HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-22 Info Packet-I .- =a
j d
` �I CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org May 22, 2014
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Memo from Police Chief to City Manager: UIPD & Bar Checks
IP3 Article from City Manager: BCT New Update
DRAFT MINUTES
IP4 Charter Review Commission: May 13
IP5 Citizens Police Review Board: May 19
4 -AJ
ho
10�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1
Subject to change May 22, 2014
5:00 PM Work Session Meeting
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
5:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2014
TBA
Joint Meeting /Work Session
Tiffin TBA
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 16 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
r
-64 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P2
�. r�
. hN
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 19, 2014
To: Mr. Thomas Markus
From: Chief Sam Hargadine�`
Re: UIPD & Bar Checks
I have been notified by the University of Iowa Police Department that they will no longer conduct
bar checks for the purpose of enforcement of the State's liquor licensing laws. Originally when
the University hired additional officers it was in response to a series of violent attacks and
random assaults occurring in the downtown area. Over time these additional UIPD officers
assigned to downtown starting conducting PAULA bar checks. The bar owners insisted on those
bar checks being tabulated in the PAULA ratio.
Prior to UIPD assisting us with the bar checks ICPD was solely responsible for alcohol related
enforcement such as PAULA inspections and underage stings. This policy change will not have
a negative effect and should simplify the calculations given that only one agency will be
conducting the inspections.
Similarly issues of training and consistency regarding these inspections should be easier to
maintain and it should be easier for the downtown bars to communicate with just one
department.
The UIPD does remain committed to providing increased patrols in the downtown area for the
purpose of crime control. There has always been positive collaboration between the two
departments and I see no issues with this policy change.
ilTHE
UNIVERSI'[Y
OF IOWA
May 14, 2014
Chief Sam Hargadine
410 E. Washington St
Iowa City, IA. 52240
Chief Hargadine,
Department of Public Safety
808 University Capitol Centre
Iowa City, Iowa 52242 -5500
319- 335 -5022 Fax 319 -335 -5800
On April 22, 2014 the University of Iowa Police began a transition to return our "Downtown Patrol"
to the original focus at inception in June 2010. As you are aware, the catalyst for our increased
presence in the downtown area was an increase in violence in and around the downtown district.
Over the years the assignment transitioned to include bar compliance checks. Recently, those
compliance checks became the primary focus for the officers serving in this assignment.
With the most recent community vote to continue the twenty -one only ordinance and your
departments continued and effective enforcement efforts of the ordinance, we believe it is
appropriate to return to our original mission. Therefore, we will continue to patrol on foot, bicycle
and vehicle in the downtown area as part of a larger directed patrol effort, not limited to the
downtown area.
We are also experiencing an increase in requests for police officer presence in many other University
areas, twenty -four hour study areas, residence hall areas and University Hospital. One of many new
demands for law enforcement service began in January 2013, with one police officer posted in the
University Hospital Emergency Department due to increased incidents of assaultive behavior and
threats toward staff. Currently this assignment is staffed from 9:00pm to 6:00am daily, however
extended hours are targeted in the future.
Please know we have no intention of abandoning the downtown area. Our department considers it
among our priority areas. We will continue to patrol, respond to calls for assistance by your
department or businesses when we receive them. We will continue to address law violations when
observed by officers, participate and plan multiagency enforcement efforts such as GTSB, and
continue to partner with your department to promote and enhance safety for the community. Please
feel free to contact me should you have questions or concerns regarding this modification to our
patrol efforts.
Respectfully,
Lucy A. Wiederholt
Associate Director and Chief, Police Division
University of Iowa Department of Public Safety
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:06 PM
To: Julie Voparil
Subject: FW: BCT News Update
Info packet
Sent from Samsung Mobile.
-- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
From: Tom Markus <Tom- Markus @iowa - city.org>
Date: 05/21/2014 3:11 PM (GMT- 06:00)
To: Marian Karr <Marian- Karr @iowa - city.org>
Cc: Simon Andrew < Simon - Andrew @iowa- city.org >,Geoff Fruin <Geoff -Fruin @iowa - city.org>
Subject: FW: BCT News Update
Please add the 2nd article on New Urbanism to the info packet.
