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

[John W.]

At 04:25 PM 12/28/2006, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

>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...

Fine with me.


>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?

You are absolutely right.  From all the voluminous research we did, those 
are the key ingredients to ensure the proper degree of independence from 
the police.


>   1 & 2 are certainly the most important,
>and OK, maybe we can live without an investigator, but
>no right for the board itself to even investigate?
>Disgusting!  Am I really understanding this correctly?

I understood Danielle's reply the same way you did.  :-(  I guess we'll 
find out more as time goes by.


>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 - ?

I think it would be most effective if the Mayor's own committee went on the 
offensive, but only after talking to the Mayor first and getting her take 
on matters.


>Pissed off -
>Ricky

Equally upset,

John



>--- 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