Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1999 Communication Working revised draft 1/27 Possible topics for discussion with the City Council · Overview of our understanding of the responsibilities the ordinance assigns to the PCRB · Overview of our work in 1998 (synthesis of the armual report) · Board perspectives and concerns · Need for a means to monitor patterns in complaints, including a system for identifying officers who are the subject of complaints · Complainant's right to appear at hearings · Use of two distinct complaint forms · Extension of complaint filing deadline from within 60 days to within 90 days of alleged incident. · Extension of standard period for Board review of complaints from 30 days to 45 days of receipt of Chief's report MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa CiW IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 TO: R.J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police FROM: Sandy Bauer, Assistant to PCRB~'~' RE: PCRB Complaint #98-19 DATE: February 1, 1999 This is to confirm our conversation on Friday mormng regarding the Board's request for additional investigative information from the Police Department on//98-19. PCRB packets will be distributed on Thursday, February 4. If you have a problem getting this information to me prior to that date, would you please let me know right away. Thank you for your continuing assistance on these matters. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5413 January 28, 1999 Mayor Ernest W. Lehman 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: In executive session Tuesday, January 26, 1999, the PCRB voted to request an extension of the 30-day reporting deadline according to City Code Section 8-8-7B.6 for PCRB Complaint #98-19. On January 21, 1999, the Board requested further information from the Police Department. The Board's Report for #98-19 is presently due on February 12, 1999. In anticipation of the additional investigative information from the Police Department and, in order to ensure the investigation is conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough and accurate, the Board requests a 30-day extension to March 14, 1999. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ohn~Wats~n, Vice-C a' Police Citizens Review Board ~o~, Cf) STEIN, RUSSELL & PUGH, L.L.P. IOWA ~ IOWA 52244 January 27, 1999 Ms, Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Iowa City Civic Center 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 VIA FAX (319) 356-5009 RE: Police Citizens Review Board Dear Eleanor: The Police Citizens Review Board received your January 25, 1999, letter and discussed it at its meeting on January 26th. Discussions will continue at the next meeting on February 2, 1999, and a decision will be made at that time whether the board would like to meet with you before its scheduled joint meeting with the City Council on February 11th. I would expect to report their decision to you on the morning of February 3rd. Respectfully, Douglas S. Russell, Attorney Police Citizens Review Board DSR.kkj C:~SRP~PCRB~DILKES.J27 Mandy Castrovillari 19:120:004 Semester Paper A proposed change to how Iowa City reviews complaints against police is stirring up arousal from police. The proposed ordinance would provide name cleating heatings for the officer in from of the Police Citizen's Review Board, but not include the complainant. The Police Citizen Review Board was formed in August of 1997 at, er the shooting of Eric Shaw mused citizens of Iowa City to question police actions. President of the Police Labor Relations Organization, Dan Dreckman said in an interview that he does not agree with this at alt. He said that the board cannot discipline the police department, so why would they (the police) want anything to do with them. He feels that the only thing the board could do is give a bad name to the officers under review. He said, "Anything that is said in from of the board could be made public, so why would an officer want to go in front of them?" Dreekman also said that he is concerned with the idea of anonymous claim. "When you start eliminating the need for a victim, then it becomes a very dangerous situation," he said. Dreckman said, "Say I am somewhere having an argument with someone (in public) who has done something wrong. You could walk past, not like the way I was handling the situation, and file a complaint when you weren't even involved. You weren't even the victim! And the guy who I was dealing with could not have a problem with the way I was acting at all, but I'd still be investigated. That's just wrong." Matthew Glasson, attorney for the police union, wrote a letter on November 13, 1998, to City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes on this situation. In it, he wrote that under the request of Dreckman he had been reviewing this situation, and is concerned that "it might degenerate into something resembling the Salem witch trials....," and that they, "do not provide adequate safeguards for the confidemiality and due process rights of Iowa City police officers." The letter also said, "Although the guidelines provide that the officers' names should be deleted fi.om the complaint, this is ineffectual in practice. Even though the guidelines may restrict the PCRB fi.om releasing the officer's name, they do nothing to prevent the complainant fi.om doing so. Since the complainant will almost always know the officer's name, nothing in the procedures restrict the complainant from going to the press and providing the media with the officer's name. Since most or all of the PCRB's proceedings will be in public, the press simply has to put the name with the report it~ order to have a story which completely eliminates the officer's confidentiality." In an interview, Leah Cohen, president of the Police Citizens Review Board, said, "I personally feel this is a good idea as the name clearing is for the officers, not the complainants. Both parties can come and talk to the board at any time, publicly or in dosed private session. I personally support this ordinance, but it has not been discussed by the board yet." Opportunity for mediation to occur between the twt> parties does exist, she said. "The board has chosen to have ail officers names removed from our copies of the complaints so we would not be prejudiced by an anonymous complaint either. We feel strongly that we do not want to know names, so numbers are assigned.," said Cohen. "We are t~ing to be as open to the public as possible. We also have a great sense of falmes~to ail parties involved." But, Dreckman said the what is included in internal affairs is none of the board's, and/or the public's, business. He said that all it does is rain the reputation of the officer. The letter from Giasson read, "I believe there-are constitutionai and statutory limitations on the public's fight to know. For example, in the Iowa Open Record's Law, Chapter 22, the legislature provided that certain information and records would be kept confidential and should not be disclosed to the public. This includes 'personal information and confidemial personnel records' as provided by s22.7(11). These are exactly the kinds of records which are being requested by the PCRB." As for anonymous complaints, Dreckman commented again. "It is a very dangerous thing," he said. Anyone could make up an accusation if they didn't have to defend it in from of anyone, said Dreckman. "People'd be making smffup all the time," said Dreckman. "It is a situation that could get very dangerous." On this matter, the letter from Giasson read, "To the extent that any shred of it remained (the officer's confidentiality), it would certainly vanish in the process of 'name clearing' heating. Given these problems, I believe that many officers will be reluctant to participate in a 'name clearing' hearing even when they are completely innocent of all wrong doing." "I'm thinking particularly of the PCRB's recent labeling of an Iowa City police officer as "vicious and Violent". This sort of subjective, inflammatory and unsubstained invective is extremely dangerous. Remarks of this nature, obviously, can be very damaging to an officer's reputation. I would think that there is a considerable risk of the PCRB or its members being named as defendants in a defamation suit. Furthermore, as I am sure you are aware, remarks of this nature, when printed in the media, are almost an invitation for a complaining witness to initiate litigation against the officer and/or the city." Glasson then goes on to comment on'how he feels that this is undesirable activity for a city board, and that the police feels that decisions by the board are so heavily slanted against the officers, that they do not want to participate. Cohen says she is not as concerned with anonymous complaints as she says she does not feel this would increase complaints. She said the reason that the board takes anonymous claims is because some people feel anxious about the complaint and perceived ramifications of being named publicly. Cohen said the board has received one anonymous complaint which they believed, and that has gone into their file. But, even if many complaints about the same thing were received, one that was not anonymous would still be needed in order to begin investigation. Currently the board has 30 days to issue a ruling on a complaint. Cohen wants more time. "The board has decided to ask for 45 days to review complaints mainly because of the name clearing process time factor, and the need sometimes to have an extra week to review. We feel this is a good time and do not want to back up complalms. The department may also ask for a change, but we do not know how long they need," said Cohen. Since the board was only formed in 1997, Cohen said, changes wilt occur. "We are all learning together," she said. These changes are to be decided by the city council in January.