Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 4: STAFFING 84 As a result, the recruitment, selection, and training of oversight volunteers and staff are extremely important. The following discussion examines these processes for each of the three staff categories. The issue of staff supervision is discussed in chapter 7, “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Funding.” Volunteer Board Members If a jurisdiction chooses to have volunteer citizens review cases, the volunteers need to be chosen with particular care because they usually have no formal credentials in the law enforcement field, may have inappro- priate motives for serving, and may be viewed as especially unqualified by some police and citizens. Planning decisions There are several early decisions jurisdictions must make before recruiting volunteer board members. • What will be the board’s specific responsibilities— that is, what will members be expected to accomplish? The nature of their assignments and how much time they will need to achieve them in part will influence how jurisdictions answer the other planning questions listed below. For example, if board members will be expected to review—and, especially, hold hearings— on less serious cases of misconduct (e.g., verbal abuse) rather than focus exclusively on serious cases (e.g., use-of-excessive-force allegations), program planners need to provide adequate staff to avoid long delays in case processing. • How many members will the board have? There appears to be no correlation between board size and the population of the communities they serve.2 Most boards have between seven and nine members. Factors to consider in deciding on the number include: — Not having so few members that, with two or three absences, there is no quorum. — Having enough members to represent the diversity of the local community. — If small groups of board members will be conduct- ing hearings (as in Berkeley, Minneapolis, and Rochester), having enough members so that the burden of holding hearings is not overwhelming. The St. Paul mayor, with the consent of the city council, appoints three alternative commissioners to serve in the event a regular member does not attend a meeting or hearing due to illness or a conflict of interest. • What will be the members’ term of office, and can they be reappointed? Terms should not be so short that board members leave as soon as they gain valuable on-the-job experience3 but not so long that undesirable mem- bers can remain in office beyond their welcome. Portland appoints members for 2 years, with the option of reap- pointment. Board members in Minneapolis and Tucson serve for 4 years. In Berkeley, new council mem- bers may replace previous members’ selections before their 2-year term is over. In Tucson, board members may not serve beyond the term of the mayor or council member who appointed them. • Will board members receive an honorarium? If so, how much? Some compensation may be necessary to attract qualified volunteers as well as to underscore that the community feels their work is important. Too much compensation not only becomes expensive but may also erode the concept that independent citizens, rather than paid staff employed by the city or county, are overseeing police misconduct. — Board members in Minneapolis receive $50 for each day they attend one or more meetings or hearings or provide other board-related services. — Panelists in Rochester who chair review meetings receive $50 for each 2-hour block of time they par- ticipate (they receive another $50 if they run at least 15 minutes into the next 2-hour block); regu- lar panelists receive $35. Mediators receive $35 for each case. (See “Rochester’s Board Members All Are Trained Mediators.”) — Board members in Berkeley have been given $3 an hour (not to exceed $200 per month) since the Talented and fair staff are essential for citizen oversight to achieve its potential benefits.