Loading...
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.