From: Better! Cities &Towns [mailto :contact @newurbannews.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: BCT News Update
News: May 21, 2014
Ped -bike advocates and urbanists: Get together
Robert Steuteville, better! Cities & Towns
Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy has become a huge movement, with
more than 220 state, provincial, and local advocacy organizations
that are members of the Alliance for Biking & Walking. The alliance
recently published out its annual Bicycling and Walking in the
United States, 2014 Benchmaking Report.
The 260 -page book, which can be downloaded online or purchased
in print, is a tremendous research effort — despite the criticisms I am
0
about to deliver. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this
subject.
Among the good news: Walking and bicycling are on the rise,
gradually, and becoming safer. Bike share programs are surging.
Yet this report also reveals a big hole in this movement — many
ped -bike advocates rarely talk to urbanists and vice - versa. The report
has about 40 authors and reviewers – representing major nonprofit,
academic, and government institutions. They appear to be only
vaguely aware of a key factor in the success of nonautomotive
transportation: Place -based planning and development.
Read more
New Urbanism's impact on mid -sized and smaller cities
Robert Steuteville, Better! Cities & Towns
Author and architect Witold Rybczynski recently suggested that the
New Urbanism has had little or no impact on big cities, citing a lack
of signature projects like the High Line in New York City or Disney
Hall in Los Angeles.
More than a few urbanists responded that New Urbanism has
dramatically impacted street design, infill development, and
regulatory policies like form -based codes. Place -based development
may have a profound effect over time in a big city yet get lost in the
overall scale of a major metropolis. The new urban approach tends to
blend in rather than shout "look at me."
In mid -sized or smaller cities, the effects of New Urbanism can be
much more dramatic. In these places, a few good infill projects,
livelier public spaces, and new streetscapes can feel like a whole new
downtown. Birmingham, Michigan; Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Providence, Rhode Island; and many others that adopted a new urban
approach 15 or 20 years ago have transformed themselves to a
significant degree.
read more
Older buildings, continuity of place, and the human experience
Kaid Benfield, better! Cities & Towns
I have been trying trying to understand what makes historic places
special to so many of us. Part of it is that they are relatively rare in
the United States, I guess.
For several decades our newer everyday architecture – our
subdivisions, strip malls, office buildings – has been simultaneously
bland and deadening in its consistency. Every place looks like every
other place, or so it seems. While that isn't literally true – some
exciting buildings are being designed and built, some nourishing new
places are being fashioned – the best of our older buildings and
neighborhoods have a distinctiveness to them, almost by default.
But I also think there may be something deeper going on. We
gravitate to older places because they ground us in space and time.
There also is an emerging literature teaching us that they function
pretty well, too. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but here
are some concepts that I would like to put on the table for
consideration:
Read More
We need small houses
Charles Marohn, Better! Cities & Towns
Investments in small, starter homes used to be the catalyst for
neighborhood growth. Our historic neighborhoods are filled with
examples of this.
This is not a minor issue. Brainerd's land use code is one of the most
destructive obstacles to growth in the city. It makes hundreds of
properties non - conforming, which means there isn't a clear path for
them to be substantively improved, a regulation that unnecessarily
stifles private investment. The code also prohibits development of
hundreds of platted lots, parcels that are currently served with
expensivesewer, water, storm sewer and streets.Thankfully there are
some who see the problem — and the opportunity — in changing it.
