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 125 find is that an investigator failed to ask the complainant or subject officer an important question. Board members’ performance Oversight directors typically attend all board hearings, giving them an opportunity to observe board members’ behavior. Directors need to be especially sensitive to whether members appear biased for or against the police (see “Can Repeated Contact With Police Officers Impair Oversight Staff Objectivity?”). In Rochester, board members meet privately without the director’s presence. As a result, chair- persons are required to report another board person who appears to be biased to the program coordinator, who then will meet with the person to discuss the matter. A few board members have been dismissed when it was discov- ered they discussed a case with a third party. In another jurisdiction, the director removed a board member who had told a police officer that she did not like his behavior, warning him, “And I’m a member of the citizen oversight board.” Consumer Satisfaction Surveys Jurisdictions can inexpensively implement a customer satisfaction survey. The Vera Institute of Justice in New York City surveyed a sample of 371 citizens who had filed complaints with the Citizen Complaints Review Board. The study found: • Most complainants (61 percent) had “moderate” objec- tives: an apology for themselves or a reprimand of the officer(s). • The desire for a direct encounter with the subject offi- cer(s) was “pervasive” and “significantly associated with complainant satisfaction.”1 Minneapolis’Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) hired Samuel Walker, a consultant, to develop two cus- tomer satisfaction surveys. The board and union attorney reviewed drafts of the surveys. Patricia Hughes, the execu- tive director, sends one survey twice a month to the previous week’s com- plainants and the second survey (see exhibit 7–1) to complainants and offi- cers after their cases have been settled. The anonymous survey includes an addressed, stamped envelope to be mailed back to the city coordinator’s office, which tabu- lates the responses and sends a copy to Hughes. Walker’s analysis of 29 surveys completed by citizens and 21 completed by officers found: • Although most citizens were satisfied with how CRA staff treated them, 8 of the 29 respondents reported they were not treated with respect. CAN REPEATED CONTACT WITH POLICE OFFICERS IMPAIR OVERSIGHT STAFF OBJECTIVITY? A close observer of citizen oversight has reported that investigators’ and board members’ “daily interactions with the police force allow them plenty of opportunities to develop empathy and subliminal ties with those involved in ‘real law enforcement.’”*For the same reason, some citizens have objected to oversight staff attending police citi- zen academies (see chapter 4,“Staffing”). A report proposing the redesign of Minneapolis’ Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) recommended that “Periodic monitoring should be done to ensure that co-option does not become an issue (regarding staff).” However, CRA responded,“There exists no known, objective, scientific meas- ure for ‘co-optation.’ Therefore,‘monitoring’ of this possibility must be subjectively assessed by the Executive Director of the CRA and its Board members.” *Perez, Douglas W.,Common Sense About Police Review,Philadelphia:Temple University Press, 1994: 182–183. Minneapolis’ Civilian Police Review Authority hired a consultant to develop two customer satisfaction surveys.