HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport of the Mayor's Task Force on Police-Community Relations 1992.1 MEMO TO: Mayor Nichols and the Ithaca Common Council
FROM: THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COIIIMUNITY RELATIONS
SUBJECT: Report of the TASK FORCE
DATE: October 19, 1992
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 Police-Community Involvement 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. The two ex-officio members of the Steering Committee may provide
additional comments on the work of the TASK FORCE under separate cover.
Membership on the working committees was open to all interested mem-
bers of the community and the Police Force who were willing to participate
in the work of the committees. The list of members of the Steering Commit-
tee 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
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-
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. (Police Efforts to Enhance Relations) 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. Final recommendations from this working committee are
pending the results of surveys of police officers and the community and
will be forwarded after completion and review by the Steering Committee.
2
t I
The Steering Committee took the following three separate actions on
the report of the Community-Police Board Committee.
First, the voting members of the Steering Committee unanimously en-
dorse recommendations number II through XIV contained in the report of the
Community-Police Board Committee and requests Common Council action to
implement these recommendations. The 13 specific recommendations can be
summarized by the following: (1) make modifications to the structure of the
Board, the method for selecting 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 complainants regarding action taken on complaints,
and to the Common Council and the community regarding Board activities,
findings, recommendations, and other actions.
In addition, the Steering Committee agrees that the police department
can be added to the list of community organizations that may participate in
the training of lay advocates per recommendation XI.
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
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.
To oversee the implementation of the above recommendations and to
coordinate the continuing work of the committees, the Steering Committee
will continue its activity until February 28, 1993.
Police-Community Relations Task Force
STEERING COMMITTEE
Alvin Nelson (Coordinator) Irene Stein
Clayton Hamilton Richard Williams
John Johnson Gerald Dumay (Student)
Amy Lewis Jose Montanez (Student)
Drew Martin Police Chief Harlin McEwen (Ex-
Marilyn Ray Officio)
Sara Shenk Mayor Ben Nichols (Ex-Officio)
3
•
•
Police-Community Relations Task Force
JURY SELECTION COMMITTEE
Benjamin Darden Assisted by:
Charles Guttman Nick Celia
Marilyn Ray James Kerrigan
Irene Stein (Chair)
POLICE-COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (MENTORING) COMMITTEE
Darrell Barrett Belinda Hughes
Marlon Byrd Sandy Larkin
Nick Celia Amy Lewis(Chair)
Frances Eastman Vern Smith
John Efroymson David Speller
Ron Gilliam Pete Tyler
Kathryn Gillern Arthur Watkins
Randy Haus
POLICEICOMMUNITY TRAINING COMMITTEE
Laura Branca(Vice Chair) Hope A. Hart
Kirby Edmonds Marie Johnson
Neil H. Golder Barry Langerlan
Kenny Grant Ed&Camilla Lisbe
Ellen Grimm Dede Lobe
Shauna Guidici Kris Miller
Clayton Hamilton (Chair)
COMMUNITY-POLICE BOARD COMMITTEE
Birthe K. Darden Irene Stein
John Johnson Cynthia Telfair
John Marcham (Chair#2) Gregg A. Thomas
Marilyn Ray (Chair#3) Lillie Tucker
Alfredo Rossi Richard Williams(Chair#1)
Sara Shenk
S (Appendix A)
Report and Recommendations
of the Committee on Jury Selection
The Committee on Jury Selection has reviewed the law and
current practice regarding the preparation of the lists of
prospective jurors and the manner in which prospective jurors are
selected from those lists. The Committee sees several problems
that currently exist. As a result of these problems the pool at
a trial of prospective jurors does not adequately reflect a cross-
section of the community.
The creation of a pool of prospective jurors is a multi-step
process. Originally a master list is created. This list currently •
includes registered voters, motor vehicle lists, income tax payers
and people who volunteer to be on jury lists. The Committee
believes that this original master list should be as inclusive as
possible and believes that at present a significant number of
people, and in particular, certain classes of the population
specifically lower income and/or minorities, are systematically
under-represented on this master list.
The Committee recommends that the original master list of
prospective jurors referred to in Section 506 of the Judiciary Law
be made up of not only the lists which are currently used but also
additional lists including but not limited to names of parents and
guardians of school children obtained from the school district.;
names of students over the age of eighteen ( 18) obtained from the
school district and local colleges and universities; lists of
people paying utility bills; and such other lists as the
Commissioner of Jurors may be able to obtain. In particular, the
Commissioner of Jurors should also attempt to obtain a list of
individuals obtaining unemployment and social services benefits.
The next step in creating the pool of prospective jurors is
to mail out jury questionnaires . The Committee recommends that the
Jury Commissioner shall make sure that all persons on the master
list of prospective jurors is mailed a jury questionnaire.
