, assigning the function to an individual or committee. RECOMMENDATION VIII: The Commission shall develop an informational pamphlet and use the press, speaking engagements at community groups and organiza- tions, and public forums to increase its visibility within the community, to describe its work and procedures, and to increase its accountability to the community. * Third, the first interview and all subsequent interviews with a complainant and witnesses is presently conducted by a Commissioner and either the Police Chief or his assistant. This procedure is believed to have contributed to the Board's perceived lack of independence. RECOMMENDATION IX: At the very least, the Commission will initiate the in- vestigatory process by meeting alone with the complainant to explain the investigatory process, to clarify the facts of the complaint, and to offer the complainant an opportunity to seek the assistance of an advocate. The Citizen Commissioner and the complainant would then meet together with the Chief or his deputy to pursue the complaint. * Fourth, there are indications that a significant number of complaints are not coming through either the existing formal or informal channels. RECOMMENDATION X: The Commission, will work together with the African-Ameri- can community and members of other minority groups to develop a network of lay advocates to assist people who wish to make an informal complaint or to file a formal complaint, and throughout the complaint process. RECOMMENDATION XI: The Commission, Neighborhood Legal Services, members of the Tompkins County Defense Bar, and/or other community groups will be re- quested to provide the training for the lay advocates. 4- Commission-Community Accountability: In order to increase community trust in the Commission and in the police, it is essential that mechanisms be found to make the Commission more accountable to the public. Current procedures provide only minimal feedback either to persons who have filed a complaint or to the community at large regarding the work of the Board, the results of investiga- tions, or actions taken following an investigation. Additionally, there are indications that the Board plays an important role in recommending changes in police approach even when an investigation does not find grounds for disciplin- - -' Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 5 ary action but finds an incident could have been handled better. It is also clear that the public is unaware of this important aspect of the Board's role. RECOMMENDATION XII: The Commission shall expand the explanation to the com- plainant regarding its findings and all actions that it recommends as a result from its findings. RECOMMENDATION XIII: The Commission's role shall be clarified and explained to complainants and to the general public so that it is generally understood that when an investigation does not lead to disciplinary action other remed- ial action may be recommended. RECOMMENDATION XIV: The Commission will be required to give semi-annual substantive reports to the Mayor, the Common Council, and to the community regarding all their activities and the changes they have sought and achieved. 5- Independent Investigator: Finally, the Committee believes it is imperative that both the perception and reality of the independence of the Commission's complaint investigations be improved. Research has shown that independent, professional, investigations of complaints is critical for public confidence in the process. Furthermore, since Commissioners, though dedicated and hardwork- ing, are not trained investigators and since it is not possible for an agency to investigate itself impartially, we feel it imperative that this option be fully reviewed. The Committee envisions that the investigator's primary respon- sibilities will be to locate and interview witnesses in the community, estab- lish the physical circumstances surrounding an incident, and complete such other assignments as the Citizen Commissioners shall choose to assign, within the constraints of existing laws. RECOMMENDATION XV: The City Attorney shall explore the feasibility of the Commission having the assistance of an independent investigator to assist Citizen Commissioners in the investigation of complaints; and, if feasible, recommend to the Mayor the steps which are necessary to assure the Commission has this assistance as soon as possible; or, if not feasible at this time, recommend whatever steps might be necessary to make it possible to ensure the Commission has this assistance at the earliest possible time. MEMO TO: TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY- POLICE BOARD: Birthe Darden, John Johnson, John Marcham, Alfredo Rossi, Sara Shenk, Irene Stein, Cynthia Telfair, Gregg Thomas, Lillie Tucker, and Rick Williams FROM: Marilyn Ray SUBJECT: Up date on Steering Committee activities DATE: 10/20/92 I. The Steering Committee will forward our report and the reports of the other working committees to Common Council's Human Services Committee for consideration: MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1992 AT 7:30 IN CITY HALL If you can possibly attend, please plan to do so. A copy of the packet will be mailed to you as soon as possible. II. The Mayor and Alvin Nelson, Chair of the Steering Committee, will hold a press conference to release the reports Thursday afternoon, October, 22. III. The Steering Committee struggled with our report and took the following actions which are conveyed in a cover letter that accompanies all the reports: a) the Steering Committee unanimously endorsed our recommendations number II through XIV and a majority supported our recommendation number XV; and b) the Steering Committee voted to recommended Common Council rename the Community-Police Board as the Citizen's Commission on Community-Police Relations. Chief McEwen and the Mayor were a non-voting members of the Steering Committee. They both opposed our recommendations number II and XV and the Chief also opposed recommendation number VI. They will probably send separate letters to Common Council explaining their opposition to these recommendations. IV. The Steering Committee has not yet formulated a plan for a public meeting to discuss the work of the Task Force with the community, but I'll let you know when something is decided. MEMO TO: TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY- POLICE BOARD: Birthe Darden, John Johnson, John Marcham, Alfredo Rossi, Sara Shenk, Irene Stein, Cynthia Telfair, Gregg Thomas, Lillie Tucker, and Rick Williams FROM: Marilyn Ray SUBJECT: Final Update DATE: 2/17/93 After all our hard work last summer, I thought you might like an update on what is happening