HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2001 Communication City of Iowa City
M MORANDUM
DATE: April 5, 2001
TO: City Council and PCRB
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk I~X.&
RE: Joint meeting of Council and PCRB
A joint meeting has been scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 19, in Council
Chambers, It is anticipated that the meeting will last about one hour.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: March 22, 2001
RE: PCRB Meeting - 3/13/01
As you know, representatives of the Police Department routinely attend the
PCRB meetings. At the PCRB meeting of March 13, David Baldus of The
University of Iowa College of Law as well the local attorney, Peter Persaud,
appeared and commented on the City's racial profiling data collection efforts.
That in itself i~ welcomed. During their comments, there were allegations that
information was not provided to Attorney Persaud. There was the suggestion the
City was not cooperating in providing that information. When I learned of this, I
asked the attending command officers of the Iowa City Police Department to
provide me with their commentary as well as discuss these allegations with the
City Attorney's Office. Commentary is attached.
cc: Eleanor Dilkes
Sareh Holecek
Police Chief
PCRB
Attorney David Baldus
Attorney Peter Persaud
Mgr\memos\pcrb3-13.doc
March 23, 2001
Mr. John Watson, Chair
Police Citizens Review Board
403 Elmridge Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear John:
At their work session on March 19 the City Council agreed to meet with the Police
Citizens Review Board to discuss the sunset clause and any changes that might be made
to the present ordinance. It was further agreed to schedule the meeting as part of a
Council work session. However, after reviewing the schedule with staff it became
apparent to me that a special meeting may have to be set.
I will be discussing this with Council at our work session on April 2. I will have City
Clerk Marjan Karr call you on April 3 with suggested times.
Thank you for your patience on this matter.
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Lehman
Mayor
PCRB GOALS
2000 - 2001
Statutory Goals:
~ Review investigations of complaints of police misconduct.
~ Help insure that the Iowa City Police Department is responsive to community needs.
Annual Goals:
1. Board Education
Continue to streamline PCRB procedures.
Action required: Review SOP and Bylaws.
Measure: Minutes reflect review.
Timeframe: Annually.
Responsibility: Legal Counsel, Board.
Resources: Five hours counsel time; two hours Board time.
Briefnew board members.
Action required: Face to face meeting with new board members.
Measure: Report to Board.
Timeframe: Within thirty days of appointment.
Responsibility: Chairperson, PCRB Assistant.
Resources: Two hours.
Encourage continuation of PCRB.
Action required: Request meeting with City Council.
Measure: Minutes reflect request approval.
Timeframe: January 2001.
Responsibility: Chairperson.
Resources: One hour.
Pursue diversity in future board appointees.
Action required: Guest editorial; media press release; personal contacts.
Measures: Minutes reflect activities.
Timeframe: May 2001
Responsibility: Chairperson, Board members.
Resources: Twenty hours.
Police Citizens Review Board 1
2. Community Education:
} Hold public forum.
Action required: Select theme; schedule event.
Measures: Minutes.
Timeframe: March 2001.
Responsibility: Board, PCRB Assistant.
Resources: Five hours Board time; ten hours staff time.
~ Develop videotape about the PCRB.
Action required: Produce videotape.
Measures: Videotape completed.
Timeframe: March 2001.
Responsibility: Chairperson, Board.
Resources: Ten hours Board time; ten hours staff time.
~ Develop presentation for community groups.
Action required: Prepare outline and script.
Measures: Minutes reflect approval.
Timeframe: April 2001.
Responsibility: Chairperson, Board.
Resources: Ten hours Board time; ten hours staff time.
3. Policy/Procedure/Practice Review.
} Continue review of general ICPD policies, procedures and practices.
Action required: Schedule review for each regular meeting.
Measures: Minutes reflect review.
Timeframe: Monthly.
Responsibility: Chairperson, Board.
Resources: .Ten hours Board time.
)~ Address perception of discriminatory enforcement.
Action required: Develop and implement plan.
Measures: Minutes reflect plan approval.
Timeframe: February 2001.
Responsibility: Chairperson, Board.
Resources: Ten hours Board time.
Police Citizens Review Board 2
IV. Complaint Review Process
The Board shall review all Police ChieFs reports and City Manager's reports concerning
complaints utilizing Sections 8-8-6, 8-8-7 and 8-8-8 of the City Code and the PCRB
Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines.
A. Review of Police Chiefs report or City Manager's report. Follow 8-8-7 B of the
City Code.
B. Select a level of review as outlined in 8-8-7 B. 1 (a)-(f') of the City Code. The
Board shall notify the Complainant and the Police Chief, or the City Manager if
the complaint is against the Chief, of the selected level of review. The Chief shall
notify the officer of the selected level of review.