Read More
sponsor News items
West Coast rail conference
Better! Cities & Towns
To be held in San Francisco on June 2 -4, sponsored by the US High
Speed Rail Association.
read more
New Urban Publications • PO Box 6515, Ithaca, NY 14851
607 - 275 -3087 • Fax 607 - 272 -2685 • mail @newurbannews
Better! Cities & Towns • PO Box 6515, Ithaca, NY 14851
607 - 275 -3087 • Fax 607 - 272 -2685 • mail @newurbannews
This message was sent to tom- markus(a),iowa- city.org from:
New Urban Publications Inc. I PO Box 6515 1 Ithaca, NY 14851
Unsubscribe I Forward This Message
Email Marketing
by
(1iContact
Charter Review Commission I P4
May 13, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz,
Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes (left 8:05), Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 04/22/14 — Chairperson Chappell asked if there was
any discussion of the April 22 meeting minutes. Sullivan moved to adopt the
April 22, 2014 meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef.
Motion carried 9 -0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Dilkes noted that Members received in their packets this week the model charter and the guide
for charter commissions. She added that this is the eighth edition of the model charter. Karr
apologized about the electronic glitch during the packet distribution. She reminded Members
that there are two ways to get these packets, either via the link she sends or if they subscribe to
City notices they will receive it as soon as it's available.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Specific Sections to be Addressed:
* Preamble — Chairperson Chappell began the discussion with the
Preamble section, noting that they talked about potentially making some
adjustment to the word `citizen' or at least having further discussion about
this. Use of the word 'shall' was also part of their continuing discussion.
Chappell asked if anyone had anything they wanted to add at this point.
Schantz noted that he did spend some time reviewing this since the last
meeting and has come up with a preamble for them to discuss. He added
that it is more in form like the preamble to the model charter. He stated
that he believes it focuses more on what a preamble is basically about.
Schantz stated that he will get his revision to Karr for distribution to all of
the Members.
* Definitions — No discussion.
* Article II — Chappell began the discussion by stating that this section is
fairly large and that they may not get through all of it at today's meeting.
He suggested they take the first five sections, which talk about Council,
and start their discussion. He asked if someone would volunteer to read
the first two articles, and Sullivan did so.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 2
The review began with Sections 2.01 and 2.02. Chappell noted that he
believes Iowa City is unique with four at -large districts. Sullivan noted
that this is the only part of the Charter that gives any guidance as to how
the districts are set up, other than they are basically of equal population.
He suggested that it might be helpful to have some more guidance as to
how these districts are established. Kubby shared what it is like to run in
a district seat and the challenges with a campaign. She stated that the
system is not easily accessible at times. However, she does like the idea
of having true districts and still having the four at -large seats, as well.
Chappell then spoke to the number of council members. He stated that
someone had suggested an increase, and Dilkes stated that it has to be
an odd number. Chappell stated that he believes seven to be a good
number. Sullivan added that a reason to add seats would be if it became
obvious that there was a strong sense from the community that more
members were needed. He does not, however, believe that they
currently need to add seats. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she too
believes the current number of Councilors is sufficient. Atkins spoke to
the fact that the County ran three Board Members for a long time before
going to the current five.
Chappell asked if anyone had any strong feelings about changing the
number of council members. Schantz spoke to having nine members, for
example, giving examples of how this number could work. Kubby noted
that when there are too many members it can have a negative effect to
getting things done. Sullivan asked if there is any interest in changing the
districts, where perhaps five of them come from districts, with two at-
large. Kubby stated that it does not make sense to her, that districts
would be too large under this scenario.
Vanderhoef asked Atkins if during his time as City Manager if he ever saw
a Councilor that was only interested in their district. He stated that he
does not believe this makes a big difference, that these members are
elected at -large and function pretty much the same. Kubby asked if there
is a difference between a 'ward' and a 'district.' Members briefly
discussed how typically large cities have wards that they are responsible
for, and that these typically have a fairly large population in each ward.
Shaw asked how frequently districts are redrawn and just what this would
entail. He also asked about councilor term limits, and whether these
would change. Karr stated that districts are redrawn after each federal
Census (ten years). She explained this process and how the Council
then adopts an ordinance to adopt the new districts. Sullivan asked how
it would be handled if they did in fact make any changes to the electoral
system, if these would go into effect during the next City election or not.
