|
minutes 12-08-99Page 14 of 31
<br />what the Chief’s responsibility is and what this Commission’s responsibility is to the public.
<br />SANTANGELO: So, if it’s all right with this Commission and the Chairman, and maybe you’re willing, as a Commission, to
<br />work with our lawyer and come up with a wording that says how you hire that Chief. Is that what you’re saying? So, if we
<br />put in the Charter how you hire that person, that there is a contract that you sign, that it is performance based, does that do it?
<br />J. HERKES: I believe that there is wording now as to qualifications. Is that what you’re saying, for the Chief? Or goals?
<br />SANTANGELO: No, I guess what I’m looking at, as an example, that if I’m going to hire you, Jo-Anna, as my Chief, please
<br />submit to me your plan. And how are we going to measure that plan? What is your policy? What do you see the goals and
<br />objectives of this Police Department as, and how are we going to measure that? You submit that to me. We negotiate that.
<br />We do up a contract. Now, on a quarterly basis, or whatever, we’re reviewing that, and we’re making a record of that. Now,
<br />in a case like that, you’ve got this person’s attention. You’re creating a record that allows you to either renew the contract or
<br />dismiss this individual. Then, it seems to me, that when it comes to legislation, he’s going to come to you way ahead of time
<br />because that’s when legislation’s written, and want to know what the civilian input is, and then plead his or her case as to
<br />what the paramilitary needs are, and then you’ve got a working relationship. Again, I’m just looking at what brings you
<br />together, and right now, you’re sitting there helpless because you have no tool to bring that person to the table, and that’s
<br />what I’m asking. Can you help us with that?
<br />J. HERKES: We’d be very happy to work with your counsel as to language that would help the Commission. We’d be
<br />delighted to. That’s fine.
<br />SANTANGELO: And for clarification, if you could clarify and establish a procedure for hiring, be it performance based, or
<br />whatever, then that would solve a lot of your problems, and that is what you’d want to work with us on.
<br />J. HERKES: Commissioner Santangelo, for the Charter purpose, I’m not sure all that detail is really necessary. I think with
<br />just very strong language as to responsibilities, it can be worked out.
<br />SANTANGELO: Yes, there must be somewhere where that is written down. I have nothing in my mind either. I have no
<br />agenda here at all. I’m just trying to work with you. Thank you.
<br />RAY: Steve.
<br />BESS: Not to cut things short here, but I look at the existing language of 7-2.3 and it’s very clear that the Chief of Police is
<br />appointed by the Police Commission, and may be removed by the Police Commission at its sole discretion, and under sole
<br />discretion, it would seem to me, that you could work out a contract and procedures such as those suggested. I don’t
<br />understand why that isn’t the case now, but I think you have the power. Now, I defer to the legal counsel to help us in that
<br />regard, but that’s just a comment on my part. The other point is, is when I’m looking at your proposed Charter Amendments,
<br />under 7-2.2(b), you say that the Commission will be responsible to set general policy for the Police Department. Then you go
<br />on, and you use the existing language. You change it a little bit, but basically, what you’re saying is don’t interfere with the
<br />administrative affairs of the department, and then you limit the exception to ‘for purposes of inquiry’, which we may run into
<br />some problems with that language because, hey, when it relates to policy making, adherence to policy, accountability, as well
<br />as inquiry, you guys should have the authority. Just a comment.
<br />SANTANGELO: And, just a point of information. I have a question to what Steve said. I’m wondering how that relates to the
<br />sentence after that when it says ‘any motion for removal of the Chief of Police must contain a statement of reasons and the
<br />Commission shall not vote to remove the Chief unless the Chief of Police has been given an opportunity to respond to the
<br />statement of reasons at the hearing before the Commission’. I take it you haven’t done anything on this because you’ve never
<br />been able to build a case. Why is it that you can’t bring your Chief in and tell him, hey, cooperate or hit the road? Really,
<br />how it works in reality, never mind how it’s written, you know how it works in reality.
<br />J. HERKES: To my knowledge, and I haven’t been on the Commission for very long, in order to do so, we need some sort of
<br />an evaluation done of the Chief as to whether - I have no idea, personally, if he has not done a good job. There has been no
<br />performance - and in questioning this with Chair Scheele, she was advised by Corp Counsel that that was not within our
<br />realm, according to the Charter. I believe we even have a letter stating that. That was one of my first questions when I joined
<br />the Commission, and it, of course, has been one that’s been continued to why aren’t we doing this. But, in order to call him
<br />on the carpet, or say you’re doing something wrong, we would need some evaluation, or something to go back on, saying that
<br />answer to this, and I don’t have it, or we don’t have it.
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-08-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|