HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PCR-1992-11-12 lECE;V D t ;` ;> 1992
TO: John Johnson, Chairman of Human Services Committee
FROM: Community Police Board Members
RE: Community Review Board
DATE: November 12, 1992
The Community Police Board felt it important to indicate our reactions to the
recommendations made by the Community Review Board Other than the following,the
members of the Board were supportive of the Recommendations III, IV, VII,XIII and
XIV of the subcommittee of the the Community Review Board.
Recommendation I
The members of the Community Police Board do not believe that a name change is
necessary. All of the members,however, saw no particular difficulty in accepting the name
proposed by the steering committee,the Citizens Commission on Community Police
Relations. The Commissioners were adamant that any change in the name accurately reflect
the charge of the committee and therefore needed to refer explicitly to the community and to
the police. Concern was expressed by one Board member that a name change might only
speak to a piece of what the Board does and might eventually lead to a name changes for all
the city Boards.
Recommendation II
The members of the Board were not as a group seriously opposed to adding two members
and some of us even believed it to be a good idea given the expanding scope of our role.
However at least one member expressed grave concern that the community's historical
response to pressure has been to increase the size of the board rather than to address the
central issues in a more permanent and effective way. If the purpose in adding new
members is to increase the diversity of the Board this would be unnecessary when one
looks at the present diversity of the Board.
Recommendation V
The Police Commissioners basically support the concept underlying Recommendation V.
The group does have two serious concerns. Firstly the implications of explicitly naming a
particular organization—The Gay and Lesbian Task Force rather than naming the affected
group (the Gay and Lesbian Community) and secondly by naming some groups are they
tacitly excluding a whole array of potentially concerned or affected communities.
Recommendation VI
Based on the need to keep records secure, members of the Board are not willing to remove
records from the Hall of Justice. This issue is not a priority for the Board and we urge the
City to spend its time,energy and financial resources on the other recommendations.
Recommendation IX
While we understand the merit of the recommendation and essentially agree with its intent
we believe it is a mistake to limit the flexibility and discretion of a Commissioner in
handling the scheduling and conducting of the interviews.
Recommendations X &XI
The Board believes in the concept of this recommendation. We do however have serious
concerns that the recommendation does not identify who is responsible for exploration of
its feasibility nor does it identify how this recommendation is to be implemented and
financed. We recognize that it was not the charge of the sub-committee to plan implentation
but we wish to call to Common Council's and the Mayor's attention, to the fact that if the
Board is made responsible for the implementation of this recommendation, its role will
radically change.
Recommendation XII
While again we are in essential agreement with this recommendation,it should include a
recognition of the legal constraints on full disclosure.
Recommendation XV
All the the Board Members are opposed to having an investigator who would be
interviewing complainants and witnesses instead of the commissions themselves, and by so
doing further isolate the Board Members from the Community.
cc: Mayor Nichols
Police Chief McEwen
CEIV EDP 1 0 199
•TO: John Johnson, Chairman of Human Services Committee
FROM: Community Police Board Members
RE: Community Review Board
DATE: November 12, 1992
The Community Police Board felt it important to indicate our reactions to the
recommendations made by the Community Review Board Other than the following,the
members of the Board were supportive of the Recommendations III, IV, VII,XIII and
XIV of the subcommittee of the the Community Review Board.
Recommendation I
The members of the Community Police Board do not believe that a name change is
necessary. All of the members,however, saw no particular difficulty in accepting the name
proposed by the steering committee,the Citizens Commission on Community Police
Relations. The Commissioners were adamant that any change in the name accurately reflect
the charge of the committee and therefore needed to refer explicitly to the community and to
the police. Concern was expressed by one Board member that a name change might only
speak to a piece of what the Board does and might eventually lead to a name changes for all
the city Boards.
Recommendation II
The members of the Board were not as a group seriously opposed to adding two members
and some of us even believed it to be a good idea given the expanding scope of our role.
However at least one member expressed grave concern that the community's historical
response to pressure has been to increase the size of the board rather than to address the
central issues in a more permanent and effective way. If the purpose in adding new
members is to increase the diversity of the Board this would be unnecessary when one
looks at the present diversity of the Board.
Recommendation V
The Police Commissioners basically support the concept underlying Recommendation V.
