Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2000 Minutes POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chair J. Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P, Hoffey, and J. Watson. Board member absent: J. Stratton. Staff present: Legal Counsel C. Pugh and PCRB Assistant S. Bauer. Chief RJ Winkelhake was also in attendance. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by L. Cohen to remove "c" from the consent calendar to discuss separately. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Hoffe¥ to adopt the Consent Calendar: a. Minutes of 7/18/00 meeting b. 7/19/00 Memorandum from Chief re Internal Investigation Log d ICPD General Order - Off-Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest e ICPD Use of Force Report - April 2000 f ICPD Release: Traffic Stop Demographics g ICPD July Training Report h ICPD Training Newsletter ICPD Training Bulletin 01-01 (WT 00-49) ICPD Training Bulletin 01-04 (WT 01-03) k ICPD Training Bulletin 01-04 (WT 01-08) ICPD Training Bulletin 01-05 (WT 01-01) m ICPD Training Bulletin 01-0a6 (WT 01-O6) Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. c. ICPD General Order - Body Armor P. Hoffey questioned who provides the body armor. The Chief stated the City of Iowa City purchases it. Hoffey, noting that body armor is optional, asked why it was not made mandatory and if there is a liability factor involved, The Chief stated that the Justice Department standards and the accreditation standards allow for either mandatory or optional. If optional, officers are required to have the body armor in their vehicle. Following discussion within the department and review by the legal department, the decision was to make body armor optional but they must have it in their vehicle. Hoffey stated it's a tremendous safety factor for the police officer to wear the body armor, which transcends to the citizen as well; if the officer is safe, then there is more protection to the citizen. If the officer does not wear the body armor, obviously that officer isn't as safe as he or she could be. This is a concern, but not a criticism. Hoffey acknowledges that body armor is uncomfortable, especially in the summer. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None DISCUSSION WITH CHIEF WlNKEHAKE The Board discussed with Chief Winkelhake the PCRB recommendation to the Chief in PCRB Public Report #99-08, and the Chief's response for clarification. One of the allegations in #99-08 was that an officer made inappropriate comments to the press regarding the incident that was subject to the complaint. The Board's Report found that the officer's remarks to the press appeared to be within the guidelines set out in the Policy Manual of the Iowa City Police Department, Section 402.3 RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS TO SUPPLY INFORMATION. However, the Board did add a comment about the policy: "It is the Board's opinion that Section 402.3 of the ICPD Policy Manual is too broad. We agree with the basic premise that police officials should be responsive to requests for information from the public and the news media. However, we recommend that the policy be changed to 1) permit the Chief to designate a primary spokesperson for the Department for issues or incidents that are potentially sensitive or high profile; and 2) more clearly restrict the release of information that is not factual in nature." Regarding the designated spokesperson, Watson stated this is an accepted practice for crisis communication regarding issues or events that could be high profile, controversial or litigious, A spokesperson should be designated and that person be the sole spokesperson for the incident. Watson further stated this is also recommended by media as the best and fastest way to get full and accurate information to the public. Which incidents are considered to be high profile, controversial or litigious is a judgment call. Watson reiterated the Board's recommendation that one spokesperson be designated for that particular incident. Watson explained the ~factual in nature" part came out of a comment made by the officer in the press that seemed to impeach the credibility of the complainant. It is the Board's feeling that this type of statement can be prejudicial, It's the Board's recommendation that an officer not give an opinion, especially if it seems critical of a citizen or impeaches their credibility. P. Hoffey clarified that the basis for the concern is that sometimes a comment may be an opinion rather than a fact. Chief Winkelhake said the department has a full-time officer who acts as spokesperson to the media, but that person is only available 40 hours. He therefore encourages other officers and supervisors to speak to the media. "We don't have anything to hide, so we encourage the [officers] to talk to the media." A discussion followed regarding the particular statement made by the officer in PCRB Complaint #99-08, which, to the Board, clearly indicated that the officer believed that the complainant was lying. The Board feels that kind of statement about a citizen's statement in the press doesn't need to be said. The Chief informed the Board that the policy regarding media would be reviewed in September. Representatives from the media will be involved in the review, as well as the department's supervisors and officers and the legal department. The issue of having one spokesperson will be addressed, but the Chief stated, "Quite frankly, I'm not inclined to restrict it to just one person." Watson requested that the Board be allowed to review the policy, however the Chief said the decision would be made within the department. He will follow the same procedure he has followed previously in sending General Orders to the Board. Hoffey reiterated that