[Peace] Civilian Police Review Board process re-authorization

Wed Apr 8 11:51:36 CDT 2009

Extremely thorough and reasonably accurate version of events, Ricky.  I wish
I was a resident of Urbana, so that my word would carry a bit more weight.
(I also wish I had a working vehicle.)

But yes, I concur:  the Urbana CPRB has done no outreach that I know
anything about.  And it is very much hamstrung by its inability to hire an
independent investigator and indeed by its statutory inability to conduct
independent investigations.

Also, the current members must be very, very timid, fearful of rocking the
boat in any way.  Back when we were researching all of this, the Chair of
the Iowa City CPRB (who was also CEO of their local Goodwill) told me that
even he was somewhat fearful of the police, and drove more cautiously and so
on.

John Wason

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>wrote:

Below please find some dates for much-needed input on this.  I'd also
> encourage Urbana residents to contact our City Council members and the Mayor
> to emphasize the fundamental need for civilian review of local law
> enforcement.  This law is due to "sunset" and requires re-authorization -
> and there are serious problems to fix at the same time.
>
> The history on this - and John Wason and others can correct me - is that a
> several years ago there were a few unusually dramatic incidents, mostly in
> Champaign, one involving a man's neck broken by police.  The NAACP and other
> groups raised holy hell, and the City's Human Relations Comission (I believe
> that's the name) recommended a citizen police review board, but the
> Champaign City Council turned a deaf ear except to establish an "advisory"
> board to review 'concerns of the black community' or words to that effect,
> and included the now-defunct Urban League.  That body eventually made the
> same recommendation a couple years ago: an independent board of ordinary,
> non-police community members to oversee police-community relations,
> including complaints, and report to the Council.  There were other
> recommendations, too, such as revisions to the complaint form, which were
> simultaneously followed and not followed (e.g. they made the form more
> available, but added chilling-effect language about the consequences of
> making false statements, etc.).  The council did not establish a board.
>
> Meanwhile agroup of citizens - Greens, civil libertarians and others - got
> together and formed the Champaign County Coalition for Citizen Police
> Review (http://www.prairienet.org/cprb/), which decided to focus first on
> Urbana and then revisit Champaign, and beyond.  The Coalition met with
> Urbana City Council members and then-Mayer Tod Satterthwaite, and had a
> majority with the mayor blocking.  They collected reams of research (thank
> you, John Wason!), posted some wonderful resources on their website,
> gathered petition signatures, and attempted to educate people on the issue
> for a few years until the next election, when the Coalition produced
> candidate questionnaires and held an educational forum in Council chambers
> on civilian oversight of law enforcement.  Coincident with this necessary
> groundwork, events conspired to change the lay of the land.
>
> Champaign police requested funding for a new weapon: tasers.  The black and
> civil rights community erupted in outrage.  An incoming police chief -
> Finney - backed off.  Then Martel Miller and Patrick Thompson, two local
> black activists who had been videotaping police activities in various parts
> of the community, were charged with "eavesdropping" by a lunatic (and
> unpopular) state's attorney.  The challenger Julia Rietz made overtures of
> change, and after the election did drop charges against Miller (while
> pursuing unsubstatiated charges against Thompson for a different crime -
> after three trials and more circus, he eventually won).  Sandra Ahten and
> others camapigned successfully to change some onerous rules at the jails:
> visitation policies, the county's kick-back phone system for inmate calls,
> etc.  There were very disturbing incidents of abuse in the county jails, and
> an Urbana police officer was accused of raping a woman on duty, in uniform,
> while wearing his gun.  The officer apparently had a history of sexual
> harassment complaints.  He eventually was allowed to resign.  No charges
> were filed, even though the evidence against him had been considerably more
> substantial than that against Patrick Thompson.
>
> In this context, with a new mayor - Laurel Prussing, who had been involved
> initially in the Coalition - and a favorable city council, the coalition
> approached elected officials, and the Mayor appointed a special Task Force
> to make study and recommendations.  The police union, which had refused to
> meet with the Coalition for over a year, had paradoxically helped propel the
> issue to the forefront by emphasizing the question at a candidates' forum
> held together ith the firefighters union, and made headlines for civilian
> oversight of police - and for Prussing's position, which was essentially the
> Coalition's.  Candidate questionnaires from the time are still posted on the
> web, I believe, which may be of interest at least in the case of those who
> are now in office.  A few AWARE members were involved in individual meetings
> that the Coalition set up with all the City Council members (except Heather
> Stevenson?). The Coalition also met with the outgoing chief of police and
> then-assistant Mike Biley, who were both generally favorable.
>
> Prussing and the new Council moved quickly to expand the police force, a
> key union demand associated with safety on the job (understaffing =
> heightened risk). The Task Force met for several months and included the new
> police chief - Biley - and the then-president of the police union, as well
> as Urban League Pres. Tracy Parsons, representatives from the NAACP, ACLU,
> Rev. Zernial Bogan, Prussing, and two representatives from the Coalition who
> were Urbana residents (I was one, Jen Walling from the Greens another).  All
> meetings were televised on UPTV, as the Coalition's pre-election forum had
> been.  The Task Force looked at experiences of other cities as well as local
> data on police activities, including specific complaints and the complaint
> process.  Discussion was all in all very good, I think, though the police
> union remained concerned.