The group does have two serious concerns. Firstly the implications of explicitly naming a
particular organization—The Gay and Lesbian Task Force rather than naming the affected
group (the Gay and Lesbian Community) and secondly by naming some groups are they
tacitly excluding a whole array of potentially concerned or affected communities.
Recommendation VI
Based on the need to keep records secure, members of the Board are not willing to remove
records from the Hall of Justice. This issue is not a priority for the Board and we urge the
City to spend its time,energy and financial resources on the other recommendations.
Recommendation IX
While we understand the merit of the recommendation and essentially agree with its intent
we believe it is a mistake to limit the flexibility and discretion of a Commissioner in
handling the scheduling and conducting of the interviews.
Recommendations X &XI
The Board believes in the concept of this recommendation. We do however have serious
concerns that the recommendation does not identify who is responsible for exploration of
its feasibility nor does it identify how this recommendation is to be implemented and
fmanced. We recognize that it was not the charge of the sub-committee to plan implentation
but we wish to call to Common Council's and the Mayor's attention, to the fact that if the
Board is made responsible for the implementation of this recommendation,its role will
radically change.
Recommendation XII
While again we are in essential agreement with this recommendation,it should include a
recognition of the legal constraints on full disclosure.
Recommendation XV
All the the Board Members are opposed to having an investigator who would be
interviewing complainants and witnesses instead of the commissions themselves, and by so
doing further isolate the Board Members from the Community.
cc: Mayor Nichols
Police Chief McEwen
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Made this 18th day of June, 1992 between
THE CITY OF ITHACA,a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street,Ithaca,
New York,hereinafter called the `City',
and
RENAYE SOUTHWORTH,93 North Main Street,Cortland NY 13045,hereinafter called the
`Contractor',Social Security#114-56-5739.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City requires certain services to be performed more particularly secretarial and
administrative services to the Advisory Commissions on Police/Community Relations,and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is desirous of performing such services and the City is desirous of
contracting with the Contractor to provide such services,
NOW,in consideration of the covenants,conditions,and provisions contained herein,it is
hereby AGREED as follows:
1. The Contractor agrees to perform secretarial and administrative services to the Advisory
Commissions on Police/Community Relations in a manner and at such time or times as is
satisfactory to the City. The Contractor's services will begin on June 22, 1992 and cease
by September 30, 1992.
2. The Contractor shall be paid for providing such services as follows: 125 hours at$8.00
per hour(5 payments of 20 hours each and one payment of 25 hours). Total Payment
This Contract not to exceed$1,000.
3. The relationship of the Contractor to the City is that of an independent contractor. As
such,the Contractor shall receive no fringe benefits from the City including but not
limited to medical insurance,retirement benefits,worker's compensation,disability,
unemployment insurance or any other benefits or remuneration other than that set forth in
paragraph 2 hereinabove.
4. The City may terminate this contract at any time without cause,in which case the
Contractor shall be paid pro rata for the satisfactory work performed to date of
termination.
5. The Contractor shall defend,indemnify,and hold the City harmless from any claims
against the City arising from the negligence of the Contractor.
6. The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee,applicant for employment,
sub-contractor, supplier of materials or services or program participant because of race,
age,creed,color, sex,national origin, disability,marital status or sexual preference.
CITY OF I,'HACA: CONTRACTOR
By: J / 4k/147i 7i-1t, _)/
May /
Date: G 413 Date: / - �1-
APPROV• : :� •-.•��:�/ -"'� CONTRO i• /
drf
, _
AI • Bey
Date: 1%z-74&. - Date: 0.5 f
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Made this 16th day of July, 1992 between
THE CITY OF ITHACA,a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street,Ithaca,
New York,hereinafter called the `City',
and
MELINDA A.JOHNSON,946 East State Street,Ithaca NY 14850,hereinafter called the
`Contractor', Social Security#108-54-0136.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City requires certain services to be performed more particularly secretarial and
administrative services to the Advisory Commissions on Police/Community Relations,and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is desirous of performing such services and the City is desirous of
contracting with the Contractor to provide such services,
NOW,in consideration of the covenants,conditions,and provisions contained herein, it is
hereby AGREED as follows:
1. The Contractor agrees to perform secretarial and administrative services to the Advisory
Commissions on Police/Community Relations in a manner and at such time or times as is
satisfactory to the City. The Contractor's services will begin on July 16, 1992 and cease
by September 30, 1992.
2. The Contractor shall be paid for providing such services as follows: 90 hours at$8.00
per hour(3 payments of 30 hours each). Total Payment This Contract not to exceed
$720.
