Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

misconduct, examine how the police bureau conducts its internal affairs investigations, and publicize what they learn. • PIIAC commissioners—even though they make up the city council—do not have the power to overrule the chief’s decision to sustain or not sustain complaints. Police administrators are likely to feel it is important that the ultimate decision remain with the department. Complainants may feel frustrated that elected officials do not have the final say in their cases. • Because the auditor works for the mayor, the chief executive is free to increase or decrease the hours she devotes to PIIAC. For further information, contact: Examiner Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee 1221 Southwest Fourth Avenue, Suite 340 Portland, OR 97204–1995 503–823–4126 Bret Smith Commander, IA Unit Portland Police Bureau 1111 Southwest Second Street Portland, OR 97204 503–823–0236 The Rochester, New York, Civilian Review Board: Trained Mediators Review Citizen Complaints Background In 1976, after community groups expressed serious concern when police officers killed a woman who was brandishing a knife, the mayor appointed a commission to explore how to improve police-community relations and reduce the use of excessive force. One of the panel’s recommendations was a citizen review process. As a result, the city council approved legislation establishing a Complaint Investigation Committee, consisting of review panels with two command police officers and one citizen that met at police headquarters to review com- pleted IA investigations. In 1984, the council changed the composition of the panels to include two civilians and two command officers and established a conciliation process. In 1992, the council renamed the committee the Civilian Review Board (CRB), excluded any police rep- resentation, and moved the reviews to the city hall. The city council contracts with the Center for Dispute Settlement to train and provide the panelists and arrange for the reviews. Founded in 1973 by the American Arbitration Association, the center is the third oldest not- for-profit dispute resolution organization in the Nation. It offers alternative dispute resolution options to the court system and trains community members to conduct con- ciliation. The city council chose the Center for Dispute C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 46 THUMBNAIL SKETCH:ROCHESTER Model: citizens review cases (type 2) Jurisdiction: Rochester, New York Population: 221,594 Government: strong mayor, city council Appointment of chief: mayor nominates, council approves, mayor may remove Sworn officers: 685 Oversight funding: $128,069 Oversight staff: one full time, three part time The Rochester City Council contracts with a local dispute resolution center to set up three-member panels of trained, certified mediators to review internal affairs cases.The panels establish findings that the chief considers along with IA’s findings in imposing discipline.The panels also may recommend change (related to the cases it reviews) in depart- ment policies, training, and IA investigation proce- dures. In a separate process, the dispute resolution center conducts about 10 formal citizen-police conciliations each year.