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

[Ricky Baldwin]

I have the FOP contract, and if it's OK, I'll just
bring copies of the relevent pages.  We don't eally
need to leaf thru the stuff about wages and leave,
etc., do we? 

If anybody can't wait to see it, it's on the City's
website under Council agendas.

I believe it's not as bad as the impression I first
had  (secondhand).  But there are still some very
troubling provisions...  The more eyes, the better.

Ricky


--- Esther Patt <epatt at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com