3. The relationship of the Contractor to the City is that of an independent contractor. As
such,the Contractor shall receive no fringe benefits from the City including but not
limited to medical insurance,retirement benefits,worker's compensation,disability,
unemployment insurance or any other benefits or remuneration other than that set forth in
paragraph 2 hereinabove.
4. The City may terminate this contract at any time without cause,in which case the
Contractor shall be paid pro rata for the satisfactory work perfonned to date of
termination.
5. The Contractor shall defend,indemnify,and hold the City harmless from any claims
against the City arising from the negligence of the Contractor.
6. The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee,applicant for employment,
sub-contractor, supplier of materials or services or program participant because of race,
age,creed,color, sex,national origin, disability, marital status or sexual preference.
CITY OF THACA: // CONTRACTOR:
By: t G (-/-H AWE^-< Z Cam,' - t .-��--
1 Iay
Date: :1-41 17) / 5 `) Date: 7 /2-07
APPRO er. r► ',y, ITS'CONTRO L'E'. ,
A"`" °tt!e /
/yL Date: 7/ 7 r
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Made this 17th day of May, 1993 between
THE CITY OF ITHACA,a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,
New York,hereinafter called the `City',
and
CAMILLA LISBE,302 Lake Avenue,Ithaca NY 14850, hereinafter called the `Contractor',
Social Security#006-54-0555.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City requires certain services to be performed, more particularly coordination of
the consideration and,when approved,the implementation of the recommendations of the Task
Force on Police/Community Relations,and
WHEREAS,the Contractor is desirous of performing such services and the City is desirous of
contracting with the Contractor to provide such services,
NOW,in consideration of the covenants,conditions,and provisions contained herein, it is
hereby AGREED as follows:
1. The Contractor agrees to perform services as specified by the Mayor in a manner and at
such time or times as is satisfactory to the City. The Contractor's services will begin on
May 15, 1993 and cease by December 31, 1993.
2. The Contractor shall be paid for providing such services as follows: 200 hours at
$10.00 per hour(4 payments of 50 hours each). Total Payment This Contract not to
exceed $2,000.
3. The relationship of the Contractor to the City is that of an independent contractor. As
such,the Contractor shall receive no fringe benefits from the City including but not
limited to medical insurance,retirement benefits,worker's compensation,disability,
unemployment insurance or any other benefits or remuneration other than that set forth in
paragraph 2 hereinabove.
4. The City may terminate this contract at any time without cause,in which case the
Contractor shall be paid pro rata for the satisfactory work performed to date of
termination.
5. The Contractor shall defend,indemnify,and hold the City harmless from any claims
against the City arising from the negligence of the Contractor.
6. The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee,applicant for employment,
sub-contractor, supplier of materials or services or program participant because of race,
age,creed,color, sex,national origin,disability,marital status or sexual preference.
CITY OF ITHACA: CONTRACTOR:
,vim ,�.� < "1 ���bko
By: Mao �
lrk
Y
Date: I l `J Date: �l n t I C(
APPRO a '�`.;' •
5CONTR)
i A . ey
Date: ,��`77ri Date: '/V915
draft 10/9/92
Dear Members of the Ithaca Common Council:
At a rally on the Commons and at two community meetings held in May
and early June, 1992 at the Southside Community Center, a broad spectrum of
community residents expressed various concerns about police-community
relations. During the final community meeting, the participants developed
the following list of six suggestions to improve police-community rela-
tions: "(1) acknowledge"double standard" (racism) in police behavior; (2)
provide sensitivity training to all officers; (3) establish a mentor prog-
ram between cops and kids; (4) order racially abusive officers to perform
community service in Southside; (5) change the rules that govern the Police
Review Board; and (6) change the jury selection process. " This list was
incorporated into a letter to the Mayor which was read into the record at a
later meeting of the Common Council.
In June, the Mayor created the TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELA-
TIONS and charged the Task Force with researching and making recommenda-
tions to the Mayor and Common Council for ways to improve Police-Community
relations in Ithaca. The work of the Task Force was organized in the form
of a Steering Committee and four working committees: the Jury Selection
Committee; the Community-Police-Board Committee; the Police-Community
Relations Training Committee (first designated the Police Sensitivity
Training Committee) ; and Community-Police Board Committee.
