[Peace-discuss] Re: [CUCPJ Announce] CPRB - how is Thursday?

Wed Jul 4 16:34:14 CDT 2007

Sorry but we met last Thursday.  We came up with
written comments for the final revision of the Urbana
draft before it's presented to the City Council.

Here's the jist:

We're happy to get a cprb, but ...

Our main concerns go back to the three parts of an
effective CRB that the Coalition has been advocating:
(1) independence/neutrality, (2) subpoena power for
documents and witnesses, and (3) the power to hire an
investigator.  

The draft provides for an excellent level of
independence from the police in the Board’s
composition, though we have a couple of points to
raise below.  “Access” to documents and records is in
the draft, though it doesn’t mention subpoena power
specifically for documents or witnesses, or calling
witnesses at all.  We are aware that the FOP contract
places a severe limitation in that police officers are
not required to appear.  Likewise, the FOP contract
appears to severely limit the possibility to
investigate, placing what we feel is an unhealthy
reliance on the police for a Board whose independence
we are trying to preserve.  But we would like to see
this ordinance make use of whatever investigative
authority is not barred.  Suggestions follow.

We had hoped for either a budget or explicit language
designating the source for supplies, clerical
services, and other routine costs, as well as an
investigator.  We noticed the HRO is assigned certain
tasks, which is a good way to take care of that
particular function.  But a few others are unclear.

But, in the order they appear in the document, here
are the comments from our discussion:

Sec. 19-21.  Composition.  (c) Thinking of this in the
long term, beyond the current administration, we’d
suggest that the members of the CRB choose their own
Chair and Vice-Chair, and change them if necessary. 
They have to be able to work together amicably and
efficiently.

Sec. 19-22.  Qualifications for Membership
         (b) It’s not clear that retired police
officers are also excluded.  We think they should be,
especially since ex-felons are totally excluded.
(c) We are still unclear why the City agreed to the
ban on ex-felons in the FOP contract, and consider it
to be an unjust restriction on the civil rights of the
ex-felon as well as a disservice to the community,
which would benefit from a broader pool of applicants.
 We understand that we are stuck with it for now, but
in the next FOP contract negotiations we’d like to see
it removed.
         (d) Again thinking in the long term beyond
this administration, we’d suggest, "The Mayor's
appointments SHALL reflect community diversity..."

Sec. 19-26.  Record and Information Access
         (a) Similarly, we would omit "...a law
enforcement OBJECTIVE..." on the grounds that it’s
just too vague and all-encompassing, much like "in the
interests of national security", which can seemingly
mean what an administration says it means.
We believe that the CRB needs subpoena power for
documents and records, as well as witnesses, and we’d
also add “physical evidence”, which could take a
variety of forms.

Sec. 19-28.  Definition of Complaints; Filing of
Complaints
         This section is numbered (lettered)
incorrectly, by the way: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, g,
h.
(b)  The complainant should also get a copy of the
complaint they submit at the time they submit it.
         (e) These are good examples, but rather than
listing, and limiting, reasons, we’d suggest
"...unless the complainant can show good cause why
s/he cannot/could not file the complaint within the
specified time..." 
         (h) We’d like to see, as well as a time limit
on the complainant and the board, a time limit for the
police to conclude their investigation of a complaint,
or at least a deadline by which the police chief would
report to the CRB on the progress of the
investigation.

Sec. 19-32.  Appeal of Police Department Findings to
the CRB 
         (a) There should be some allowance for
circumstances such as in Sec. 19-28(e), for a
complainant's inability to appeal the determination of
the Chief of Police within 10 calendar days from the
date of the receipt of the notice of the findings:
"...unless the complainant can show good cause why
s/he cannot/could not file the appeal within the
specified time..."  It’s also unclear how to determine
date of receipt, e.g. certified mail.
(i)  We weren’t sure what this means in practice.
         (j) could explain how these hearings are
recorded or transcribed, e.g. by whom.  This is
probably not the best place to include how such
services would be funded or otherwise take care of,
but we would like to see this explained..  
(k) could just express that the complainant can bring
someone with him/her, such as an advocate or just a
friend, and certainly another witness.  Again, the CRB
should have the power to subpoena witnesses for this
purpose.  And there ought to be some provision that
allows the CRB a method to find additional witnesses
if deemed necessary (such as, but not necessarily,
hiring an investigator).  
(l) On the question of hiring an investigator, it
appears that the FOP contract language refers to
questioning of a uniformed officer by an investigator.
 We think it’s important that the CRB to at least be
able to hire an investigator for other purposes.  This
would of course entail a budget.

Sec. 19-33.  Findings and Conclusions
         (c) We’d like some language that clarifies
what Chief of Police will do if the CRB remands the
case for further investigation.

Sec. 19-34.  Report to the Chief of Police
         (a) When the Police Chief and the CRB
disagree, the language should probably specify WHO
"transmits" the "thorough and objective" written
summary to the HRO.  We also didn’t know what the HRO
does with the report(s), which could perhaps be
clarified.

Sec. 19-35.  Quarterly Meetings
         (c) refers to another subsection (c), but it
needs clarification.  Is it 19-32 (c)?

Sec. 19-36.  Conduct of Complaint Review
         The comments above related to Sec. 19-32 also
apply here. 
         (a) If there are other witnesses with
relevant testimony, they should be heard, too.  The
CRB needs subpoena power in case they need persuasion
to testify or help getting released from work, jury
duty or other responsibilities.
         (b) Again, we still believe that it seriously
hampers the effectiveness of the CRB.
         (f) We believe that 5 days is not enough
time, given that people have jobs, etc.  It should
also have a provision in the vein of Sec. 19-28(e)
above, such as, "The complainant will be afforded the
opportunity to request that the hearing be rescheduled
for good cause.”

Sec. 19-37.  Suspension of Proceedings
        We Are concerned that this could unnecessarily
delay the CRB process until memories fade and evidence
otherwise becomes inaccessible.  Especially since, as
provided in Sec. 19-32(i), "the CRB findings and
conclusions may not be used as evidence in any other
criminal or civil court proceedings...", we would
particularly omit the additional block created by a
civil action or the “threat” of civil action.

Sec. 19-39.  Community Outreach
         We suggest a notice posted in the vicinity of
the police department window, such as,"Know Your
Rights" with an explanation of the CRB procedure.

Welcome back.
Ricky

--- Brian Dolinar <briandolinar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all.
> 
> I'm just back in town.
> When are we meeting again?
> Thursday, July 5?
> 
> Peace, BD
> 
> On 6/26/07, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Some of us had talked about meeting Wednesday to
> > discuss the upcoming Citizen Police Review
> Ordinance
> > in Urbana.
> >
> > Since I had not received the draft Urbana
> ordinance, I
> > scheduled a meeting for Thursday at 7pm
> > at the IDF, upstairs.
> >
> > Is Thursday OK, for anyone who plans to come?
> >
> > Hopefully by then we can have a document from
> > Champaign as well and talk about them both.
> >
> > Thanks-
> > Ricky
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> >
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> > _______________________________________________
> > announce mailing list
> > announce at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> >
> >
>
http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/announce-communitycourtwatch.org
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
> 303 W. Locust St.
> Urbana, IL 61801
> briandolinar at gmail.com
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 