[CPRB] Re: Police contract includes both allowances and limits on CPRB

Sun Dec 31 16:44:20 CST 2006

Ricky,
The Task Force did initially think that officers would testify.  But we 
eventually realized that it is not possible to require this under Illinois 
law.  We finally concluded that the purpose of the Review Board is not to 
discipline individual officers, but to make sure the internal 
investigations are done properly.

The Civilian Review Board is not judge and jury for individual officers but 
a watchdog for the department, as Esther has pointed out.  The fear 
expressed by someone that the Police Chief might not allow review of the 
investigation is not based on fact.  Please keep in mind that the Urbana 
Police Chief is directly accountable to the Mayor.  The Task Force 
discussed this at great length.  A chief who refused to allow review of 
investigations or who presided over a pattern of botched investigations 
would be fired.  Please note also that the Police Chief in Urbana is 
appointed annually by the Mayor with the approval of the Council.

So we do have checks and balances and a number of safeguards.  What the 
Civilian Review Board does is provide an independent review of the process 
for the mayor, council and the public.

Of course the Review Board will have access to the internal 
investigation.  That's the whole point--to make sure the internal 
investigations are done right.

Any accusations of felonies would be investigated outside the department 
anyway under current policy.  And the Review Board will provide an 
independent access to a citizen who believes the department has acted 
improperly.

At the same time we do not want frivolous accusations against 
officers.  (That happens, too.) So the Board is an independent watchdog to 
provide a fair system for both sides.

Please keep the questions coming.  This has been an open process from the 
beginning. As Brandon pointed out, however, labor law does not permit us to 
discuss contract negotiations in public. I think we have a good agreement 
with the FOP--which is now public.   And I think we will have a good ordinance.

Esther did an outstanding job chairing the Task Force and I thank all those 
who have participated in shaping the proposed ordinance.  We had a broad 
cross-section of Urbana citizens on the Task Force, including the new 
Police Chief, Mike Bily.  We have had public participation and will have 
more before the final version is adopted.

Because we have dealt appropriately with the concerns of FOP,  we have 
strong support on the council and I think an ordinance that will work for 
the benefit of all citizens.  And if something doesn't work right, we'll 
fix it.

Laurel Prussing

At 12:45 PM 12/31/2006, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>Thanks, Brandon-
>
>Yes, some of us - me included - are disappointed with
>some of the limitations as we had heard of them.
>Thanks for your info on the subject.  It sheds a bit
>more light on the main questions, which I think are:
>
>Can the board function effectively if police officers
>are not required to testify before it?
>
>And, similarly, can the board be effective without the
>ability to conduct it's own independent inquiries, if
>this is what this language means?  In other words,, if
>all the board can consider is the report of the police
>department's own internal investigation, what's the
>point?
>
>I haven't had a chance to look over the contract, and
>thanks for the link - so maybe I misunderstand what
>we're talking about.
>
>I'm also concerned that the City apparently negotiated
>over composition of the board - and agreed to a
>completely unnecessary, arbitrary and unjust
>limitation against convicted felons.  I'd be very
>interested in the reasoning behind this.  Former
>police officers are not barred from being on the
>board, are they?  This is very disturbing to me, and
>maybe to you, too.
>
>The Coalition will be meeting most likely next Tuesday
>night, January 9.   We'll be talking over these
>issues, if you'd like to come, too.  I'll announce the
>meeting as soon as I can reserve a room...
>
>Thanks again-
>Ricky
>--- Brandon Bowersox <bowersox at prairienet.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear CPRB coalition,
> >
> > The City of Urbana and the Police union reached an
> > agreement for a 4-
> > year contract.  The agreement approved by the union
> > and by City
> > Council December 20 covers the usual topics -- such
> > as pay and
> > benefits -- and it also includes both allowances and
> > limitations on a
> > Civilian Police Review Board.  Since this community
> > group first
> > advocated for a CPRB, I want you to be aware of the
> > outcome and the
> > next steps.
> >
> > As discussed on this list, the police union believed
> > that a CPRB was
> > a negotiable subject in labor negotiations.
> > However, many others
> > felt it should not be negotiable because that would
> > remove the
> > decision-making power from the Council and the
> > citizens of Urbana to
> > choose how to create and operate a CPRB.  It is
> > unfortunate that this
> > citizens group could not be made aware of activities
> > for so many
> > months, but negotiations remained private to comply
> > with labor law.
> > In the end, both sides made difficult compromises to
> > reach a mutually-
> > agreeable contract which is now public.
> >
> > The contract agreement includes the following
> > CPRB-related provisions:
> > - The City may adopt and maintain a CPRB.
> > - An officer's appearance before the CPRB is
> > optional.
> > - No person convicted of a felony is eligible to
> > serve on the CPRB.
> > - The CPRB may not conduct independent third party
> > investigations of
> > an officer's conduct.
> >
> > I suggest you review details of the full agreement
> > available here:
> >
> >
>http://www.city.urbana.il.us/Urbana/City_Council/Agendas/
> >
> > 12-20-2006_sp/ordinance_2006-12-147.pdf
> > See Page 37 (Article 22 CPRB) and Page 48 (Side
> > Letter with further
> > CPRB provisions).
> >
> > You may be disappointed in some of these
> > limitations, as I am.  Keep
> > in mind that the City still contends that the CPRB
> > issue is not a
> > bargaining issue, but the City had little choice but
> > to discuss it
> > and make some commitments in order to reach a
> > contract.  If
> > negotiations were forced into binding federal
> > arbitration, we could
> > have ended up with no say in how the CPRB could
> > function.  The City
> > will be bound by this contract for 4 years and I
> > hope our experience
> > creating and operating the CPRB will be positive for
> > the police-
> > community relationship.
> >
> > Now that labor negotiations are completed, the next
> > step will be
> > Council consideration of an Ordinance to create the
> > CPRB.  Since a
> > majority of Council members support the CPRB, I
> > expect the ordinance
> > will be discussed in earnest in the Spring and I
> > expect the Council
> > will begin with the ordinance written by the Task
> > Force.  The Council
> > is on holiday until January 8, and I expect that
> > late January is the
> > earliest possible time the Council could discuss the
> > CPRB.  I will
> > plan to email this list with notice if the item is
> > placed on
> > Council's agenda.  Regards,
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> > Brandon Bowersox
> > Democrat, Urbana City Council
> > http://ward4.org/, bowersox at prairienet.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>CPRB mailing list
>CPRB at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cprb