the intent of the Board is not to restrict information to the media. Whatever information is released should be accurate and factual. SOP Chief Winkelhake recommended that when the Board holds a name-clearing hearing, it inform the officer more specifically what the issue(s) is for the basis of a potential criticism. He stated his motivation for requesting this is that officers routinely don't seem to take part in the name-clearing hearings. After the fact, the officer involved in PCRB Complaint #99-09 said if he had known what the issue was, he would have gone to the name-clearing hearing. Legal Counsel C. Pugh reported on her discussion with Assistant City Attorney S. Holecek about this issue, The procedure now is that the officer is notified that there will be a comment in a report critical of some aspect of that officer's behavior or some aspect of the case. They are not notified of the specific criticism until the actual hearing. If that procedure were to change, it would require a change in the SOP. The Board cannot be compelled to change its procedures. If it does change an SOP, it must be approved by the City Council. Legal counsel suggested that the Board discuss this issue and decide what it wants to do. It needs to come up with a balance in protecting the officer's interest in preparing them [for the hearing], and the Board's interest in conducting their full investigation and satisfying the questions that arise for the Board. P. Farrant stated the officers have routinely declined to come to name-clearing hearing. She doesn't feel the Board should alter its procedure so the officer will be enticed to come to a name-clearing hearing. Chief Winkelhake stated his personal opinion is that he'd like to see the officers come to the Board's name-clearing hearings. 4 P. Hoffey explained there are several things that complicate the matter. One is that the Board is not able to view the officer's statement, so it really doesn't know what the officer has to say. Additionally, the failure of officers to appear at the name-clearing hearing further complicates this. However, Hoffey agrees that if the Board has a criticism of an officer, and it's not in one of the allegations by the complainant, then the officer should be advised of that and given the opportunity to respond to it. Chief Winkelhake stated that he has informed his investigators that the first thing they do is find out what the actual allegations are in a complaint. He also suggested that if there is a question the Board has regarding the officer, that maybe the investigator would know the answer. Legal counsel suggested the Board make a few suggestions as to what it thinks could be a solution to this and have some further discussion. The first step is to decide whether it is in the Board's interest to change the SOP. Chair Watson directed staff to include this issue on the next agenda; staff was also directed to include a copy of the SOP on name-clearing hearings and the form letters in the next agenda packet. VIDEOTAPE The draft of "Purpose of PCRB Video" was discussed and amended to include the word "origin" in the first bullet under intent. When production is started, the Board will appoint a liaison. Watson will prepare a final draft to forward to Bob Hardy. ICPD PPP The Board discussed possible ICPD police, procedures and practices it wishes to review. At the regular PCRB meeting in September and October, a presentation will be made by: · Officer Sid Jackson to speak about the training he received at the Southern Police Institute and report on his project regarding racial profiling; · Officer Jim Steffen to speak about his FBI training. Other issues the Board would like to schedule for ICPD presentations include: · Review of the new media policy · Review one year data on traffic stop demographics · Update by Sgt. Hurd on the accreditation process. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION Council member I. Pfab acknowledged his appreciation of the Board and stated he has a more realistic understanding of the restraints and limitations the Board has. MEETING SCHEDULE · Special Meeting August 22, 2000 (J. Stratton will be absent.) CANCELLED · Regular Meeting September 12, 2000 · Special Meeting September 26, 2000 · Regular Meeting October 10, 2000 · Special Meeting October 24, 2000 BOARD INFORMATION J. Watson - expressed his thanks to P. Farrant for preparing the Annual Report in his absence. STAFF INFORMATION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair removed Item 13 from the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Hoffey. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chair J. Watson called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P~ Hoffey, and J. Watson, Board member absent: J. Stratton. Staff present: Legal Counsel C. Pugh and PCRB Assistant S, Bauer. Sgt. B. Campbell and Chief RJ Winkelhake were also in attendance. RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL Board members reviewed the Iowa City Press Cit/zen editorial of 8/14/00, together with a draft response prepared by J. Watson. Watson distributed copies of his e-mail correspondence with J. Baldwin of the P.C. The board discussed alterations to the response, following which a motion was made by P. Farrant to approve the proposed response to the Press Citizen editorial, as amended, as a guest editorial that represents the opinions of this board. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Sgt. Campbell, ICPD public information officer, stated he would be called in if a high-profile incident happened, regardless of the hour., The general practice of the ICPD is that officers do not comment on high profile cases, although they are not directed to do so. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M.