to our report. The Task Force Steering Committee forwarded our report and the reports of the other working committees to Common Council's Human Services Committee for consideration at their meeting October 26, 1992 at 7:30 in City Hall. The Human Services Committee decided that not all the tasks fell appropriately within the Committee's responsibilities. Therefore, it reviewed each sub-committee report and decided which office of city government and/or which Common Council Committee was appropriate to handle specific recommendations. The Human Services Committee has completed their review, and I have just received the enclosed copy of our report with notes in the margins indication to which office or committee that section was sent for further action. The Task Force Steering Committee is scheduled to finally complete its work and disband the end of the month (we kept going until the Police/Community Training Committee completed it's police and community surveys, but haven't met for several months) . If you have questions, please contact John Johnson, Chair, Human Services Committee (home: 272-8442; work: 273-4190) . THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPORT OF COMMUNITY-POLICE BOARD COMMITTEE September 21, 1992 INTRODUCTION At a rally and two subsequent community meetings held in May and early June, 1992, African-Americans, members of other minority groups, and other residents of Ithaca expressed various concerns about police - community relations; questioned the Community-Police Board's complaint procedures and the complaint investigatory process; and expressed 'dissatisfaction with the jury selection process. As a result of these meetings, the Mayor created the TASK FORCE and designated four committees, one of which is the Com- munity-Police-Board Committee. The Committee was charged with investigating the causes for and substance of the lack of confidence in the Community- Police Board, and with making recommendations to the Mayor for changes in the Board that would address the problems. This Committee began meeting on June 15, 1992 and has met thirteen times since then. The Committee reviewed: articles on how Community-Police Boards in other communities are organized, and membership, investigative procedures, and the success or lack thereof for such Boards; the Police Benevolent Association Union contract with the City; the history of the present Board; current civilian complaint procedures, forms, and reports; and current Board policies. At the Committee's invitation, Chief Harlan McEwen attended one meeting, answered questions, .and talked at length about his role regarding complaints against members of the Police Force, and the police relations with the Board. Although Sara Shenk, chair of the Board, was an active member of the Committee, the Committee also invited the other three Commissioners to several meetings, and.Kirby Edmonds and Carol Selig- mann met with the Committee a number of times. It is clear from this Spring's public meetings and from previous such meetings that many people do not see the Board as a "useful, accessible or responsive resource". The Committee did not take upon itself the job of evaluating the quality of the Board's past work. Instead, the Committee has responded to the concerns expressed by those who attended the public meet- ings and our 'charge by examining the policies, procedures and structure of the Board. In this manner, the Committee's recommendations are forward looking and do not question the dedication, time, and hard work provided by members of the Board to the community. We conclude that in order to gain the community's confidence, it is necessary that substantial changes be made as soon as possible in the manner in which the Board handles complaints, interacts with the community, and in its accountability to the community. As a result of our work, the Committee voted to respectfully make the following recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS 1- Board Name: The name of the Board has been construed by many members of the community as indicating a lack of independence from the police struc- tures. 19 Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 2 Police Board RECOMMENDATION I: The name of the Community-Police Board shall be Human Services changed to Citizen's Commission on Community Relations and members Committee shall be known as Citizen Commissioners. ' 2- Board Structure: The Board is composed of five Commissioners appointed by the Mayor and subject to the approval of the Common Council. The Commit- tee found that attendance at Board meetings and involvement in the work of the Board has been sporadic and that the majority of the work has fallen to two or three Commissioners. Additionally, since this Committee is making several recommendations that will increase the work of the Board, in order to accomplish these tasks, additional Citizen Commissioners will be re- quired. Finally, questions were also raised about how well the composition of the Board reflects the community. Police Board RECOMMENDATION II: The Commission will be increased from five to seven HSC Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION III: The Mayor's screening procedures for appointees to Mayor the Commission shall include a description of the work of the Board HSC and time commitment required of Commissioners, and that before being appointed, a prospective appointee must make a commitment to spend the amount of time necessary for active participation on the Commission. RECOMMENDATION IV: When a Citizen Commissioner has been absent without Mayor good cause from three meetings of the Commission in any calendar year, HSC the Mayor shall be informed and that person's appointment withdrawn. The Committee is strongly of the opinion that it is important that the Commission be representative of the community as a whole and most specifi- cally include representation by segments of the community that have tradi- tionally not expressed trust in the Board or the fairness of the police such as the Gay and Lesbian and the African-American community, and specif- ically, young African-American men. Toward that end the Committee makes the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION V: The Mayor shall solicit the names of candidates from a range of community groups including but not limited to the Gay and Mayor Lesbian Task Force, the African-American community, and organizations HSC that work with youth AND shall appoint commissioners from these lists in such a manner as to ensure maximum diversity among sitting members. Further, before approving appointments to the commission, the Common Council will evaluate the effect each appointment will have on the diversity of representation on the Commission. At the current time, the Board receives secretarial support from the Police Chief's secretary. This structure means that, although members may communi- cate in writing privately and confidentially, the Board cannot communicate officially in writing about any part of its work, however tentative or exploratory, independent of the organization it is among other things 'Hereinafter, "Board" will be used to refer to current activities and procedures, and "Commission" will refer to future activities and procedures. 