Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

if it is a new type of wrongdoing. Commissioners have access to the officers’ previous disciplinary records and can therefore recommend “progressive discipline”—more serious sanctions for repeat offenders. After the hearing The chair sends the chief a memorandum after each hear- ing with the commissioners’and IA’s findings and, if the complaint has been sustained, the commission’s discipli- nary recommendation. The commission has disagreed with IA’s finding in about a half dozen cases in its history. A citizen complained that an officer’s remark to a block party, “Don’t call me unless you call public housing first,” meant that, if they did call, the offi- cer would not come. The officer claimed he had never said he would not come if called, and no witnesses claimed he had said he would not come. Although IA had sustained the complaint, the commission exonerated the officer. The chief sided with the commission. —Donald Luna Since the commission’s first meeting, William Finney, the current chief, has given it the additional task of rec- ommending disciplinary penalties for sustained cases. Although the chief is not obligated to follow the com- mission’s disciplinary recommendations, Finney esti- mates that he disagrees with less than 2 percent of the sanctions that the commission recommends. On one occasion, Finney met with the entire commission to explain why he chose to deviate from a recommended discipline. When he has disagreed with the commission, Finney has usually increased its recommended disci- pline. (See “The Chief Increases the Commission’s Recommended Punishment.”) There is no appeal of the commission’s and chief’s dispositions. Staffing and budget The review commission consists of five citizens and two police officers. The mayor nominates the citizen mem- bers and the city council approves. The police union’s executive board nominates the two sworn members for approval by the membership at a union meeting. Once approved, the chief recommends them to the mayor for appointment. The two sworn police officers receive over- time pay if meetings do not occur during their regular shifts. All commissioners serve 3-year terms, renewable once. The commission elects a chairperson and vice chairperson from among the citizen members to preside over its proceedings. A coordinator, appointed by the chief in consultation with the commission chairperson, spends half of her time managing the complaint process. (She spends the rest of her time coordinating the citizens’ police academy.) Exhibit 2–15 shows the commission’s budget for 1995 (which has remained largely unchanged in subsequent years). As shown, the entire appropriation was $37,160, including half of the director’s salary and $18,660 in direct costs. However, because the commission has never exercised its option to hire an independent investigator, the true costs are closer to $27,000 per year. C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 54 THE CHIEF INCREASES THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDED PUNISHMENT According to Chief William Finney,“We had an officer who had a ‘smart mouth,’ but she had never had a sustained complaint.When she finally got a sustained finding from both IA and the commission, the commission recom- mended supervisory counseling. However, because I knew she had had a history of ‘mouthing off,’ I suspended her for a day.” Donald Luna, the review commission chair, has a similar story: A number of citizens were playing games with an officer regarding the owner of a car that the officer was trying to have moved: “It’s not my car, it’s his car; no it’s her car.” They also began calling him derogatory names. After an hour of this, someone in the crowd said,“Why do you have to be such an a-----e?” The exasperated officer answered,“Well, I guess I’m just an a-----e. Now move the car.” A minister heard the remark and filed a complaint.The commission recommended supervisory counseling; the chief gave him a 3-day suspension.