[Peace-discuss] CPRB - Where We Stand

[John W.]

As usual, Ricky beat me out of the starting gate.  :-)  Yes, this is indeed 
the gist of it.  Last Friday was supposedly the final day to submit written 
comments and suggestions on the Urbana draft ordinance, so that's what we 
rather hurriedly did.

Here's what happens next, as I understand it (someone please correct me if 
I'm wrong):  The Urbana City Attorney may or may not change the draft 
ordinance between now and next Monday, based on feedback received.  On 
Monday July 9 the Urbana City Council will be meeting as a "committee of 
the whole" to discuss the draft ordinance.  Voting on the ordinance could 
take place as early as Monday July 16, when the Urbana City Council meets 
as a council.

I would encourage any of you who is interested to read the draft ordinance 
and familiarize yourself with it.  I'll be happy to e-mail any individual 
who requests it a copy of the draft ordinance, and/or my own observations, 
which are slightly different from Ricky's below but essentially the same.

Then, if you're a resident of Urbana and feel moved to do so, you could 
contact your City Council representative, expressing support for the 
ordinance and perhaps suggesting a change or two that you think would make 
it a more effective ordinance (being careful, I would hope, not to venture 
into brand new territory not previously covered by the Mayor's task force 
or by our coalition; state law and the new police union contract, for 
example, impose certain limitations on what the CPRB can and cannot 
do).  It would also be of great assistance, whether you're a resident of 
Urbana or Champaign, if you could show up in support of the ordinance at 
one or both of the City Council sessions.  Ricky won't be able to be at 
either one, and I'm not sure about some of the others who have worked on 
this thing for so long.

I'm reasonably certain that some form of the ordinance will pass, but this 
is pretty much our last shot, at least for the time being, at making it the 
strongest and most effective ordinance that it can be.  The Mayor, for 
whatever reason, has not given us a great deal of advance notice at any 
stage in this process, so it's been difficult to know precisely when and 
how to muster an adequate response to late-breaking developments.

As this process in Urbana comes to a close legislatively (to be followed, 
we assume, by the actual selection of members of a Civilian Review Board 
(as they're calling it) and their training, the promulgation of rules and 
the creation of protocols for its operation, etc., those of us who are 
still interested can turn some of our attention to whatever it is that the 
Champaign City Council is considering.  Ricky has just furnished us with 
the document, and we understand that there is to be some sort of study 
session regarding it by the Champaign City Council on Tuesday, July 31.

We'll try to keep you posted if there are any new developments.  You will, 
I hope, do us the same courtesy.

Thanks to each and every one of you reading this for your continuing 
support for citizen police review boards in Urbana and Champaign.

Sincerely,

John Wason



At 04:34 PM 7/4/2007, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

>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 
> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070704/f99fec27/attachment-0001.htm