Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

probing and open-ended questions, developing a rationale for each position taken, and looking at all sides of a problem.” However, if CRB’s parent organi- zation were not a dispute resolution center, arranging to train board members as mediators might be expensive. • Panelists hold the position for life (subject to proper behavior). On the one hand, their longevity provides them with considerable experience reviewing cases that may enable them to act efficiently and objectively. On the other hand, according to Robert Duffy, the chief of police, “Some of them may sort of ‘settle in’ and lose the fresh perspective citizens can bring to police work.” In addition, rotating panelists would enable CRB and police to educate more community members to the nature of police work. • By designating permanent chairpersons, usually from among long-time panelists, only the most qualified and experienced panelists facilitate the reviews. • Cases are reviewed relatively quickly. (The city council deliberately chose a system that would avoid the delays it found existed in some other jurisdictions.) According to the city council resolution establishing the board, CRB has to review cases within 2 weeks of IA’s notifi- cation that its investigation is complete. • Panels are anonymous and not open to the public. As a result, panelists are not under pressure to skew their decisions in response to the demands of public or police interest groups. However, the public may lack confidence in CRB’s objectivity since citizens are not privy to the review process. • Panelists do not have an opportunity to review IA case files before the panel meets. This results in extra time being taken during the meeting while panelists review the files and may create pressure to review the materi- als less thoroughly than if panelists could review them at home at their leisure before the meeting. Panelists also do not have the opportunity to ponder the cases in advance of the meetings. However, by not distributing any IA case files outside the meeting room, the police department is assured they will never be made public, for example, by getting lost. • By not handling allegations of police discourtesy and other less serious complaints (unless they are part of a serious complaint), CRB can focus on more important cases. However, the board might be able to handle many less serious cases through mediation with greater satisfaction to complainants and more objectivity than the police department may be able to achieve. For further information, contact: Todd Samolis Coordinator of Special Projects Civilian Review Board 300 State Street, Suite 301 Rochester, NY 14614 716–546–5110 Robert Duffy Chief of Police Rochester Police Department City Public Safety Building Civic Center Plaza Rochester, NY 14614 716–428–7033 The St. Paul Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission: A Police-Managed Board Recommends Discipline Background Because of complaints about police misconduct, and in the aftermath of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, William Finney, the St. Paul police chief, urged the city council to establish a commission to look into forming a civilian oversight procedure. The resulting Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission began operation in December 1993. Located in the fire department wing of the public safety building, the com- mission is operated by the police department. The commission met 12 times in 1997 to review 71 cases involving 149 allegations (73 of them involved the alleged use of excessive force). The commission’s findings were as follows: • Unfounded: 53 (36 percent). • Exonerated: 32 (22 percent). C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 51