1999-10-27 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

minutes 10-27-99Page 25 of 48 come up in the past. Unfortunately, the Police Commission representative is not here, and Chairwoman Scheele, who I think we need to get here at some point, is out of state, but anyway, I chatted with her department. If you folks could come up, Deputy Chief Correa and Mr. Wurdeman, and I don’t know what else people might want to discuss, a lot of stuff is kind of Police Commission related, but since we do have these folks here, and since Mr. Wurdeman did make a recommendation for us somewhat earlier., could you go over that in terms of the duties and functions of the Police Commission, and we could have some sort of a dialogue on that. WURDEMAN: One of the functions of the Police Commission is to investigate and rule on complaints made against individual officers, and I think this is a good idea, but in practice, some things have developed that have made it not work as well as it should. First, I think the average citizen who feels wronged by a police officer, and who files such a complaint, and whose complaint is sustained, as having merit, feels that something will be done to the officer. Under present practice, the complaint is referred to the Police Department. They look into it. They act as they see fit, which may not be the same as the Commission sees fit, and because of the Information Practice laws, the end result never gets back to either the complainant or to the Commission. The second problem that has developed is that the Commission currently uses a private investigative firm to go out and talk to all the concerned people, and to submit a report, which the Commission considers. Almost without exception, and I think because of advice from the Union, the concerned officer refuses to make a statement. So, you’ve got a big piece of the puzzle missing. So, although the idea is well founded, and although I know the Chief’s argument is going to be that it’s an independent body that looks at the facts of the case, and that is true, it, in many ways, is a meaningless exercise. I’ll let the Chief respond to that. CORREA: The Police Department supports the current Charter language in the Charter, and the reason why we support it is because the intent of the current Charter is to have a civilian review board, which is the Commission, review, well actually, consider first, and if they accept consideration, then investigate, all complaints against the department, and they can only consider complaints against officers while under the color of authority, or, for the part, when they are on duty. We feel that the current process, the civilian review board, gives the general public a vehicle to come through where there is no interference from the Police Department, to consider the complaint and have it investigated to the best that they can, and then for them to make a decision, and then make a report back to the Chief of Police. Now, when the report comes back on a sustained complaint, our complaints are thoroughly investigated through our own administration investigative process, which entails handling the matters within the collective bargaining agreement, within our Civil Service rules and regulations, and within our policies and procedures, so that when we do discipline, and we do mete out discipline, that it can withstand any kind of grievance or arbitration. And, to certain extent, Mr. Wurdeman is correct, that the officers need not respond to the Police Commission investigator because the Commission is outside of the collective bargaining agreement, and when we serve charges on our officers, we are required, through collective bargaining, to give them certain type of rights. One of it is called Garrity, which says that the individual, for all intents and purposes, has immunity from any kind of other investigation, whether it be a criminal investigation, and it is only handled administratively, which would not be stretched out to the parameters of the so-called Police Commission investigator, and so, our officers, now, are more willing to talk to the investigator. They are more willing to come before the Police Commission to represent themselves. The only time they are reluctant, if it’s a very, very serious allegation, and that’s the only time they are reluctant. We do have a procedure set forth whereby once the case is handled administratively, it goes before an Administrative Review Board. In house, they determine whether the so-called charged is sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. And at that time, we do have a mechanism to file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 10-27-99.html7/1/2011