C. Request for an extension of time to file PCRB public report. Refer to 8-8-7 B.6 of
the City Code.
D. The PCRB shall not issue a public report critical of a police officer until after a
name-clearing hearing has been held or waived by the police officer. Refer to
Section 8-8-7 B.4 of the City Code.
E. Name-clearing hearing procedure
1. If the Board determines that the comments or findings contained in its proposed report will
be critical of the conduct of a sworn police officer, it must offer the officer a name-clearing
hearing prior to the issuance of the Board's report to Council.
2. The Board shall select a proposed date for the name-clearing hearing.
3. Written notice of the date. time and place of the name-clearing hearing shall be given to the
officer no less than ten working days prior to the date set for hearing. The notice to the
officer should be transmitted via the Chief of Police. The notice to the officer shall provide a
written response form for the officer to demand or waive the name-clearing hearing. Said
written response form shall also allow the police officer to state whether he or she requests
an open or closed session.
4. If the officer provides a written waiver of the name-clearing hearing prior to the date set for
hearing, the hearing shall not be held.
5. If the officer does not respond to the notice prior to the time of the hearing, the hearing shall
be convened. If the officer does not appear, the hearing shall be terminated.
6. If the officer demands a hearing or appears at the hearing, the Board will first determine
whether the hearing shall be open or closed. If the officer requests a closed session, the
Board shall close the session pursuant to motion specifically identifying Section 21.5(1 )(i)
and 21.5(1)(a) of the Iowa Code as the basis for closure. If the officer does not request a
dosed session the session shall be open except where closure is appropriate pursuant to
Section 21.5(1 )(a).
7. Before the hearing, the Board shall advise the officer of the Board's proposed criticism(s).
At the hearing, evidence supporting the criticism shall be presented. The officer shall be
PCRB SOP 9/00
given the opportunity to be heard and to present additional evidence, including the
testimony of witnesses.
8. If, subsequent to a name-clearing hearing or waiver of a name-clearing hearing by the
officer, the Board changes its level of review, it shall issue a new written notice pursuant to
subparagraph B. hereof. If, following said change, the proposed report is critical of the
sworn officer's conduct, the Board shall offer another name-clearing hearing to the officer
pursuant to the name-clearing hearing procedures herein.
9. The complainant shall not receive a notice of, or have the right to participate in, a name-
clearing hearing.
F. Report Wdting - Follow 8-8-7 of the City Code
1. The Chair shall appoint a committee to prepare draft reports. The
committee may request assistance from staff as needed.
2. When possible, a draft report shall be included in the agenda packet prior
to the meeting at which it is discussed.
3. Draft repods shall be discussed in executive session and finalized by the
full Board.
4. Draft reports shall be confidential.
5. Final Public Reports shall be reviewed by legal counsel to the PCRB
before being submitted to the City Council.
G. Final PCRB Public Reports shall be distributed according to 8-8-7 B.3 of the City
Code. The copy sent to the City Council shall be accompanied by the minutes of the
meeting which approved it and be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion in the next
Council agenda packet.
H. Once the Public Report is sent to designated parties, the complaint file is closed and
is taken to the City Clerk's Office for retention.
V. Identification of Officers
1. The reports of the Police Chief and the City Manager to the Board will identify the
officers with unique identifiers, i.e. same number for same officer from one
complaint to the next, but not by name. In its public reports, however, the Board
shall not use the same number for the same officer from one report to the next,
in order to guard against inadvertent identification of the officer to the public by
the Board. The Board reserves the right, however, to identify the officer in a
sustained complaint pursuant to Section 8-8-7(B) of the City Code and may
obtain the officer's name from the City Clerk for this purpose.
2. An allegation of misconduct or previous allegation of misconduct against an
officer is not and shall not be used by the Board as evidence of misconduct.
