Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 119 • Delays in case processing. • The fairness of the procedures. For example, according to Liana Perez, Tucson’s auditor, “It’s better not to try to get subpoena power because then the union ties you up in court.” Furthermore, many over- sight staff and researchers believe that subpoena power is not a particularly useful tool. (See the discussion of sub- poena power in chapter 5, “Addressing Important Issues in Citizen Oversight.”) Other examples of meeting the union half way follow. • The Rochester corporate counsel worked closely with the city council and the mayor to fashion an oversight procedure that would not be subject to a successful union suit. For example, the city council attorney reported that giving the Civilian Review Board authori- ty to establish mandatory findings and discipline would make it vulnerable to litigation by the union, and the union already had said it would sue if the council granted the board these powers. As a result, this author- ity was omitted from the legislation. • Rochester’s first review board included police officers to accommodate union concerns. Later, the city council enacted legislation excluding them. The Rochester police union consented to a mediation option after the city council agreed to exclude any final signed agreement and to call the process “conciliation,” not “mediation.” • Board members in another jurisdiction agreed to base their findings on clear and convincing evidence rather than on a preponderance of the evidence after the union agreed that officers could be required to testify. • To address the concerns that the oversight system could cost the union money, the Minneapolis statute requires that the Civilian Police Review Board pay the union’s legal fees when a complaint is not sustained after the executive director has found probable cause. • When first appointed, Lisa Botsko, Portland’s first auditor, met with the union president and treasurer initially “just to get to know them, learn their perspec- tives, and tell them what I do.” One of the grievances they expressed to Botsko was how long it took to process complaints. As a result, Botsko developed timelines for everyone involved in the review process. Make sure the review process is scrupulously fair Some union leaders report they have no objection to citizen review as long as it treats officers fairly. • I wasn’t opposed to citizen review; I had researched it and hadn’t found that citizen review burns cops. I just didn’t want it to be one sided. —Butch Swinteck, treasurer, St. Paul Police Officers’ Union • The concept of oversight is excellent; it builds citizen trust in the department: We can’t be accused of cover- ing anything up. The problem lies in the practice—the procedure attracts staff with an axe to grind against us. For civilian review of law enforcement to function properly, all parties to it, including officers, must perceive the process to be impartial and professional. —John Evans, officer representative, San Francisco Police Officers’Association According to Mark Gissiner, president of the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement from 1995–99, “Police officers feel that oversight has a third standard for judging officers in addition to criminal behavior and violation of general orders. But there should not be any other standard; either the behavior is a crime or a violation of general orders—or it is not. A lot of peo- ple feel oversight should be an advocate for complainants because no one else seems to represent them. But over- sight should not; it should be a factfinder only with the authority to make recommendations based on its find- ings.” Of course, once an oversight body finds for the complainant, depending on its legislative mandate, it may have to end up acting on the complainant’s behalf. According to Lt. Steve Young, vice president of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, in addition to basic fairness, “Union leaders are concerned that any oversight system follow due process in how they treat officers.” Oversight bodies should, in consultation with the union, investigate thoroughly the due process rights of officers reflected in State statute, case law, and labor’s contract with the department. For example, some union contracts require that matters of discipline must be dealt with during working hours. Other contracts limit the information oversight bodies can disseminate to com- plainants or the general public. The oversight director can distribute a summary of these rights to all staff and volunteers, ask the union to report when it believes a