[CUCPJ Announce] [CPRB] When to meet to discuss CPRB?

[John W.]

At 12:44 PM 12/28/2006, Stuart Levy wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:10:29PM -0600, John W. wrote:
>
> > At 06:21 PM 12/27/2006, Esther Patt wrote:
> >
> > >I spoke with a city council member and got clarification about the 
> changes
> > >to the Ordinance that were made during bargaining:
> > >
> > >Good news: Only rank and file officers will be affected by the rule that
> > >they don't have to appear before the Board.  However, the Chief, Asst
> > >Chief and Lt. can be called before the board to answer questions about an
> > >investigation.  So, the ability to question the police about police dept.
> > >investigation results will still exist.
> > >
> > >Not so good news: While the Gazette story said that the PD will
> > >investigate all complaints, it didn't clarify that the Board's power to
> > >hire an independent investigator was eliminated.  On the plus side, most
> > >complaints will not require an independent investigation.  I believe
> > >that's what Jen Walling reported to us from her conversations with people
> > >from other cities at the conference she attended a year ago (correct 
> me if
> > >I'm wrong, Jen).  But, in those few cases where concern arises about
> > >whether an investigation was thorough, the independent investigator 
> option
> > >will not be available.
> > >
> > >I'd be available to meet next week if folks are around.  If a lot of
> > >people are still out of town, perhaps we should try for the week of
> > >January 7.   I'm free every night that week except Wednesday the 10th.
> > >
> > >Esther Patt
> >
> >
> > I'm as free as a man living a life of quiet desperation can be.  It would
> > probably be best for all concerned, though, to wait until the week of
> > January 7.
> >
> > I'm curious to know how the CPRB's power to hire an independent
> > investigator could be bargained away during negotiations with the police
> > union.  It certainly doesn't strike me as a mandatory subject of
> > bargaining, or even as an elective subject of bargaining.
> > Can someone explain?
> >
> > John Wason
>
>Is this (no independent investigator) the same restriction as the one
>that says the CPRB can only investigate matters that the Police themselves
>are already investigating?  Is no-independent-investigator just somebody's
>interpretation of the latter?
>
>    Stuart Levy


Stuart,

Esther or Ricky can probably answer better than I, since they were on the 
Mayor's blue ribbon committee.  :-)  But I'm not aware of any restriction 
that would limit the CPRB to incidents or matters that the police 
themselves were already investigating.  That would compromise ALL of the 
CPRB's integrity as an independent body.  As I understand it, the police 
are free to investigate whatever complaints they receive that they deem 
worth investigating, and the CPRB would have the same prerogatives.

The reference to an "independent investigator" is to a PERSON whom the CPRB 
would hire in complex cases to conduct whatever investigation was necessary 
in a given matter.  The job of the independent investigator would be to 
find witnesses and the like.  If the power to hire an independent 
investigator is gone, the CPRB would be limited to whatever facts it could 
dig up on its own, plus the facts released to it by the police 
department.  A fairly serious limitation, it seems to me.

Bear in mind that the ordinance creating a CPRB for Urbana has not yet been 
written.  All there is so far is a set of recommendations from the 
committee, and now whatever provisions are in the new police union contract.

I hope my reply clarifies matters a little.

Sincerely,

John Wason