>
> When the Task Force, chaired by Esther Patt, issued its final
> recommendations there was substance there: duties, timelines, community
> outreach requirements, suggested models for choosing board members as well
> as criteria for choosing and requirements for training, etc.  Instead of
> moving directly to legislative action, however, the City entered
> negotiations with the police union *prior* to voting or fully discussing the
> issues.  Two important principles were bargained away in that process: a
> broad vision of open and unbiased community participation, and the ability
> of the board to independently investigate, which to my mind remain the major
> problems with the board as constituted.
>
> First, the City agreed that it would not pass legislation establishing a
> "CPRB" that included board members with police records.  This is a human
> rights violation - a disenfranchisement - and it improperly skews the
> board's composition and thus its perspective and function.  Police officers
> were excluded because of a conflict of interest that is at least partly
> job-related.  Excluding an entire population of the citizenry, especially
> those who have "paid their debt", is not comparable and is viciously
> prejudiced.  In fact, non-citizens are allowed to serve - which is great -
> but a certain class of citizens (who are allowed to vote in this state but
> not in some) is banned.  How we expect this board to function as an
> unprejudiced instrument of police-community relations with this glaring
> exclusion is unclear, not least because it bars participation from some of
> the local citizens who know the question best from the local epicenter of
> community concerns.
>
> Second, the city agreed that it would not pass legislation establishing a
> "CPRB" without a prohibition on independent 'snooping' by individual board
> members - "ex parte communications" - and on hiring an independent
> investigator.  This obviously seriously hampers the board's ability
> to simply find out what happened, independent of police reports and the
> testimony of those who choose to come forward, a potentially fatal omission
> for a complex case.  The board does have legal access to all police records,
> including videotapes, transcripts, etc., and if the problem were only that
> the police might withhold official documents, this would be sufficient.  But
> what about what is not recorded in police reports, not caught on camera, or
> mentioned at all in these media, either because an officer - for example,
> who is engaged in sexual congress (consensual or not) - chooses not to
> mention some of the details of the day, or because the police themselves may
> not know (the existence of a witness, for example, who may be afriad to come
> forward if they have witnessed a particularly unpleasant interaction).  This
> provision hamstrings the board's function as surely as the process by which
> it was negotiated hamstrings local democracy.
>
> In addition to these problems - which the Council and Mayor could now
> decide to address, and should, and must be called upon to fix - the board
> hasn't been exactly what we'd call activist so far.  The outreach that is so
> vital to its function, if only so that community members know about it and
> how to approach it, has been woefully inadequate if it exists at all.
> Critical observers like Danielle Chynoweth suggest that the sum of outreach
> has been virtually zero.  I know that due to my involvement I have watched
> for signs of the board - announcing itself, enthusiastically proclaiming our
> new rights to appeal decisions on complaints, posting meetings - nothing.
> many outlets were discussed for this - the library and other public places -
> but however it is done, it must be done.  Danielle has suggested that
> notices be made available to any local resident or group that takes an
> interest in signing up for, for example, the required quarterly reports of
> the board's activities (which I'm told have not been done) and the board's
> required annual report (which I also hear hasn't happened).
>
> You get the picture.  Apparently we need to light a fire under their tail.
> Can anyone come tonight or Monday night to speak up on this?
>
> Ricky
>
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> *From:* Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com>
> *To:* Community Courtwatch <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org>;
> burkstroy at yahoo.com; King Evelyn Underwood <kingjames5804 at att.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2009 2:48:17 AM
> *Subject:* [Discuss] CUCPJ input regarding CPRB re-authorization
>
> I sent off the attached letter from CUCPJ regarding the CPRB today,
> outlining the points we discussed Saturday.  I added Ricky's note about
> felony convictions since this was a large part of what we discused first
> time around.
>
> The CPRB meets tonight.  I may not be able to make it so if others can,
> that would be great.  Let me know.  Here are the meeting dates and times:
>
> Wed. April 8th, 5:30 PM
> *Civilian Review Board of Police meet to take public input *
> Council Chambers in City Hall at 400 S. Vine Street in Urbana
>
> Mon. April 13th at 7 pm
> *City Council hearing to take input on the CPRB*
> Council Chambers in City Hall at 400 S. Vine Street in Urbana
>
> Basic information, the ordinance and policies can all be viewed here:
>
> http://www.city.urbana.il.us?URL=/urbana/executive/human_relations/cprb_faq.html<http://www.city.urbana.il.us/?URL=/urbana/executive/human_relations/cprb_faq.html>
>
> . - Danielle
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com>
> Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM
> Subject: CUCPJ input regarding CPRB re-authorization
> To: terent at city.urbana.il.us
>
>
> Dear Todd -
>
> Your office has been incredibly helpful with responding to our questions,
> being flexible with the deadline for input, and notifying us of upcoming
> meetings.  Thank you.
>
> Attached is a PDF letter of CUCPJ's input to the CPRB re-authorization
> process.  We have tried to provide specific proposals for improvements to
> the ordinance and its execution.
>
> Please share this with the CPRB, Mayor, and Council.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Danielle Chynoweth
> Champaign Urbana Citizens for Peace and Justice
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace/attachments/20090408/8d66ec27/attachment.html