HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2001 Communication MEMO
Date: May 3, 2001
To: Members of Police Citizen's Review Board
From: Catherine A. Pugh, Legal Counsel
RE: Sunset Clause Issues and Potential Changes to Ordinance
Upon attendance at the joint meeting of the Police Citizen's Review Board and
the Iowa City, City Council, I had several thoughts concerning issues raised at that
meeting and some things that have not yet been discussed.
1. The Board received confirmation from the council that the ordinance will
continue to authorize a police citizen's review board in some form. Four
of the councilors were supportive of shifting the structure of the Board to
an Ad Hoc Board and the Board of Adjustment was mentioned by more
than one council as a model. Upon review of the powers and procedures
of the Board of Adjustment it is clear to me that the Board of Adjustment
operates in a very different manner than the Police Citizen's Review
Board and in fact is quasi judicial in nature. The Board of Adjustment
specifically hears and decides appeals from decisions made by the City
Manager or his designee in the enforcement of the zoning ordinances of
Iowa City or hears and decides applications for special exceptions from
these zoning ordinances. The Board hears all applicable evidence and
decides 1) whether there is evidence to support an error in a decision by
the City or 2) whether a special exception is appropriate given the
standard set forth in the ordinance. The ordinance concerning the Board
of Adjustment requires no deference to decisions made by City Officials. A
decision of the Board of Adjustment may commence a suit in District
Court under a writ of certiorari. The powers of the Board of Adjustment
compared to the powers of the Police Citizen's Review Board is vast and
binding.
2. One of the issues raised by Councilperson Vanderhoft was specifically
with regard to the cost of the PCRB. It was ambiguous whether her
concern regarding the cost related to the cost of a staff person and legal
counsel for the Board or whether it related to the internal cost of
investigating complaints and having the city legal counsel review those
complaints. It appears to me that regardless of whether the Board is
reduced to an Ad Hoc Board the internal cost will remain unchanged as
those expenses are only generated when a complaint is filed. With regard
to the direct cost expended by the City for staff time I am convinced after
speaking with Ms. Bauer that the damage control done by the Board's
staff person saves the City a great deal. On several occasions a potential
complainant has taken the opportunity to "vent" with Ms, Bauer which
resulted in no complaint being filed. Sometimes all it took was a
sympathetic ear to listen and to explain options before the potential
complainant decided that they did not wish to go forward and had the
benefit of a sounding board. I will not extend myself to defend the Board's
expense regarding legal fees since that may appear to be self-interested.
My counsel is however that the cost savings by eliminating the number of
meetings the Board holds would not necessarily produce a great degree
of dollar for dollar savings.
Although the regular meetings of the Board do not always deal directly
with resolution of some complaint against a Police Officer the Board is
always educating itself about the policies and procedures of the Police
Department. This knowledge in turn allows the Board to streamline its
procedure in dealing with actual complaints. If the Board were to meet on
an "Ad Hoc" basis, each new complaint would bring a myriad of issues
that the Board may or may not be versed in. It may require additional
education and additional attorney time in educating the Board in such
issues as high speed chases, search and seizure, appropriate use of
force and the many other questions that the Board has dealt with.
3. John had asked me to provide some alternate language with regard to the
deferential review standard required by the ordinance. The type of
language which would direct the level of your review would depend upon
how the Board wants to present this option. If the Board were to request
that no deference be given to the findings of the Police Chief the level of
review would be "de novo" and basically the Board would review the
results of the investigation and reach its own conclusions as to whether a
complaint would be sustained or not. This level of review would be
implemented with difficulty considering the limited information the Board is
provided with regard to the Police Officer's response and defense to
complaints.
Perhaps we could speak more at the meeting with regard to this issue and if the Board
wishes me to draft optional language we may want to examine other parts of the
procedure to review. The primary problem as you know is the Garrit¥ and Gardner dicta
which prevents the Board from independent access to the statements of the police
officers if they invoke that right. These precedents make it very difficult for the Board to
actively investigate complaints. I would be happy to respond to any other questions you
might have concerning these issues at our meeting on May 8%
Respectfully submitted
STEIN, PUGH & MORELAND
Catherine A. Pugh
Attorney for the Police Citizen's Review Board
_ City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 26, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marjan K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Spec. Work Session, April 19, 2001, 8:30 AM in Council
Chambers
Council present: Champion, Karmer (an:tved 8:55), Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab,
Vanderhoef, Wilbum
PCRB Present: Cohen, Hoffey, Horton, Stratton, Watson
Staff: Arkins, Helling, Holecek, Karr, Bauer
Other: PCRB Legal Counsel Pugh
Tape: 01-44, Both Sides
A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office.
Joint Meetin~ with PCRB
PCRB Chairperson Watson presented a summary of PCRB responsibiiities, possible
ordinance changes and the reasons for continuing the Board. Materials were distributed.
Watson noted the August 1,2001 sunset clause contained in the ordinance and reported
that the Board had voted unanimously to reenact the ordinance at their previous meeting.
Majority of Council agreed to:
· Recognize the value of PCRB
· Continue the PCRB in some form
· Recommended a change to the first line of the second paragraph of the PCRB
educational brochure to read "The PCRB reviews reports prepared after investigation
of complaints about alleged police misconduct."
· Schedule April 30 work session discussion on the future scope of the Board
· Acknowledged 2 vacancies on the Board for September 1 (advertising to begin in
June)
STAFF ACTION: Schedule discussion for April 30 work session. (Karr)
Meeting adjourned 9:30 AM.