PCRB SOP 9/00
Page I o1'2
John Watson
From: "John Watson" <jwatson@goodwillseiowa.org>
To: <council@iowa-city.org>; "David Johnson" <dajohnso@blue.weeguiowa.edu>
Cc: <ernie_lehman@iowa-city.org>; <connie_champion@iowa-city.org>; <dee_vanderhoef@iowa-
city.org>; <ross_wilburn@iowa-city.org>; <steve_atkins@iowa-city.org>; <ipfab@avalon.net>;
<mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us>; <cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us>; <pharney@co.johnson.ia.us>;
<tneuzil@co ohnson ia us>' <sstutsma@co.johnson ia us>' <vicki lensing@legis.state ia us>'
<mary_mas~her@le~is;stat6.ia.us>; <barry_brauns~ ~gis.~tate.ia~s>; ' ' '
<richard_myers@legis.state.iaus>; <ro_foege@~egis.state.ia.us>;
<joe_bolkcom@legis.state.ia.us>; <richard_drake@legis.state.ia.us>;
<robert_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us>; <djacoby@ci.coralville.ia.us>; <dlundell@ci.coralville.ia.us>;
<jweihe@ci.coralville.iaus>; <hherwig@ci.coralville.iaus>; <jschnake@ci.coralville.ia.us>;
<jfausett@ci.coralville.ia.us>; <jpwhite@co.johnsoniaus>; <chippee205@aol.com>;
<madelko@ia.net>; <bandyrb@aol.com>; <johnso@fyiowacom>; <nonewjail@yahoo.com>;
<madelko@southslope.net>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Jail Messages
Greetings:
Although a public servant in my capacity as a member and chairman of the
Iowa City Police Citizens Police Board (PCRB), it was puzzling to find my
name among the long list of elected officials that seemed to be the target
of the flurry of e-mail messages regarding the jail.
I wish to make it clear that the PCRB has never discussed or taken any
position on the jail referendum, and it is extremely unlikely that the
subject will ever be on our agenda in the future. The issue is simply not
within our purview.
I allowed my name to be used by the opposition group prior to the referendum
and voted "no" on the jail, but not for all the reasons cited by group. I
was concerned by the cost and scope of the project and was far from
convinced that there had been sufficient study of alternatives for persons
that were not a threat to public safety or for whom incarceration seemed
excessive and unjust (including some who are in jail because current law
requires it). My one vote did not mean that we should never have a new jail.
I gather from other conversations that this reflects the position of many
who voted against the new jail last November.
I understand that a breader study is now underway. I hope that it addresses
the issues that are of concern to me and I look forward to its findings and
recommendations.
John Watson
403 Elmridge Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
337-9225
jdwatson9225@msn.com
..... Original Message .....
From: "David Johnson" <dajohnso@blue.weeq.uioWa.edu>
To: <council@iow~-City.org>
Cc: <ernie_lehmanC, iowa-city.or~>; <connie champion(~iowa-city.org>;
<dee_vanderhoef@iow~-city.org>; <ross wilbuEn@iowa-city.org>;
<steve_atkins~,iowa-city=org>; <ipfab@avalon.n¢>;
<m!ehman@co.johnson.ia.us>; <cthomJ~so@co.iohnson=ia.us>;
<pharney@cojohns~n.ia,us>; <tneuzil@co.iohnson.ia.us>;
<sstutsma@co~johnson.ia.us>; <vicki lensinq@leqis.state.ia.us>;
<mary_mas~b~r@le~gis.~tate.ia.us>~ E'barry_brauns@lepl~s.state.iauS>;
<richard_myers@e.q s!state. a. us>; <to foeqe@leqis.state.ia.us>;
<joe_bolkcom@!egis.state.ia.us>; <richard drak_e@leRis.state.ia~us>;
<robert_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us>; <djacoby@ci.coralville.ia.us>;
<dlundel[@ci.coralville.ia.us>; <jw eihe@ci.coralville.ia.us>;
<hherwig@ci.cora!v!lle.ia.us>; <jschnake@ci:coralvjlle:ia.us>;
03/28/2001
Page 2 of 2
<jfausett@ci.coralville.ia.us>; <jpwhi~@co_.johnson.ia.us>;
<chjppee205@aol.com>; <madelko@ia.net>; <bandyrb@~aol.com>;
<johnso@~iowa.com>; <jwatson@goodwillseiowa.org>; <nonewjail@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 7:45 AM
To public servants serving Johnson County,
Last November the voters in Johnson county choose
overwhelmingly not fund a new jail. It is the
responsibility of all public servants to respect the
outcome of the referendum.
Apparently some representatives of the City of Iowa
City and Johnson County have continued to pursue the
construction of a new jail. Pursuit of this project on
the part of any government employee acting in an
official capacity is unacceptable as it demonstrates
disrespect for the democratic process.
The issue at hand is now one of assessing the
character of individual public servants based on how
they react to the decision made by the voters, All
representatives of government should be aware that the
voters are keeping tabs on this issue. Elected
ib
Une ected officials who choose to ignore the will of
the voters may find themselves ac~ng public pressure
to have their employment terminated.
The point of this message is to urge all public
servants employed within the Johnson County to cease
pursing a project the public has clearly rejected.
Sincerely,
David Johnson
03/28/2001