Currently, anyone who does not return the questionnaire is
eliminated from the pool of prospective jurors . A problem is that
the response rate to the questionnaires is significantly below
fifty percent (50%) .
Section 509 of the Judiciary Law provides that the person to
whom the questionnaire is mailed shall complete and sign it and
return it to the Commissioner. The Committee recommends that the
questionnaire be sent with a covering letter emphasizing the legal
obligation of the person who receives the questionnaire to complete
it and return it.
The Commissioner of Jurors then prepares a jury notification
list. Currently, anyone who does not return the questionnaire is
left off the jury notification list. The Committee recommends that
(Appendix B)
the practice be reversed and that anyone who does not return the
qualification questionnaire instead of being left off the jury
notification list is, instead, put on the jury notification list.
It is, of course, possible or probable that some of these
individuals would not be qualified jurors. The Committee does not
see this as an insurmountable problem. When a jury is to be
selected persons are currently notified that they are to appear in
court. A procedure could be developed where people who have
returned the qualification questionnaire are directed to appear in
court shortly before the court session and individuals who have not
previously filled out the qualification questionnaire and whose
names are selected from the expanded jury notification list could
be summoned to appear an earlier time that day. The Commissioner
would then examine those persons to see if they qualify. If they
do not, they would be sent home. If they qualified, they would
remain in court to possibly be selected on a jury.
The Committee believes that certain classes of the population,
specifically lower income and/or minorities have systematically
been excluded from the jury system. In particular, black residents
are under-represented in the pool of jurors. The Committee
recommends that in order to insure that black residents be included
in the pool in proportion to their percentage of the County
population, the lists of jurors called should be divided into two
strata, one stratum to consist of all those living at the addresses
within the election districts of the Second Ward of the City of
Ithaca as of January 1, 1993; the other stratum being all those at
all remaining addresses. Names should be drawn from these two
strata in proportion to their fraction of the total county
population. Since a significant portion of the County' s black
population resides in the aforementioned Second Ward election
district, selection from the stratum in proportion to its
percentage of the total County population is the best way to insure
that the drawn pool will consistently contain names of black
residents in proportion to their percentage of the population.
This procedure will have to be reviewed and modified after receipt
of each census report. The Committee further recommends that an
analogous procedure should be established and used for the
selection of juries in the City of Ithaca.
Pursuant to Section 517 of the Judiciary Law, the Commissioner
of Jurors has the discretion, on the application of a prospective
juror who has been summoned to attend, to excuse that juror from
jury service or to postpone the time of jury service. The
Commissioner of Jurors is currently given that authority provided
in Section 517 . However, it is unclear whether this authority is
administered under specific guidelines or standards. The Committee
recommends that specific written standards and guidelines be
developed under which the Commissioner of Jurors would exercise her
authority pursuant to Section 517 to grant excuses or postponements
to jurors.
8 (:Appendix B)
The Committee further recommends that there be established a
program of public education regarding the importance of service on
juries and how the jury system works.
The Committee believes that all the above recommendations
could be put in place in a relatively short period of time without
additional authority from the federal or state governments. The
Committee believes that additional steps should be taken which we
realize will require state and federal action. In particular, the
Committee recommends:
•
1. That the procedures set forth above be set into state law
as legal requirements; and,
•
2. That appropriate legislation be passed to provide that
lists of individuals receiving unemployment benefits, social
services and medicaid benefits be made available to the
Commissioner of Jurors for use by the Commissioner of Jurors in
selecting the lists of prospective jurors.
•
August 13, 1992
9 (Appendix B
THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS
REPORT OF THE POLICE/ COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
September 23, 1992
INTRODUCTION
The Police / Community Involvement Committee was set up by the Task Force
as a subcommittee to research and make recommendations to the Mayor and
Common Council for ways in which the Ithaca community and the Ithaca Police
Department could increase positive interaction, especially in the Southside
Community. This committee began on June 15, 1992 and has met on twelve
(12) occasions since then. The committee decided on specific objectives and
researched and reviewed options to meet these objectives in a cost efficient
and timely manner. We met with local organizations which have established
youth programs, police officers, and Chief Harlin McEwen. We looked at
programs established in other communities and discussed, at length,
perceptions of the present relationship between the Southside community
youth and the IPD. We conclude that much attention must be given to the
development of a positive relationship between the community and the IPD in
order to have increased respect and cooperation on the part of both groups. As
a result of research and discussion, the Committee voted to make the following
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Community Policing- We recommend that additonal police officers be
placed in a beat in the Southside area and that consideration be taken in the
choice of officers to perform this duty. It is the hope that the perception of the
"white male cop" in this community can be altered significantly if a police officer
interacted with residents and youth on a daily, more casual basis.
2. Ride Along Program- We recommend that the Ithaca Police Department
invites city residents, particularly from the Southside, 15 years and up, to
participate in a Ride Along program. We also recommend that at least one (1)
youth of color is appointed to encourage youth of color to participate in this
program.
