[CUCPJ Announce] [CPRB] When to meet to discuss CPRB?
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 28 16:25:53 CST 2006
I agree that the week of Jan 7 is probably best. Any
preferences, folks? How about Tuesday evening? About
7pm? IDF? I'll set it up if folks agree...
For now, let me just say again that, as a person who
has spent most of his adult life in the labor
movement, I think it is outrageous and ass-backwards
to negotiate public policy with a union before even
proposing language for legislation. I certainly
support the right of any union to negotiate over any
items that directly affect their work, but not to set
public policy a priori. That is undemocratic, plain
and simple.
That said, thanks to Danielle for opposing this
particular nonsense. I think it illustrates the
problem with negotiating before legislating, myself.
I also think we need to seriously consider whether a
cprb is worth it with the restrictions now apparently
in place.
We may face the same dilemma, only moreso in Champaign
soon.
We always discussed the main itms we felt needed to be
part of any cprb for success were:
1. subpoena power
2. independence from the police dept./neutrality,
including a neutral place for intake of complaints
3. the power to hire an independent investigator (and
I think assumed is the authority for the board to
conduct its own investigations, even without hiring an
investigator).
Am I right? 1 & 2 are certainly the most important,
and OK, maybe we can live without an investigator, but
no right for the boatd itself to even investigate?
Disgusting! Am I really understanding this correctly?
What would it look like in the paper if the group that
has advocated for this reform for the last six years
publicly stated that the form if cprb contemplated by
the council is too limited, too weak and doomed to
failure - and we can't support it - ?
Pissed off -
Ricky
--- Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> > _______________________________________________
> CPRB mailing list
> CPRB at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cprb
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the CPRB
mailing list