[Peace-discuss] Re: [CPRB] revised Urbana ordinance

[John W.]

I've Cc'ed a couple more lists in my reply, Ricky.



At 12:08 AM 7/22/2007, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

>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!

The new draft ordinance uses the word "subpoena" in Sec. 19-36(a)(4), but 
it doesn't really spell out what subpoena power means in this context.  The 
City Attorney's objection to subpoena power was that the CRB is not a court 
of law, so what penalties can it impose for failure to comply with its 
subpoena?  This ordinance doesn't say.  Maybe the City of Urbana will work 
that out in another ordinance, but I suspect that the phrase is just there 
as window-dressing.


>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.

You seem to be reading it right, and that's one of the key weaknesses of 
this ordinance.  The onus is on the complainant herself to come up with her 
own witnesses, and on the Police Dept. to be forthcoming about what the law 
calls "exculpatory evidence" - e.g., witnesses unfavorable to its own 
version of events.  What do you suppose are the odds of that 
happening?  Again, the CRB is not a court of law, so it has no teeth to 
compel the police to turn over exculpatory evidence.

The main strength of the revised ordinance is that the CRB now has, 
according to Sec. 19-26(a), access to documentary evidence - police 
reports, dispatch tapes and transcriptions, video recordings, 
etc.  Unfortunately, this documentary evidence may be redacted or withheld 
by the City Attorney and/or his designee (the Police Chief?) if it, in 
his/her judgment, may "compromise an ongoing law enforcement 
investigation".  (Still sufficiently vague, but less vague than the 
previous "law enforcement objective".)

The onus is still fully on the citizen - to find witnesses, to videotape 
police stops as VESA was doing, etc.


>The prohibition in the FOP
>contract seems to be the source of this,

It's not clear to me what the source is.


>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, some means to
>look for additional witnesses for example if they deem
>it necessary or important?

Just keep harping on it to the city council.  That's all I know.


>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.

This provision I actually understand.  The City is bending over backwards 
to give the CRB every appearance of neutrality and probity.  If anyone 
remotely associated with law enforcement, even in the past, is excluded, it 
just seems logical that those who have run afoul of law enforcement would 
also be excluded.  "Appearance" is the key word here.  Even if the ex-felon 
is now a model citizen, the average citizen would have no way of knowing 
that, and the CRB would appear unbalanced in favor of those who "hate the 
police".  We've already seen one letter to the News-Gazette saying that 
precise thing, with this provision IN the ordinance.  Imagine the public 
furor if it were left out, and an ex-felon appointed to the CRB.


>I'm sure there's more to say.  Anybody?

Another onerous provision that they've left in is Sec. 19-37, where the CRB 
MUST suspend its review more or less indefinitely if a separate criminal 
investigation is underway or if a civil action against the City is 
threatened, underway, or pending.  We all know how long that could take, 
and that witnesses would disappear, memories would fade, etc.  There needs 
to be a way to warn the potential complainant not to file or even threaten 
a civil lawsuit until after the CRB has conducted its review of the 
complaint.  I don't know how that could be done judiciously.

They've also given the CRB an even shorter time to prove itself, moving the 
date of review and reauthorization (in Sec. 19-40) from Oct. 30, 2010 to 
Oct. 30, 2009.  Assuming that CRB members could be appointed and trained, 
the procedural rules created and agreed upon, and the CRB in operation by 
10/30/07 (all of which is highly unlikely), that gives the CRB only two 
years to demonstrate its worth and effectiveness.

My main objection to all of this is that a CRB needs to be created with 
worst-case scenarios in mind, hoping that they will never occur but knowing 
that they might.  The Mayor and certain members of the City Council seem 
determined to create a watered-down version of a CRB, to make them look 
liberal and enlightened but not too draconian because they pride themselves 
on having a "good" city with a "good" police department.  Very much, I'm 
sorry to say, like what Carl is always saying the Democrats are doing with 
regard to American foreign policy.

More thoughts are welcome and encouraged.  And your presence and support at 
the City Council meeting on Monday night is likewise encouraged.

John Wason


>See you Monday nite.
>Ricky