Karr and Dilkes noted that without more specifics it would be hard to fully
answer this question. Atkins gave some background information on
charters and how electoral changes might occur.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 3
Chappell asked if there is anyone who does not want districts, that wants
seven at -large members. Sullivan stated that he is not inclined to go with
something like this, unless there are strong public feelings toward such.
He does not feel very strongly personally that the current set -up is bad.
Stone noted that one extreme would be to have all seven at- large, and
the other would be seven or however many districts and seats. She does
not believe that they need fewer members, and the next option of nine or
11 does not seem to be necessary at this point either. Stone added that
the hybrid system they have with their districts and at -large seats appears
to be the best of both worlds. Chappell agreed that he likes the four (at
large) / three (district) split they currently have. Shaw asked if it makes a
difference where there are three districts, basically a smaller section,
compared to the four at- large, and whether this creates a stronger debate
for those in specific districts. Karr clarified how this works with a primary
election narrowing the candidates from districts. Kubby noted that this is
where the confusion lies with this system. Karr then responded to
Members' questions regarding elections and primaries. Kubby followed
up with where the differences lie in district versus at -large seats in the
elections.
Atkins further clarified how districts are set up, noting they are say
20,000 each, and are strictly a `nose count.' Districts are then drawn up
according to this Census count. Sullivan stated that the more they talk
about the system in Iowa City, the more he sees where some of these
quirks could be a barrier to participation, as noted previously by Kubby.
Shaw asked if there have been any candidates or councilors who have
asked for expanded districts. Karr stated that she is not aware of anyone
having broached this subject. Vanderhoef gave a brief history of how the
City began organizing neighborhoods back in the mid -90s in order to
bring people closer together to function as a group. This can help bring
some 'governance' to that neighborhood, and give them an awareness of
the City government, as well. Schantz added that the Near Northside
Neighborhood works well, as does the Downtown Association, to get
things done. He added that in his own particular part of town, he has not
heard of a neighborhood association.
Craig spoke up at this point, saying that she likes the system as it
currently is. She was Council Member Dobyns' campaign manager, and
he ran as a district seat. She noted that she found that having to explain
the 'hybrid' process helped to get people more interested in City
government. She added that she does not believe the current system
has ever kept voters from participating, especially those that have a
strong interest in doing so. Members continued to discuss the district and
at -large issue, with debate over whether the current system is confusing
or not easily accessible to voters. Sullivan added that people do get
confused by these issues, that they don't always understand who or what
they are voting for. The general perception is that politics are hard to
understand. Chappell spoke to some of the perceptions around voting
and those true barriers to this. He added that many just do not vote in
local elections. Kubby added that she would like to make it as easy as
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 4
possible for more voters to vote, to remove any barriers possible so
people want to make the effort to vote. She believes that district
candidates should be purely, genuinely district candidates. They would
live in, be petitioned by, and voted on by people who live in that specific
district. At -large seats would be voted on by those in the at -large area.
Karr asked if the only change would then be in the November election,
and Kubby stated yes.
Members continued to discuss barriers and obstacles to getting voters to
participate in elections. Sullivan noted that for some there is too much
confusion and they opt to not be engaged. There are various barriers and
there isn't one answer to solving the problem of getting more voter
turnout. The discussion continued, with Members weighing in on why
they believe having both district seats and at -large seats is the best
option. Undervoting in districts was also discussed, with Members
questioning voter turnout numbers during these types of elections.
Schantz added that for many, unless there is an organizing issue such as
the 21- ordinance, you typically have lower turnout. He added that
comments he has heard from people who follow City government include:
strengthen the mayor, perhaps with an election for mayor. Chappell
stated that he is always skeptical of changing things just for the sake of
changing. He added that he does not have any strong feelings on the
district issue, though he prefers the 4/3 split with four at -large seats. As
for the three districts, he does not feel strongly either way about changing
things there.
