[CPRB] revised Urbana ordinance

[Esther Patt]

It's an important victory that subpoena power is back in the draft.

The authority to hire an independent investigator was lost when the council approved the FOP contract.  So, any complainant who wants additional witnesses found, will have to do that on his/her own.  But, I agree that council members did a good job of putting back into the ordinance as much as they could.

I don't think it's worth fussing about the conviction and plea issue.  There will be only 7 members on the board.  Event though I object in priciple to the restriction, there are still plenty of good people to choose from even after excluding from consideration every person who has ever been charged with a felony.
Esther Patt

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: [CPRB] revised Urbana ordinance  
>To: coalition policereview <cprb at lists.chambana.net>
>
>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!
>
>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.  The prohibition in the FOP
>contract seems to be the source of this, 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, soem means to
>look for additional witnesses for example if they deem
>it necessary or important?
>
>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.
>
>I'm sure there's more to say.  Anybody?
>
>See you Monday nite.
>Ricky
>
>
>
>
>       
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
>http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
>_______________________________________________
>CPRB mailing list
>CPRB at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cprb