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

[Esther Patt]

Ricky is going to get a copy of the police contract so we can read exactly what it gives up.

The suggested date of the meeting is TUESDAY, January 9 at 7:00 p.m. at IDF.  Sorry for confusion I created about the date.

I don't think the scenario John laid out is a likely consequence, i.e. the police refusing to disclose to the board the nature of a complaint, the findings, the identity of the officer, etc.  I don't think that whatever was given up by the city in bargaining with police included disclosure to the CPRB.  But, we'll find out for sure when we see the contract.
Esther

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:23:23 -0600
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [CUCPJ Announce] [CPRB] When to meet to discuss CPRB?   
>To: Esther Patt <epatt at uiuc.edu>, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>Cc: C-U Citizens for Peace and Justice <announce at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>, cprb at lists.chambana.net
>
>At 09:09 AM 12/30/2006, Esther Patt wrote:
>
>>I think it would be a mistake for us to oppose the Citizen Police Review 
>>Ordinance.  Criticizing the way it will be watered down is certainly 
>>legitimate.  But saying it isn't worth it to even bother if the Board 
>>can't hire an Independent Investigator is unwise.   Let's take a step back 
>>and remember why we want a CPRB.
>>
>>Without some type of CPRB, every citizen complaint against the police 
>>would be kept secret, as they are now. There would be zero oversight of 
>>complaints and if the PD refused to accept complaints or otherwise 
>>discouraged complainants from following through with a formal complaint, 
>>there would be no monitoring of that happening.
>>
>>That's the basic problem that we started out to address: no one is 
>>monitoring the way police handle citizen complaints other than the police 
>>themselves.
>>
>>Even watered down, what we'd get from having a CPRB which we don't have 
>>now are:
>>
>>- CPRB would be informed of every complaint filed against the police
>>
>>- Complainants could file their complaints with the Human Rights Officer 
>>instead of the PD which will protect against people with legitimate 
>>complaints being talked out of filing
>>
>>- There will be brochures and other promotional material inviting people 
>>to file complaints -- all materials developed and approved by the CPRB, 
>>not the police -- and these will be distributed widely in the community.
>>
>>- Police would have to report to CPRB the results of their internal 
>>investigation of each complaint and what action, if any were taken against 
>>an officer or officers for misconduct.  The Board would not have the 
>>authority to overturn the Police Chief's decision but would have the 
>>authority to appeal that decision to the Mayor.
>>
>>- CPRB would be able to track patterns of complaints against the same 
>>officer or on the same beat or demographics of people filing complaints.
>>
>>- CPRB would be a standing body whose purpose would include studying 
>>police department policies (independent of formal complaints or in 
>>response to them) and making recommendations for changes.
>>
>>Let's not dismiss all of this as insignificant.  A judge has more 
>>authority than a watchdog, but a watchdog is a valuable role -- and we 
>>have no watchdog for the police now.  That's essentially what CPRB would be.
>>
>>Also, an important strategy issue is: if we trash Urbana for watering down 
>>its CPRB, that will undermine our efforts to get Champaign to do create one.
>>
>>Let's talk more when we meet.   Are people free January 8 at 7:00 p.m. to 
>>meet at IDF?
>>
>>Esther Patt
>
>
>I'm fine with MONDAY, January 8 at 7pm, as far as I know now.
>
>And you make some excellent points, Esther.  Prior to our meeting, would it 
>be possible for you, or someone with some degree of authority, to talk with 
>the mayor and get her view on just exactly what the police union contract 
>implies in terms of the CPRB?  Could we maybe get a copy of the union 
>contract, which should be available to the public?
>
>I understood from Danielle's reply that the implications are far greater 
>than just being unable to hire an independent investigator.  I understood 
>her to mean that the CPRB could not take complaints or investigate them in 
>any way, independently of the police department itself.
>
>Taking your two points right here:
>
>>- Police would have to report to CPRB the results of their internal 
>>investigation of each complaint and what action, if any were taken against 
>>an officer or officers for misconduct.  The Board would not have the 
>>authority to overturn the Police Chief's decision but would have the 
>>authority to appeal that decision to the Mayor.
>>
>>- CPRB would be able to track patterns of complaints against the same 
>>officer or on the same beat or demographics of people filing complaints.
>
>Here's my concern:  Say the police department receives a complaint against 
>Officer Smith for police brutality, and they supposely investigate and 
>determine that the complaint is unwarranted.  The CPRB inquires of the 
>police department:
>
>CPRB: Any complaints this month, Chief?
>Chief: Well, we did have one, but we determined that it was unwarranted.
>CPRB: Oh?  What was it about?
>Chief: I'm not at liberty to say.  It was unwarranted, anyway.
>CPRB: Who filed the complaint?
>Chief: I'm not at liberty to say.
>CPRB: May I ask which officer was involved in the complaint?
>Chief: I'm not at liberty to say.
>
>And so on.  What is the CPRB's recourse?  Where does it derive the 
>authority to INDEPENDENTLY pursue the citizen complaint?  How does it go 
>about getting the necessary facts INDEPENDENTLY of the police?  This is 
>what we need to know.
>
>As you say, I'm sure we'll talk about it when we meet.  But we need as much 
>information as we can get.  Otherwise we'll just be speculating in the dark.
>
>John Wason
>