HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-18-1998 Communication City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 12, 1998
To: Police Citizens Review Board
From: City Manager
Re: PCRB Ordinance- Time Requirements
I recently received a copy of a memorandum directed to the chief of police from the PCRB chair
(copy attached) concerning a request for an extension of time in the investigation of Complaint
No. 98-11. While I share your interest with respect to timeliness, this memorandum did give rise
to a number of concerns I have with respect to the investigative process, the time involved in
this process, the City and police staff resources assigned to these investigations, and the
obligation to prepare a thorough, comprehensive report dealing with each complaint.
In my conversations with officers conducting investigations, there are many circumstances
which occur that are not easily identifiable, yet critical to the investigative process. I would like to
call to your attention some of these circumstances.
The investigative process can be time-consuming with respect to certain complaints and far less
so with respect to others. I asked our police investigators if there is any way to determine the
average amount of time with respect to complaints. They were quick to say that each is unique
and the detail and extent of the allegations is such that determining an average is difficult. I was
provided with work samples, such as a copy of the detailed documentation of an investigation.
The department's internal investigation documentation requirements are extensive. I asked for
the reasons that extensions were requested, both specifically and in general. Some included the
inability to provide for timely interviews of complainants and witnesses. It was noted that
complainants have secured legal counsel and/or need to request from their supervisors whether
they can speak to the issues at hand. In other instances the complainants indicated they were
advised to speak with the police only when their legal counsel was present. Other times officers
work schedules, vacations, training and other duty related obligations may cause timeliness to
be difficult. Our ordinance requires consideration of the employee union contract and procedural
rights of officers. While we can set arbitrary dates for the completion of an investigation, it is
critical for all to understand there may be extenuating circumstances, in some investigations the
investigating officer is led in other directions; that is, new information is developed and requires
the police to review other circumstances not specifically included in the written complaint. Each
circumstance adds to the time needed for investigation, but above all, the importance of
thoroughness in an investigation cannot be compromised.
As indicated in the PCRB ordinance, all investigations are to be conducted in a "fair, thorough,
and accurate" manner and the investigative report is to include "detailed findings of fact." This is
to assure that all individuals are treated fairly and that the information developed is sufficiently
extensive to allow the PCRB as well as the police and in matters of discipline, my office, to
render decisions concerning any misconduct substantiated by the investigation. The ordinance
also identifies that the PCRB has a responsibility to assure that all. state and federal laws
governing the rights of all individuals are satisfactorily addressed and that investigations are
performed in a manner to "produce a minimum of inconvenience and embarrassment to all
parties." I believe that with most complaints the goals of the PCRB ordinance will not be fulfilled
within the 30 day deadline. If we are to develop "factual findings" as identified in the ordinance,
PCRB Ordinance- Time Requimments
August12,1998
Page 2
sufficient time must be devoted to the investigative process. In my consultations with the City
Attorney, she has confirmed for me that investigative reports must be thorough and detailed not
only for the benefit of the PCRB process, but because the same events may serve as the basis
for discipline as. well as result in litigation and filings of complaints with other federal and state
agencies. All such proceedings require an investigative process which is typically longer than 30
days.
It is my understanding that you will soon be submitting your annual report to the City Council. I
would request that you give consideration to recommending amendments to the ordinance in
order to provide for a longer timeframe or the use of ordinance language that provides for the
completion of the investigation in "a timely manner," similar to our Human Rights ordinance. We
must be assured that the process does not rush us to unsubstantiated conclusions and possibly
a faulty judgment. I note the Iowa City Human Rights ordinance provides that the investigation
process commence within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint and does not set a deadline
for the completion of the investigation.
I would hope that you would consider in your upcoming report suggestions to the City Council to
amend the ordinance in order to provide sufficient time for the conduct of these investigations.
My office is concerned that we undertake a process that is fair, thorough, and accurate with
sufficient time to perform investigation and fulfill the goals of the PCRB ordinance.
If you would like me to appear before the PCRB to discuss my concerns, I would be happy to do
SO.
Attachment
cc: City Council
Police Chief
City Clerk
City Attorney
Counsel to PCRB
Assistant to PCRB
MEMORANDUM
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Bo.rd of the Ck'y of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iow,, C~/IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5413
TO: R.J. Winkelhake, Police Chlaf
FROM: Paul Horley, PCRB Chair
RE: PCRB ..C~mpla!nt ~98.11 - Second Request for Extension
,Your request for a second extension of PCRB Complaint #98-11 was
received by the board at its Special Meeting on July 28, 1998, and was
approved with some reservation.
We want to express our concern and disappointment regarding your
continued delay in meeting deadlinea;et for this Complaint. The PCRB
Special Meeting was scheduled specifically to coincide with our expe~ation
of your first extension request and would have been the beginning of the 30-
days allowed for the board's response.
It appears your report may not be available for board review until
August 20, 1998, which is nearly three months after the Complaint was
filedl We believe this delay is not fair to the Complainant nor is it fair to the
Police Citizens Review Board.