The Steering Committee was chaired by Alvin Nelson and consisted of
the Chairs of each of the Task Force's four working committees, the Presi-
dent of the Police Benevolent Association, the Chair of the Community-
Police Board, the Chair of the Human Services Committee of Common Council,
and two ex-officio members, the Mayor and the Chief of Police. Later the
Steering Committee voted to add two students, who attended some of the
meetings. Membership on the working committees was open to all interested
members of the community and the Police Force who were willing to particip-
ate in the work of the committees. The list of members of the Steering
Committee and each of the four other Committees is attached as appendix A.
The Steering Committee and most of the other Committees met weekly
throughout the Summer months, September, and into October in order to
discharge their responsibilities. The Steering Committee wishes to commend-
ed the members of the working committees for the time and effort they have
expended in service to the Ithaca community.
The Steering Committee is pleased to present the enclosed reports as
prepared by each of the four Task Force Committees, and the Steering Com-
mittee's recommendations regarding each of the reports.
The Steering Committee unanimously endorses the recommendations of the
Jury Selection Committee. It requests Common Council recommend to the
Tompkins County Board of Representatives that it take appropriate steps to
implement them. The Jury Selection Committee recommendations include: (1)
expanding the master list from which prospective jurors are selected to
include the widest possible representation of Tompkins County residents;
(2) emphasizing the legal obligation to complete and return the question-
2
naire sent to all possible jurors; (3) directing anyone who fails to com-
plete and return the questionnaire to appear at Court for determination of
their qualification to serve on a jury; (4) developing and implementing
written standards for excusing jurors from service and for granting jurors
permission to postpone their jury service; (5) using a stratified random
sampling technique to include African-American residents in jury pools in
proportion to their percentage of the county population; and (6) calling
for state legislation, if necessary, to implement the above recommenda-
tions.
The Steering Committee unanimously endorses and requests Common Coun-
cil adopt and take appropriate steps to implement the recommendations of
the Police-Community Involvement Committee. The Police-Community Involve-
ment Committee recommends: (1) expanding the Community Policing project
recently begun by the Ithaca Police in the Southside Community; (2) that
the Ithaca Police invite city residents, especially Southside residents,
ages 15 and over, to participate in a Ride-Along program; (3) implementing
a P.E.E.R. program at the Southside Community Center to increase positive
interactions between police and children ages 7 through 14 during variety
of program activities; and (4) holding an annual Ithaca City Field Day for
police officers and youth.
The Steering Committee unanimously endorses and requests Common Coun-
cil adopt and take appropriate steps to implement the plans of the Police-
Community Training Committee. The Police-Community Training Committee
recommends: (1) that the City organize and conduct a community forum on
"Know Your Rights" annually; (2) supporting the expansion of Community
Policing program; (3) providing high quality training to police officers
assigned to Community Policing before they commence their new duties; and
(4) that community lay advocates be involved in police-community presenta-
tions and forums.
The Steering Committee took three separate actions on report of the
Community-Police Board Committee.
First, the Steering Committee unanimously endorses recommendations
number II through XIV contained in the report of the Community-Police Board
Committee and requests Common Council action to implement these recommenda-
tions. The 13 specific recommendations can be summarized by the following:
(1) make modifications to the structure of the Board, the method for selec-
ting and removing and information provided to prospective Commissioners;
(2) make changes in the procedures the Board uses for investigating citizen
complaints and enhancements to currently available information about the
Board; (3) locate support services for the Community-Police Board in an
office outside the Police Department; and (4) increase reporting to com-
plainants regarding action taken on complaints, and to the Common Council
and the community regarding Board activities, findings, recommendations,
and other actions.
Second, the Steering Committee, by majority vote, recommends the name
of the Community-Police Board be changed to Citizen's Commission on Com-
munity-Police Relations. A minority endorse the recommendation of the
3
working committee that the name be changed to Citizen's Commission on Com-
munity Relations.
Third, the majority of the Steering Committee support the Committee's
recommendation number XV that the City Attorney explore the feasibility of
providing the Commission with the assistance of an independent investigator
and requests Common Council adopt the recommendation. A minority expressed
strong opposition to this recommendation.
Finally, the Steering Committee has approved the request of the
Police-Community Training Committee to continue its work until February 28,
1993. The Steering Committee will continue to oversee the work of this
committee until a final report is completed and forwarded to the Common
Council.
Sincerely,
Alvin Nelson
Task Force Coordinator