20 Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 3 charged to investigate. This structure may contribute to the public percep- tion that the Board lacks independence. RECOMMENDATION VI: Support services for the Commission must be located Mayor outside the Police Department in some office that will provide it with City complete confidentiality for their communications. Attorne 3- Board Procedures: The Committee found several aspects of the Board's current procedures serve neither to facilitate the filing of complaints nor to engender confidence in the investigatory process. * First, the complaint form itself is complicated, uses formal legal lan- guage, and can be difficult for some people to complete. RECOMMENDATION VII: The complaint form must be simplified and rewrit- ten in plain language. PoliceBoarc Police Chief * Second, it appears that the Community is not generally aware of the HSC existence of the Board, the formal or informal procedures for filing com- plaints, how to get assistance with filing a complaint, nor what to expect after filing a complaint. In addition to our recommendation for addressing this situation, we encourage the Commission to seek speaking opportunities with a full range of community groups and organizations. Finally, we sug- gest organizations whose members feel aggrieved also find a way to discuss police activities and relations as a periodic part of their group's pro- gram, assigning the function to an individual or committee. RECOMMENDATION VIII: The Commission shall develop an informational pamphlet and use, the press, speaking engagements at community groups Police and organizations, and public forums to increase its visibility within Board the community, to describe its work and procedures, and to increase HSC its accountability to the community. * Third, the first interview and all subsequent interviews with a complain- ant and witnesses is presently conducted by a Commissioner and either the Police Chief or his assistant. This procedure is believed to have contribu- ted to the Board's perceived lack of independence. RECOMMENDATION IX: At the very least, the Commission will initiate the Police investigatory process by meeting alone with the complainant to explain Board the investigatory process, to clarify the facts of the complaint, and HSC to offer the complainant an opportunity to seek the assistance of an advocate. The Citizen Commissioner and the complainant would then meet together with the Chief or his deputy to pursue the complaint. • * Fourth, there are indications that a significant number of complaints are not coming through either the existing formal or informal channels. RECOMMENDATION X: The Commission, will work together with the African- American community and members of other minority groups to develop a HSC network of lay advocates to assist people who wish to make an informal complaint or to file a formal complaint, and throughout the complaint process. 21 1 ♦ Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 4 HSC RECOMMENDATION XI: The Commission, Neighborhood Legal Services, mem- bers of the Tompkins County Defense Bar, and/or other community groups will be requested to provide the training for the lay advocates. 4- Commission-Community Accountability: In order to increase community trust in the Commission and in the police, it is essential that mechanisms be found to make the Commission more accountable to the public. Current procedures provide only minimal feedback either to persons who have filed a complaint or to the community at large regarding the work of the Board, the results of investigations, or actions taken following an investigation. Additionally, there are indications that the Board plays an important role in recommending changes in police approach even when an investigation does not find grounds for disciplinary action .but finds an incident could have been handled better. It is also clear that the public is unaware of this important aspect of the Board's role. Police Board RECOMMENDATION XII: The Commission shall expand the explanation to the HSC complainant regarding its findings and all actions that it recommends as a result from its findings. Police Board RECOMMENDATION XIII: The - Commission's role shall be clarified and HSC explained to complainants and to the general public so that it is generally understood that when an investigation does not lead to disciplinary action other remedial action may be recommended. Police Board RECOMMENDATION XIV: The Commission will be required to give semi- HSC annual substantive reports to the Mayor, the Common Council, and to the community regarding all their activities and the changes they have sought and achieved. 5- Independent Investigator: Finally, the Committee believes it is impera- tive that both the perception and reality of the independence of the Com- mission's complaint investigations be improved. Research has shown that independent, professional, investigations of complaints is critical for public confidence in the process. Furthermore, since Commissioners, though dedicated and hardworking, are not trained investigators and since it is not possible for an agency to investigate itself impartially, we feel it imperative that this option be fully reviewed. The Committee envisions that the investigator's primary responsibilities will be to locate and interview witnesses in the community, establish the physical circumstances surround- ing an incident, and complete such other assignments as the Citizen Commis- sioners shall choose to assign, within the constraints of existing laws. RECOMMENDATION XV: The City Attorney shall explore the feasibility of City Attorney the Commission having the assistance of an independent investigator to HSC assist Citizen Commissioners in the investigation of complaints; and, if feasible, recommend to the Mayor the steps which are necessary to assure the Commission has this assistance as soon as possible; or, if not feasible at this time, recommend whatever steps might be necessary to make it possible to ensure the Commission has this assistance at the earliest possible time. 22