11 (Appendix C)
Page 2
3. P.E.E.R. Program- We recommend that the City designate funds for the
planning and implementation of this program (see attached Program
Description), based out of Southside Community Center, which will encourage
youth and law enforcement to work together in a positive and educational
environment. It is also recommended that a committee comprised of police
officers, parents and appropriate agencies be formed to facilitate this project.
4. Field Day- It is recommended that an Ithaca City Field Day be held each
year to provide a fun and non-threatening environment for the youth and Ithaca
Police to interact. This could be funded by outside sponsors, the PBA, and the
city. However, successful planning will be best accomplished by a Board set
up to monitor finances, program planning, public relations, etc.... We
recommend that the city appoints a Board and becomes a permanent sponsor
of this annual event.
12 (Appendix C)
Police Efforts To Enhance Relationships
PEER
Purpose of the Program:
This program is set up to target youths, particularly Asian, Hispanic,
African American, and Native American, between the ages. of 7 thru
14 years of age, but not limited to all underrepresented children. A
commitment is needed by the city , county and state police to
interact with these children on a volunteer basis. I t is designed to
help improve relationships between police offficers and children in
the community. Through programming, our intention is to involve
increased interaction with police and children; therefore, creating
understanding and sensi ti tvi ty with the aim in establishing a
positive relationship between police officers and the
disenfranchised community.
Possible Programming :
1) Ride along ( with consenting adults ) in police vehicles.
2) Tours of the Sheriffs Department, and/or police station.
3) Tutoring kids in need of extra help.
4) Drug Awareness program such as D. A. R. E.
5) Physical fitness exercises or training.
6) Story telling.
7) Uniforms and/or dress up day (T- shirt ).
0) Question and answer period for those interested in police work.
9) "Card collecting"
13 (Appendix C)
• TASK FORCE ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Report of the Police-Community Relations Training Sub-Committee
October 7, 1992
Our committee's purpose has been to explore the possibility of using training and education
to improve police-community relations, whether in-house trainings for officers, in sessions for the
community,and/or in sessions for the police and community together. Although our committee
has met frequently,regularly,and for long hours, we do not feel that we have had enough time to
complete our task. From our earliest meetings with one another it was clear to us that, given our
diverse perspectives and experiences, it was essential to develop respectful communication,build
trust in one another and to gather more information before we could make intelligent
recommendations that would create any lasting positive changes. We have,however, made quite a
lot of progress and have come up with several suggestions which we think will result in a real shift
in how IPD serves the community,and in how Ithaca residents will perceive and relate to the police
force.
We have been granted an extension to continue our work until February 28, 1993, and we
will oversee the following steps in what we envision as a process with three phases.
Phase I
1) We will distribute the questionnaire (see attached),to IPD officers through Drew Martin. We
designed this instrument to gather information from officers about their concerns,needs and
perceptions about training for working with various communities in Ithaca. We believe that
this information gathering is an essential prerequisite for effective training and programming
that will assist officers and meet their training needs.
2) We will develop a process for gathering information from Ithaca residents about what
education,information,and training would be valuable to community members in dealing with
police. The process might be a questionnaire or forum(s) for information gathering. We will
ask residents their views on designating trusted community members as lay advocates who
could act as guides through the process of using the services of IPD,or filing a complaint with
Citizen's Commissioners through the Citizen's Commission,etc. We foresee asking residents
what would make the roles of the advocates credible for them. We will also ask residents who
they would like to see serving as lay advocates. We recommend providing thorough trainings
for individuals to become advocates.
3) We recommend organizing an information session for community members, youth in
particular,called"Know Your Rights." This event would be led by a police officer,a member
of the Citizen's Commission and a community leader. Hopefully,this workshop could be
offered every year. The content should include solid information on how to respond when
stopped and questioned by police,what particular ordinances citizens should know about,and
what our rights are when dealing with law enforcement,and/or when we think we are victims
of crime. For example, "Are their curfews for youth?" "Must you answer an officer's
questions?" "When is a fight an assault?" We see this type of information as very empowering
•
15 (Appendix D)
for the community and something which could be offered fairly soon. By having officers
deliver this information, the workshop will provide additional opportunities for police to
interact positively with the community,particularly young people,by bringing a supportive
message to them regarding their rights. There may be similar informational training events that
can involve police and community which might be identified by the questionnaire.
4) We recommend that the city explore expanding and deepening the Neighborhood Policing
Program. We recommend that the Mayor and Common Council should consider what funds
would need to be allocated for implementation and intensive training for officers involved in
neighborhood policing.
