[CPRB] revised Urbana ordinance
John W.
jbw292002 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 22 10:59:58 CDT 2007
I've Cc'ed a couple more lists in my reply, Ricky.
At 12:08 AM 7/22/2007, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>Well, if you haven't read the revised "CRB" ordinance,
>you should.
>
>It's on the City's website under City Council,
>agendas.
>
>Personally, I think it's much improved over the draft
>we discussed a couple weeks ago. Time lines are
>extended for complainants to appeal, vague language
>about "law enforcement objectives" is replaced, and
>there's new language about budgets and
>anti-discrimination/harassment against complainants,
>"Know Your Rights" posters, etc.
>
>But back to our famous three main dimensions of an
>effective cprb, (1) independence/neutrality, (2)
>subpoena power for witnesses and docs, (3) ability to
>hire an investigator:
>
>The revised version includes subpoena power for
>witnesses and documents -- apparently over the
>objections of the new City Atty (am I right?).
>Hallelujah!
The new draft ordinance uses the word "subpoena" in Sec. 19-36(a)(4), but
it doesn't really spell out what subpoena power means in this context. The
City Attorney's objection to subpoena power was that the CRB is not a court
of law, so what penalties can it impose for failure to comply with its
subpoena? This ordinance doesn't say. Maybe the City of Urbana will work
that out in another ordinance, but I suspect that the phrase is just there
as window-dressing.
>But the board would still have no power to hire an
>investigator, or seemingly even to root around looking
>for witnesses even as individuals on a voluntary basis
> if I read Sec. 19-25(c) right. Somebody please tell
>me I'm reading this wrong.
You seem to be reading it right, and that's one of the key weaknesses of
this ordinance. The onus is on the complainant herself to come up with her
own witnesses, and on the Police Dept. to be forthcoming about what the law
calls "exculpatory evidence" - e.g., witnesses unfavorable to its own
version of events. What do you suppose are the odds of that
happening? Again, the CRB is not a court of law, so it has no teeth to
compel the police to turn over exculpatory evidence.
The main strength of the revised ordinance is that the CRB now has,
according to Sec. 19-26(a), access to documentary evidence - police
reports, dispatch tapes and transcriptions, video recordings,
etc. Unfortunately, this documentary evidence may be redacted or withheld
by the City Attorney and/or his designee (the Police Chief?) if it, in
his/her judgment, may "compromise an ongoing law enforcement
investigation". (Still sufficiently vague, but less vague than the
previous "law enforcement objective".)
The onus is still fully on the citizen - to find witnesses, to videotape
police stops as VESA was doing, etc.
>The prohibition in the FOP
>contract seems to be the source of this,
It's not clear to me what the source is.
>but my
>question is, is there no maneuvering room here at all?
>Is there nothing we can get that would allow the
>board, in addition to interviewing witnesses that the
>police or complainant tell them about, some means to
>look for additional witnesses for example if they deem
>it necessary or important?
Just keep harping on it to the city council. That's all I know.
>And, similarly, I'm sorry to say I've realized the
>ordinance is even more restrictive that the side
>letter agreement with the FOP with regard to who can
>serve on the board. The FOP agreement says nobody
>"convicted of a felony" can serve -- itself a gross
>and prejudiced violation of civil rights in my opinion
>-- but Sec. 19-22 (c) of the ordinance bars anyone
>with a "felony conviction OR PLEA" [emphasis mine].
>If we can't strike the whole of (c) because of the FOP
>agreement, we ought to at least get rid of the
>addition, in my opinion.
This provision I actually understand. The City is bending over backwards
to give the CRB every appearance of neutrality and probity. If anyone
remotely associated with law enforcement, even in the past, is excluded, it
just seems logical that those who have run afoul of law enforcement would
also be excluded. "Appearance" is the key word here. Even if the ex-felon
is now a model citizen, the average citizen would have no way of knowing
that, and the CRB would appear unbalanced in favor of those who "hate the
police". We've already seen one letter to the News-Gazette saying that
precise thing, with this provision IN the ordinance. Imagine the public
furor if it were left out, and an ex-felon appointed to the CRB.
>I'm sure there's more to say. Anybody?
Another onerous provision that they've left in is Sec. 19-37, where the CRB
MUST suspend its review more or less indefinitely if a separate criminal
investigation is underway or if a civil action against the City is
threatened, underway, or pending. We all know how long that could take,
and that witnesses would disappear, memories would fade, etc. There needs
to be a way to warn the potential complainant not to file or even threaten
a civil lawsuit until after the CRB has conducted its review of the
complaint. I don't know how that could be done judiciously.
They've also given the CRB an even shorter time to prove itself, moving the
date of review and reauthorization (in Sec. 19-40) from Oct. 30, 2010 to
Oct. 30, 2009. Assuming that CRB members could be appointed and trained,
the procedural rules created and agreed upon, and the CRB in operation by
10/30/07 (all of which is highly unlikely), that gives the CRB only two
years to demonstrate its worth and effectiveness.
My main objection to all of this is that a CRB needs to be created with
worst-case scenarios in mind, hoping that they will never occur but knowing
that they might. The Mayor and certain members of the City Council seem
determined to create a watered-down version of a CRB, to make them look
liberal and enlightened but not too draconian because they pride themselves
on having a "good" city with a "good" police department. Very much, I'm
sorry to say, like what Carl is always saying the Democrats are doing with
regard to American foreign policy.
More thoughts are welcome and encouraged. And your presence and support at
the City Council meeting on Monday night is likewise encouraged.
John Wason
>See you Monday nite.
>Ricky
More information about the CPRB
mailing list