Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

• “Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority Redesign Report,” November 1997, 29 pages, and the board’s response to the report, “Response to MCPRA Redesign Report,” April 1998. • “External Police Review: A Discussion of Existing City of Tucson Procedures and Alternative Models, Report to the Mayor and Council,” October 7, 1996, 36 pages plus appendixes. The Portland Copwatch organization developed a 10-page “Proposal for an Effective Civilian Review Board” that is available from Portland Copwatch/People Overseeing Police Study Group, P.O. Box 244296, Portland, OR 97242; 503–288–3462. (See also “Albuquerque, Portland, and Tucson Did Their Own Research.”) The Minneapolis and Rochester oversight bodies can pro- vide additional materials on conducting mediation. Selected Publications and Reports Bailey, Robert G. “The Re-Emergence of Civilian Review of Police: Seizing the Opportunity and Understanding the Trade-Offs.” Unpublished paper submitted to the eighth annual IACOLE conference, September 1992, 8 pages. Discusses tradeoffs in different ways citizen oversight can be structured. Order from IACOLE (see address above). Human Rights Watch. Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States,New York: Human Rights Watch, 1998, 440 pages. Discusses factors that contribute to human rights violations; recom- mends changes in police administration to reduce police misconduct; discusses civil remedies, prosecution, and other approaches to accountability; and provides case studies of misconduct and efforts at accountability in 14 C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 139 ALBUQUERQUE,PORTLAND,AND TUCSON DID THEIR OWN RESEARCH (CONTINUED) Tucson In 1996, the mayor and city council of Tucson asked staff to provide information on alternative models for external police review procedures, including potential changes to the city’s existing Citizen Police Advisory Review Board. Staff consulted with involved parties throughout the city and obtained additional information from a number of well-known practitioners and experts from across the Nation.The resulting 33-page report identified the limita- tions of the current commission, reviewed alternative models, and provided recommendations for improving the city’s current procedure and cost estimates for each proposed improvement. A mayor’s and city council subcommittee, headed by an assistant city manager, conducted a nationwide review of options and discussed them before adopting its own ordinance. The assistant city manager telephoned cities and visited the independent police auditor in San Jose. The assistant had a budget and survey people assigned to her to conduct the survey. The subcommittee considered to whom the board and auditor should report, whether the board would have investigation powers, and who would supervise the auditor. There was a historical precedent for having a board because one had existed for several years. So it was natural to continue the existing board.The auditor was assigned to the city manager because the city charter puts the city manager in charge of all adminis- tration. An auditor was selected because the subcommittee felt a board was not the best avenue for citizens to bring complaints, monitor investigations, and do alternative intake because of turnover among volunteers and lack of time. The city council debated the proposed options, including doing nothing. Three members of the council made up the public safety subcommittee, which conducted the investigation. The council debated whether an auditor was needed or only a strengthening of the existing board. There was a great deal of intense debate before the auditor model was agreed on.