The reason our sub-committee sees neighborhood policing as appealing is because it
shifts the emphasis to developing crime prevention strategies and cooperative problem solving
within communities. As we understand neighborhood policing,it describes an entire approach
to peacekeeping that requires a deeper level of relationship between officers and the
communities they serve as opposed to the level that can be developed when officers are shifted
from one area to another.
However, those of us who were present at the Southside Community Center's
meetings which preceded the formation of this Task Force,remember the misgivings and
apprehensions which our neighbors expressed about the possibility of an increased presence of
police on our streets. We think that in order for neighborhood policing to succeed in Ithaca,
the community must understand how it works, how it will benefit us,and also gain a sense of
ownership and inclusion in the process, strategy,and programming.
Phase II
1) Our committee will review the questionnaires returned from IPD.
2) We will consider how to meet the training/skill building needs and suggestions expressed by
officers in the surveys. It should be noted that the Community Dispute Resolution Center is a
local resource which can provide valuable trainings in conflict resolution and communication
skills. Common Council may want to fund putting CDRC on retainer to provide those skill
building workshops. In addition, trainings on Dealing with Differences (which focus on
multicultural awareness and increasing effectiveness in work with diverse populations),are not
currently offered to all IPD officers. It seems important that funding for such possible
trainings be allocated by the city,as well as in the Chief's budget. We anticipate that some
combination of the above types of trainings need to be instituted as a routine part of officer's
training,and NOT as one-shot crisis interventions or band-aid solutions that have not worked
in the past. We will pay close attention to the input we get from officers about what has
worked well,and recommend only programs which will create long term change.
3) We will implement the process for gathering information from the diverse communities of
Ithaca(which we will develop in Phase I).
4) In the event that Neighborhood Policing is going to be expanded, we recommend that members
of the IPD force receive an orientation to the Neighborhood Policing strategy and be apprised
of the likely impact of its implementation both upon their jobs and on the community.
5) We recommend inviting one or two officers from another city where neighborhood policing is
already being practiced to come to Ithaca to present an information session to the community to
describe what it is and how well it's working. It seems very important that all of us be able to
get our questions answered and to feel comfortable with this strategy in order for such a
program to have the support of both the community and IPD, and thereby,a likelihood of
16 (Appendix Il)
succeeding here. If the city decides to designate certain neighborhoods as appropriate for
neighborhood policing, the residents of these neighborhoods should have the opportunity to
understand the likely impact it will have on them.
We believe that Chief McEwen has extensive knowledge of how various neighborhood
policing programs elsewhere have been utilized,and that he also has some clear-cut ideas on
how he would like to see neighborhood policing proceed in Ithaca. However,given the
difficulties and mistrust that some Ithaca residents have with some IPD officers, we think that
the best forum for giving information to the community would be through a panel of people
with expertise which would include-but not be limited to Chief McEwen and Officer Gillern.
Phase III
1) We will review the community questionnaires and/or other forms of input from residents and
make recommendations as to what further workshops or informational sessions would be
valuable to the community.
2) We will compile a list of individuals identified by the community,to serve as lay advocates
(Refer to Phase I,#2). We will provide this list to the Citizen's Commission. Based on our
assessment of community needs, we would be happy to also give the Board suggestions and
input on developing a training model that would benefit the lay advocates in their roles.
3) Any officer assigned to Neighborhood Policing should be provided with high quality
preparations for their duties to ensure their success.
4) Any officers who in the future are assigned to Neighborhood Policing could,as part of their
duties, help set goals and have input into future training designs intended for the rest of the IPD
force to enhance those officers' ability to interact more productively with the diverse
communities of Ithaca and to be more supportive of Neighborhood Policing efforts.
5) We recommend that once lay advocates have been functioning in their roles that they be asked
to help make presentations of future community workshops as mentioned above.
We would like to point out that all of these suggestions regarding an expansion of
Neighborhood Policing are being proposed only in the event that the community supports this as a
good strategy for neighborhoods. As you can see most of the recommendations depend on the
gathering of more information,but that seems more preferable than forcing trainings and strategies
on people without their consent. We see that the nature of effective human relations training and
education takes time and full participation of all parties involved. We are committed to taking our
task seriously and not offering quick fix solutions.
We wish that we could attach a specific dollar amount to the cost of these programs,
however,that was not the task set before us. What we have done is to share the best of our
thinking thus far and,bring to your attention that any quality programming will require additional
funds.
17 (Appendix 1))
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 (_appendix E)
Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 2
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 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.
RECOMMENDATION II: The Commission will be increased from five to seven
Commissioners.
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
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
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 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 (:Appendix 1:)
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
outside 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
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.
* Second, it appears that the Community is not generally aware of the
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
and organizations, 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 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
investigatory 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-
American 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.
21 (Appendix E)
Community-Police Board Committee Report. . . .page 4
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.
RECOMMENDATION XII: The Commission shall expand the explanation to the
complainant 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 remedial 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 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
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.
22 (Appendix E)