As the discussion wrapped up, Chappell noted that they will no doubt
revisit these issues. He asked that Members think about these issues
and speak with others, and come up with any further information they
wish to have before they have further discussions here.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows):
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Chappell asked what ideas Members have in regards to garnering public involvement in this
process. Sullivan asked what was done at the last Charter Review, ten years ago. Chappell
stated that they had one or two designated hearings. One was allowing the public to just say
what they wanted to say while the Commission listened. The other was a more collaborative
meeting where four specific topics were discussed in smaller groups, with Commission
Members taking notes during these small discussions. Kubby stated that this was a good way
to actually have some dialogue and conversation, versus a typical meeting where the public
speaks but there is no feedback. Karr reminded Chappell that she remembers there was also a
third involvement session, after recommendations had been drawn up, to see if there was any
further input from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 5
TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second _& fourth Tuesday of each
month):
May 27
June 10
June 24
July 8
July 22
August 12
August 26
ADJOURNMENT:
Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried
9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
ul
NAME
EXP.
00
w
4/1/15
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
411/15
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1115
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
Moyer
Stone
Adam
4/1115
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
DRAFT
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD a
MINUTES — May 19, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter, and Mazahir Salih
EMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Patrick Ford and Staff Kellie Tuttle present
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -07
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Jensen and seconded by Salih to adjourn into Executive Session
based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records
which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or
to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or
continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in
confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative
reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and
22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to
a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those
communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably
believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0. Open session adjourned at 5:31 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 6:09 P.M.
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to forward the Public Report as amended
for CPRB Complaint #13 -07 to City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Salih and seconded by Porter.
Motion carried, 4/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
o c 0,��
fD fD �
SU
lD
ICI � `� � e�•r
a IQ n
fD r�
K �p
N
� O
N
d W
� N
O
b
C �• O
td O
O
A� M
�2+ vC
O
n
CD
7i
co
CD
..1 fD
O b
A y
FH
r 3
�Q
W
i
A
W
C`�7J
�
�
ii
ii
is
9C
N
00
00
,
N
yC
O
�C
>C
yC
O
00
x
x
ul
N
� O
N
d W
� N
O
b
C �• O
td O
O
A� M
�2+ vC
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5041
May 19, 2014
�,
To: City Council
Complainant
ry
City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Ta
Officer(s) involved in complaint
�a
From: Citizen Police Review Board
_
C
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -07
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #13 -07 (the "Complaint ").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(3).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on December 3, 2013. As required by Section
8- 8 -5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on February 28, 2014.
The Board voted on March 11, 2014, to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report:
Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the
Board's own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8- 8- 7(B)(1)(d), and requested that the
Chief provide a copy of all audio and video recordings of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on March 11, 2014, April 21, 2014, May 5, 2014 and May 19,
2014.
On April 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014, the Board reviewed audio /video recordings of the incident.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Police were summoned to a call of a disturbance. Police stopped a vehicle leaving the scene of the
disturbance. Police were able to determine that the occupants of the vehicle were also involved in the
disturbance.
While talking to the occupants of the vehicle the officer directed the driver to park the vehicle. It
became apparent the officer thought they were not going to comply with his directives. In order to gain
control of the situation, the officer reached into the car and grabbed the drivers arm. The Complainant
was upset that the officer grabbed the driver and she grabbed the officer. The Complainant exited the
vehicle and started hitting the officer despite his direction to stay in the car. The Complainant was
taken to the ground to be secured and arrested. Pepper spray was deployed on the Complainant's
daughter who was the approaching the officer.
On 04/21/14 and 05105/14 the Board met and reviewed the video and audio recordings of the incident.
The Complainant claimed that the officer grabbed her arm and tried to pull her out of her car. She said
the officer knocked her to the ground and handcuffed her and maced her daughter. The recordings do
indicate that the Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed after engaging in a struggle with
the officer. The recordings indicate that the officer did use his pepper spray on one of the
Complainant's daughters. This was done after the officer told the daughters repeatedly to stay back and
get back in the car.
After reviewing the video and audio recordings the board found that the allegations of: r.,,,
1. Excessive Use of force
f
2. Improper Conduct
C-1— :
�a
were not sustained.
C ap
COMMENTS
k
E3
None.
-