[Peace] Re: [Peace-discuss] Police Review Board before Urb. Cty Council TONIGHT!

[Karen Medina]

John W. and Ricky B.,

Thank you both so much for your work on this issue. 

Sincerely,
karen medina

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:36:29 -0500
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: [Peace] Re: [Peace-discuss] Police Review Board
before Urb. Cty Council TONIGHT!   
>To: Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>, Peace-discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>
>At 11:53 AM 7/10/2006, Brian Dolinar wrote:
>
>>Hello all.
>>
>>Please help us show the public support for a Police Review
Board in Urbana.
>>The issue is going before the Urbana City Council tonight at
7pm.
>>They meet at 400 S. Vine St., across from Lincoln Square.
>>
>>We have been working for 2 years to get this board.
>>We insist that it be an independent board with power to
subpoena.
>>The Police Union is trying to undermine the independence of
the board
>>by placing a police officer on it.
>>
>>The police cannot police the police.
>>
>>For instance, why did Officer Hediger of the Urbana Police
Dept. fail
>>to collect any evidence in Sunnycrest Apt. 203, although he
visited
>>the apartment complex twice on Aug 24, 2004?  This
information may have
>>proved, or disproved, the allegations against Patrick Thompson.
>>Did he already believe Patrick Thompson was guilty?
>>
>>Peace, BD
>>
>>--
>>Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
>>204 S. Lynn St.
>>Champaign, IL 61820
>>briandolinar at gmail.com
>
>
>I tremble to say anything at all here, but feel that I must
weigh in with 
>just a word of caution.
>
>I've been working on this issue for over FIVE years, Brian,
and have a 
>bulging briefcase full of research and paperwork to prove it.
 I'm not sure 
>where you've been, since I've never seen you at a meeting of
the Coalition 
>for Citizen Police Review.  But perhaps we didn't publicize
our existence 
>well enough.  And this is surely no time to be territorial. 
We've all 
>supported this concept of citizen police review in our
various ways, and we 
>will all benefit from it.  It's time to pull together, with
wisdom.
>
>The mayor of Urbana is in support of a CPRB that is
effective, as are at 
>least four and possibly five of the seven city council
members.  It is 
>Mayor Prussing who appointed the task force which has
recently rendered its 
>report, and she and a few others attended the annual meeting
of NACOLE 
>(National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law
Enforcement) down in 
>Florida a few months ago.  She was actually one of the
original members of 
>the Coalition for Citizen Police Review, back in 2001.  The
task force 
>was/is comprised mainly of people who are supportive of a
CPRB, but at the 
>same time there was a serious attempt to assure that no
constituency went 
>unrepresented.
>
>We of the Coalition met with the mayor (past and present),
all seven of the 
>council members (both past and present), and the police chief
and his 
>assistant Mike Bily, who is now the Chief or at least acting
Chief, I'm not 
>sure.  We tried but were unsuccessful in meeting with the
president of the 
>police union.
>
>We had developed a proposal and a model ordinance, which
called for each 
>city council member to nominate three possible candidates
from his/her ward 
>for the CPRB.  The mayor would then choose one of the three
nominees from 
>each ward.
>
>In our proposed model there were no law enforcement
officials, past or 
>present, on the CPRB.  But there are other possible models,
not only 
>hypothetically but in practice around the country.  In one -
Lansing, 
>Michigan I think it is - there's a police officer on the
CPRB, but s/he is 
>counterbalanced by representatives from several minority
groups and other 
>special constituencies.
>
>In no successful model of the CPRB anywhere in the country is
there an 
>instance where law enforcement officials comprise anywhere
near a voting 
>majority of the CPRB.  It's natural for the police union to
want to be 
>represented on the CPRB.  But it's important to bear in mind
that this 
>representative, should it come to that, would have only one
vote and would 
>essentially be there in an advisory capacity.  It's also
important to bear 
>in mind that a CPRB can be truly successful in a community
ONLY if ALL 
>segments of the community - including the police - support it
because they 
>feel that they have a vested interest and some input into it.
>
>I encourage all of you to go to these meetings, speak your
minds, make your 
>voices heard.  But please don't sabotage the process by being
belligerent 
>in "demanding" this and that, and by bringing in examples
that are only 
>tangentially relevant to the process of creating a CPRB. 
Yes, the Patrick 
>Thompson case in general, and Officer Hediger's performance
in particular, 
>may well be one that the CPRB would look into if there WAS a
CPRB.  But the 
>meeting tonight is only one in a long series of meetings
whose purpose is 
>to give birth to a CPRB.  I assure you that, very much like
the gestation 
>and birth experience, the process is working as it should,
albeit slowly, 
>at least so far.  Let us work together to monitor the process
with all the 
>means at our disposal.  But let us be careful not to abort
the process 
>through haste or hyperbole.  Let us be wise in insisting that
the CPRB have 
>certain necessary features, such as subpoena power.  But let
us also 
>exercise wisdom in being willing to compromise where
compromise will not 
>jeopardize the essential functioning of the CPRB, and indeed
where an 
>unwillingness to compromise might jeopardize the very
creation of a CPRB.
>
>I'm sorry I'm weighing in on this so late.  I wasn't even
aware that the 
>Urbana City Council would be considering the task force's report 
>tonight.  :-(  I CAN assure you that no final action will be
taken tonight.
>
>Sincerely and respectfully,
>
>John Wason
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace mailing list
>Peace at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace