[Peace-discuss] Citizens Review Board - Champaign document
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 4 17:22:01 CDT 2007
Here's what it looks like they're looking at in
Champaign right now. Just as a reminder, the
Champaign County Coalition of Citizen Police Review
suggests three basic principles needed for any review
board to be effective:
1. independence/neutrality
2. subpoena power for witnesses and documents
3. power to hire an investigator if necessary
There are some good resources/links at
www.prairienet.org/cprb.
But this document is what the committee in Champaign
came up with ...
Not sure why committee members need to be US citizens,
but I’m glad that criminal history wouldn’t be a bar
according to this. Anyway, this is obviously not an
ordinance, and I’d suggest that we are a long way from
having one in Champaign. There are some gaps that
need filling in, but I’d say there’s no rush.
It basically looks like something we should support,
to me. We can always suggest changes. We shall see
what the Champaign City Council says. Is anyone
planning to attend the Study Session on this?
I had heard it was on July 11, but Danielle says it's
July 31 at 7pm.
Ricky
POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Police Complaint Advisory Committee
Final Preferred Model
April 23, 2007
Introduction:
This document outlines the preferred model for the
City of Champaign Police Complaint Advisory Committee
and included are comments from the Police Community
Relations Committee. Also, excerpts have been taken
from the book entitled, "Citizen Oversight of Law
Enforcement", edited by Justina Cintron Perino have
been included to illustrate research that has been
conducted on other communities throughout the United
States that have established Citizen Review Boards.
Police Complaint Procedure Sub-Committee Report
Feedback provided by Police Community Relations
Committee
Excerpts from the book entitled “Citizen Oversight of
Law Enforcement”
1. Committee Appointment Process
Any committee intended to review the police complaint
procedures should consist of 5-7 members appointed by
the Mayor. This insures that the committee will be
responsive to the elected officials. It also provides
full opportunity for openness and scrutiny in that
meetings would generally be subject to the Open
Meetings Act. While this requires scheduling and
publication of an Agenda, and might thus, slow down
the process, making the public aware of the committee
was deemed critical to the success of any program.
The Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC)
recommends that the committee consist of 5 -7 members.
It also recommends that members of the PCRC and
outside organizations have the latitude to solicit
applications and make recommendations to the Mayor
regarding potential committee members. Prospective
committee members will be appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the Council.
According to the Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement
edited by Justina Cintron Perino, “for citizen review
boards, most jurisdictions have the mayor appoint
board members because the oversight entity is normally
viewed as an executive agency or advisory body within
the government. It is important that the mayor’s
selections be viewed as balanced.” (25)
2. Committee Member Characteristics.
It will serve no purpose if the committee consists of
all “pro-police” or “anti-police” members. The purpose
is to provide guidance to the Chief of Police
concerning police officer conduct. The committee must
consist of open-minded individuals willing to dedicate
sufficient time and energy to receiving proper
training so that they fully understand the laws,
policies and procedures. The advice given will not be
helpful if it is based strictly on emotion and
misunderstanding.
Any person involved in reviewing the conduct of police
officers must have:
• A good reputation in this community
• Trustworthiness (will not divulge confidential
information)
• The ability to learn and understand policies and
procedures of the police department
• A respectful and courteous disposition towards
fellow members, complainants and Police Officers.
In order to better enable us to be on familiar terms
with characteristic of the members:
• Members must be residents of the City of Champaign;
• Members must be U.S. citizen;
• Committee must reflect the diversity of the
community (race and gender);
• Members must have sufficient time to receive
periodic training, attend meetings, and review
complaints;
• Background check will be performed, though a
criminal history will not necessarily disqualify
someone from being a member.
The City would need to provide staff support to the
Committee. This would include a representative from
the Community Relations Office, the Police Department
and the Legal Department.
The PCRC recommends that the committee reflect the
diversity of the community. A process should be
established that encourages people to apply. Members
should be residents of the City of Champaign and they
should be required to attend training before serving
on the committee. Some recommended training consisted
of: Open Meeting’s Act, Freedom of Information Act,
Citizen Police Academy, Ride-Alongs and an overview of
identified departmental policies and procedures.
The PCRC discussed staff support which would include
the Chief of Police, Assistant City Attorney, Internal
Investigator, and Community Relations Staff.
According to the Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement,
edited by Justina Cintron Perino, “valuable qualities
include: standing in the community; a reputation for
fairness and integrity; experience on other boards;
and balance among the board’s members in terms of
their perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds.
Diversity is extremely important, especially because
issues of race and policing invariably will come
before the board.” (30, 31)
“Adequate and relevant training is a critical
component to enhancing the effectiveness of citizen
oversight and transparency. Such training can assist a
citizen oversight group to cultivate a foundation
built on knowledge and openness, which results in a
better understanding of a law enforcement agency and
its operations and culture and a more effective and
active monitoring of internal investigations of
officer misconduct allegations.” (51) Some recommended
training consisted of: Orientation to the Law
Enforcement Agency; Citizen Police Academies; Ride-
Alongs; Internal and External Training Seminars; and
External Consultants. (52-57)
3. Complaint Process.
A. Filing of Complaints.
Complaint filed with Community Relations or the Police
Department
a. All complainants will be encouraged to write out
and sign their complaint.
b. If a complainant does not wish to write out the
complaint, then staff will reduce the complaint to
writing and submit it for signing by the
citizen-complainant.
c. If the citizen refuses to sign the complaint, the
complaint will be handled as an “inquiry,” where an
investigation will be done, but they will be advised
that they will not be advised of the outcome, and even
if the complaint is sustained, there won’t be any
suspension in excess of 3 days based upon that
inquiry.
The PCRC recommends that citizens have the ability to
file complaints at both the Police Department and the
Community Relations Office. It was also recommended
that informational brochures regarding “How to File a
Police Complaint” be placed at various locations
throughout the community.
According to the Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement,
written by Justina Cintron Perino, “the most essential
level of outreach for an oversight agency is the task
of making people aware that the agency exists, what it
can and can not do, and how to get in contact.” (149)
In general. No consensus could be reached concerning
whether a citizen could choose whether or not their
formal complaint would be reviewed by the Committee or
if Committee review should be automatic. One point of
view is that some citizens may want to keep a negative
interaction with law enforcement confidential. The
incident itself might be embarrassing, or perhaps the
individual simply does not want to become a part of
the public discourse. Forcing them to participate in
this review process could discourage them from ever
filing a complaint, even if it is well-founded.
The other perspective is that in order for the process
to have any legitimacy, all formal complaints must be
reviewed, regardless of the wishes of the individual
making the complaint. That would eliminate any claims
that individuals were discouraged from requesting a
review.
A compromise solution might be to let the Committee
see all formal complaints, but allow the Citizen to
decide if he wants any action by the Committee.
The PCRC recommended that the committee receive a
quarterly report of all complaints filed, but only
review complaints that are appealed.
Withdrawn or Excluded Complaints. Not all complaints
will warrant a full investigation and review. Some
complaints can be resolved quickly and without much
effort (a factual misunderstanding about something
that, once known, is no longer disputed). Such a
complaint is still officially a complaint, but may be
withdrawn by the complainant once resolved, without
the need for review by a Committee.
Other complaints, though received by the City, will
already be under investigation by other entities.
Therefore, even if the City “accepts” all complaints,
some will not be investigated or reviewed, or the
investigation will be “stayed” until another entity
has resolved its investigation. Since the principal
concern is that the police can’t police themselves,
there is no need to review the following:
a. Allegations of criminal conduct by officers (States
Attorney review);
b. Incidents routinely investigated by outside
agencies (e.g. serious use of force); and
c. When civil litigation has been initiated
(complainant’s attorney will investigate the
matter).
B. Investigation of Complaints
Police Department investigates the complaint
a. This will consist of reviewing police reports,
conducting interviews, following up on promising
leads, reviewing video or audio recordings, etc.
b. The process will proceed through the chain of
command until a final staff recommendation is
prepared.
c. Possible dispositions are:
i. Unfounded – Allegation is false or not factual;
ii. Exonerated – Allegation is true, but the action
was consistent with law or policy;
iii. Not Sustained – Insufficient evidence to prove
or disprove the allegation;
iv. Sustained – Allegation is true and action was
inconsistent with law or policy.
The PCRC recommends that the Chief of Police review
and decide disposition prior to committee review.
Process. Professional Standards will coordinate all of
the investigations, as is the current process. The
only change would be the review of the results of that
investigation by the Committee. The Committee will not
independently investigate the matter. While there was
discussion about providing redacted or edited
information to the Committee, ultimately, the
Committee would not be able to perform an adequate
review of the process without having the same
information as the Investigator. Therefore, with
exception of the names of the complainants and
involved officers, the information provided to the
Committee would consist of:
a. The original written complaint and any supporting
documentation
b. Any available video or audio recordings of the
incident
c. Results of the Professional Standards investigation
(including summary and recommendation to Chief)
What other information is available to the Committee
will be dictated by where in the process the Committee
performs its review. So, if the review occurs after
the Professional Standards recommendation, but before
the Chief’s review, then a-c is all that will be
available. More information might be available if the
review occurs at a later point of the process.
The Committee could also accept a written statement
from the complainant and, if desired, the police
officer. Allowing any more information than that which
was available to the Professional Standards team would
not be productive. If more evidence or information
become available after the Professional Standards
investigation has been completed, it would be best for
the information to be submitted and the matter
re-investigated. To do otherwise would undermine the
process as a whole.
The PCRC recommends that the Chief of Police review
and decide disposition prior to the committee review.
C. Review and Decision by Chief.
Information submitted to the Chief of Police
a. The Chief will review the staff recommendation, the
Committee statement, and any other information made
available to him.
b. The Chief will make a determination and decide
what, if any, punishment is appropriate.
c. The Chief will issue a Final Disposition letter
stating his decision and whether or not discipline was
issued.
D. Appeal of Chief’s decision
Appeal
a. In the event the officer disagrees with the
disposition, he will follow the procedures outlined in
the FOP contract to file a grievance.
b. In the event the complainant disagrees with the
disposition, he will be able to appeal that decision
to the Committee.
E. Committee Appeal Review and Findings
Committee review of investigation results
a. The staff recommended disposition, along with the
information relied upon to make the recommendation
will be made available to the Committee, except
identifying information (names, badge numbers, etc) of
the complainant and subject officer will be excluded
to the extent possible.
b. A meeting will be scheduled to review and discuss
the complaint and investigation. This meeting will be
closed to the public (5 ILCS 140/7).
c. The committee will issue one of the following
statements based upon all of the evidence reviewed:
i. Take no exception to the process and agree with
staff recommendation;
ii. Make recommendation for more investigation;
iii. Take no exception to the process, but recommend
alternative disposition;
iv. Take no exception to the process and disposition,
but recommend review of the overall policy.
d. The Committee will specifically identify the reason
for its statement in the event it finds deficiencies
in the process followed, the policy in general, and/or
the staff recommendation.
e. The Committee will prepare two statements: the
confidential statement to the Chief and City Manager,
and the public statement. The public statement will
consist of the following:
i. The nature of the allegation;
ii. The staff recommendation;
iii. The committee statement.
Product. After review of the case, the Committee
has 1 of 4 recommendations it can make:
a. Takes no exception to process and agrees with staff
recommendation;
b. Makes recommendation for more investigation;
c. Takes no exception to process but recommends
alternative disposition (i.e. expresses disagreement
with staff recommendation); and
d. Takes no exception to process and disposition, but
recommends review of policy as a whole.
The “disposition” referred to in c and d refers to
whether or not the complaint was unfounded,
exonerated, not sustained or sustained. The Committee
has no input into any discipline an officer may
receive. The Committee is simply to ensure the process
followed was fair and thorough.
F. Committee Report to City Manger and Police Chief
The Committee will forward their report to the City
Manager and Police Chief for review. Further
investigation or inquiring may be needed.
G. City Manager, Chief response to Committee
Once their review is complete, a written response will
be prepared and presented to the Committee. This
should occur within 30 days unless a time extension is
requested. The response will also be provided to the
City Council.
H. Communication with the public
Specific Complaints. The more difficult situation is
with regard to discussing specific complaints. As a
member of a committee with access to restricted
information, some individuals will make inquiries of
the Committee members about specific matters. The
Committee should be constantly reminded that it must
not discuss pending complaints. Disclosure of
information concerning pending complaints is not
required under the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS
140/7), and is also exempted under the Open Meetings
Act. Discussions about these matters would risk
needlessly identifying a complainant, and might also
violate the FOP Agreement, section 32.5 (
so as to not
unnecessarily embarrass the officer). Until a matter
is resolved, there is no legitimate reason for the
committee to disclose the information.
When complainant goes public. However, if the citizen
“goes public” by discussing the case widely and/or
with the media, it may prove difficult for the members
to resist commenting. The best way to respond to such
a situation would be for the City Legal Department
representative to provide a statement for the
Committee members to rely upon to respond to the
inquiries, and the instruction to limit comments to
the data contained in the statement. To go beyond the
prepared statement would serve no long-term purpose,
and would most likely undermine the entire process. If
a member has formed an opinion without having reviewed
all of the information, his/her judgment may be called
in to question and that person may be removed from
consideration of that particular case.
Post-Review. Once the Committee has made its
recommendation, the recommendation itself is a matter
of public record. The recommendation would consist of
the following:
a. A summary of the nature of the allegation;
b. Committee’s disposition; and
c. Whether or not “b” was in accord with or in
disagreement with staff’s recommendation.
4. Committee Public Outreach
General Publicity. For publicity in general, the City
benefits if the public at large is aware of the
Committee and its role. The Committee would be called
upon to provide information to the public about the
general workings of the Committee. The members would
have to be willing to engage in public speaking
activities concerning the existence of the committee,
what it does and how it works, as well as share
statistical information. In addition, the Committee
should have a brochure prepared to help the public be
aware of and understand the complaint process. Also,
the Committee would prepare an annual report to the
City Council summarizing their activities during the
year.
According to the Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement
edited by Justina Cintron Perino, “fabulous outreach
will not do much good if the agency is not fair,
competent, and effective, but it is the means by which
an agency achieves its goals of transparency and
accessibility and through which the public will assess
its fairness and credibility. It does not necessarily
have to be formally designated “outreach” done by a
formally designated “outreach person,” but somehow the
basic tasks of outreach need to get done, and outreach
needs to be included in the planning from the
beginning.” (148)
Annual Report
Statistical information about the number of cases
reviewed, the dispositions, etc will be prepared by
the Committee for publication.
The PCRC recommends that the committee provide a
quarterly report.
According to the Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement,
written by Justina Cintron Perino, “public reports, at
a minimum annually, are a significant tool in building
an oversight agency’s credibility. These reports
should describe not only the activities of the
oversight entity, they should also provide the public
with a source of information on complaints trends or
patterns, police use of force, and other police
practices.” (38)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list