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

[Danielle Chynoweth]

There is language in the FOP contract passed by council members at  
our last meeting which does not allow the CPRB to hire or conduct  
independent investigations.  To include language allowing for  
independent investigation CPRB ordinance would violate the FOP  
contact at this point.  I was expressly unhappy with this arrangement  
throughout the negotiations.  In the end, it was the will of the  
majority prohibit independent investigation on the part of the CPRB.   
The other aspects of the FOP contract I do not see as a weakening of  
the task force's proposal.  I expect the ordinance to come to council  
within the next 2 months.

- Danielle

On Dec 28, 2006, at 3:15 PM, John W. wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/announce- 
> communitycourtwatch.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/cprb/attachments/20061228/8307b837/attachment-0001.html