|
minutes 12-08-99Page 6 of 31
<br />because of SHOPO rules or just because they don’t want things out - I’ve had a lot of people saying, well, how come, with
<br />what’s going on in the Courts right now, how come the Police Commission that was in office at that time, or serving at that
<br />time, didn’t do something about it. And, the Police Commission just does not have the authority that everyone thinks they
<br />have.
<br />RAY: You read the testimony we got from Corp Counsel dealing with this issue.
<br />SCHEELE: Yes.
<br />RAY: Basically, the argument that they’re making is are you better off, if the public perceives that they come to you, and that
<br />action is going to take place, and it doesn’t, would we be better off doing away with that whole process. So, I’d like you to
<br />share that with us, how all that works, because there is a lot of confusion.
<br />SCHEELE: I think that there definitely needs to be an oversight committee or Commission, but you’re right, we just don’t get
<br />the information. The Charter specifically says that the Chief is supposed to make periodic reports about actions taken on
<br />cases investigated by the Police Commission, and we have not even been able to find out that. Once the public comes to us
<br />and files a complaint, and then we have our investigator, who is a private investigator, investigate the accusations, and we
<br />make a decision based on that, and then we have to refer it to the Chief, and he’s the one that takes the action against the
<br />officer. We have not even been able to find out what kind of action is taken. I was very upset about that at the October
<br />meeting, and I said some things to the Chief, and at the November meeting we suddenly get a report from things that have
<br />happened in the past two years. But up until then, we didn’t know anything. And so, it’s real hard to have the public coming
<br />and telling you what they think an officer has done improperly, and we find in favor of the complainant, and we tell the
<br />complainant that in a letter – this is the decision that we made, and it’s now been referred to the Chief. But then, it’s real
<br />frustrating on our part to not even be able to find out from the Chief what he did. Whether there was suspension or anything
<br />that happened, and so, sometimes I feel that we’re deceiving ourselves, and we’re also deceiving the public. Now, whether it
<br />needs an education program to let the public know that the Police Commission can investigate these, but the Police
<br />Commission can’t do anything about it, I don’t know.
<br />Jo-Anna, do you have anything to add?
<br />J. HERKES: I think that perhaps if we address our Charter Amendment suggestions and changes, that might help as to where
<br />we’re coming from, which is, basically, the Charter should have more strength in language so that the Commission can carry
<br />out what this Commission was formulated, or why it was formulated, and that is as a civilian oversight, not attached to the
<br />Police Department, as you all know, we are not attached to the Police Department. We are independent. We have our own
<br />staff, however, our budget is still attached to the Police Department. That’s the one area. And the Commission feels, at this
<br />point, that if the language is stronger as suggested, that we put forth, it would help us carry that out and there would be no
<br />question with the Police Chief or Corp Counsel as to what our duty is, and not just a perception that the people is thinking
<br />that we are handling some areas that are very gray that, unfortunately, in the Charter right now, prohibits us from going
<br />further. So, I know that you all had some questions when we weren’t available a couple of months ago, or maybe a few
<br />months ago, and I’d really like to address those if you would like to ask them, and maybe clarify what we did here with these
<br />Amendments.
<br />SCHEELE: Jo-Anna was the Chairman of the subcommittee that handled those proposals.
<br />IRVINE: I do have some questions. I’m glad, actually, that you’re here tonight instead of earlier, because since that time, we
<br />were given a long document on civilian oversight, as far as Police Commissions are concerned, and one of the things that
<br />they recommended, rather than having - I think you folks asked for the ability to be more involved in how the Police
<br />Department runs. They were just saying, make sure you have subpoena power so that the Police have to speak to you when
<br />there are problems, when there are charges, because right now, I’m sure, often they feel like they’d rather not, and there’s no
<br />reason why they have to unless it’s been stated that they have to because the Court says so. I guess that was one of my
<br />concerns.
<br />RAY: Where do we reach an impasse with SHOPO? How do we get beyond that?
<br />SCHEELE: I’m not sure exactly what all’s in the SHOPO contract, but I know that when I first came on the Commission five
<br />years ago, it was even very rare that the officers would come to us. Part of the procedure is when a complaint comes in from
<br />a person, our secretary will notify the police officer that this complaint has been made, and send the officer a copy of it, and
<br />tell him, or her, when it’s on the agenda, because we want the complainant to come to the Commission meeting, and we
<br />would also like the officer or officers to come to the Commission meeting. And, most times, the complainant comes. But, at
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-08-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|