In a recent News Gazette article by Mike Monson, dated January
21, 2007 and entitled, Cities Taking Different Tacks on
Police Review Issue, City Councilman, Michael La Due is quoted
as saying that he would “want to see compelling evidence
for the need for one before I’d sour relations with the police
department unnecessarily.” In the same article, Champaign
Mayor Jerry Schweighhart, a retired city police officer, made it
clear he’s unalterably opposed to a review board and is quoted
as saying, “With a civilian review board, you’ll have amateurs
who think they know the law making judgments on people’s
careers. You’re going to take something that’s workable now
and make it into something that’s adversarial.” I, for one, have
to take exception to the quoted remarks and think that these
comments deserve some attention, analysis, and response.
A RESPONSE TO MR. LADUE’S COMMENTS
With respect to Mr. LaDue remarks, I think that they show
a bias in favor of the status quo without furnishing any
rationale for assuming such a bias. One has to wonder why
Mr. LaDue does not ask to see compelling evidence that
there is not a need for a citizen police review board, rather
than asking for compelling evidence that one is needed.
Since there has never been a local citizen review board,
there is no empirical evidence available to provide compelling
evidence to show the need for one other than the
following: (1) the fact that a significant portion of the population
feels that there is a need to at least try some form of
citizen review given their mistrust of the existing processes,
and (2) the fact that any statistical evidence that might exist
is dependent on what the police department has collected
and will make available to the public. Those statistics are
limited in that they were never collected, they were not collected
in any systematic fashion with respect to the issues
in question, or those statistics which do exist are not readily
available to the public in raw data form—if at all.
I would think that, since the existing processes have
been in existence for some time and there is a history of
experience with its operation and impact, it would be easier
(and incumbent on) those who support the present system
and oppose a review board to collect, assemble, and
present compelling evidence to show that the current system
works and that there is no need for a review board.
However, if Mr. LaDue were really interested in viewing
and evaluating the evidence pro and con for various forms
of the citizen police review process, he could always do a
Google search where he would find that a number of cities
and towns across the country—big and small—have some
form of civilian citizen review process. There are at least
1,200,000 web sites with information on this subject
when looking under the subjects “cities with civilian
police review,” “cities with citizen police review,” “cities
with citizen review boards,” etc.
Furthermore, I have to wonder how many pieces of legislation
and what legislation brought before the City Council
have elicited from a member of Council the requirement
that there be compelling evidence presented on behalf of
the legislation before they would consider voting in favor of
it. It is only on the rarest of occasions where “compelling
evidence” has been used as a standard; the common standard
uses have tended to be “sufficient evidence” which
need not be compelling. I ask Mr. LaDue if he would care to
specify and define exactly what he would consider as being
“compelling evidence” and would accept as such. To the
best of my knowledge, this has not been specified anywhere;
and the standard of “compelling evidence” only
serves as a means to cover up the capricious and arbitrary
exercise of some undisclosed, discretionary judgments and
decision-making by council members when evaluating the
proposals and acting on them.
Lastly, whose relations with the Police Department is
Mr. LaDue concerned about souring unnecessarily? His
relations? The City Council’s relations? The complaining
community’s relations? The public in general’s relations?
A RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR’S REMARKS
With respect to the Mayor’s remarks, his argument is both
arrogant and absurd, even though – on the face of it—the
argument sounds both rational and applicable. If the concern
is with amateurs being on the board who think they
know (but really do not know) the law, then that can be
resolved easily by appointing a few lawyers and retired
judges to the review board who can inform the other
members of the applicable law.
Moreover, there is no reason why civilians cannot, over a
brief period of time, be taught and learn the relevant laws
just as police officers are taught and learn the law over a
brief period of training and experience. If teaching civilian
amateurs about the relevant laws were not possible, then
why would it be possible to do so with respect to new police
officers? Maybe we should require our police officers to be
attorneys with law degrees in addition to attending the
Police Training Institute for training in policing methods so
as to assure that they actually are both specialists and
experts in the law rather than uncertified amateur lawyers
who have had a few hours at PTI dealing with the law. If the
police officers were so knowledgeable of, and expert, in the
law, then one has to ask why some of the charges they file
are often not prosecuted by the states attorney’s office,
which is made up of legal experts, and, when the charges
that they file are prosecuted and brought before the courts, a
number of the defendants have been found not guilty. It is
obvious that the officers are not infallible and actually do
not always know for sure the law and its application to the
situational circumstances they encountered. Why insist that
members of a review board be any less fallible?
Moreover, if the Mayor’s arguments were valid, then the
same can be said about grand juries and trial juries which
are made up of common everyday civilian citizens who are
not experts in the law but are charged with making legal
and other decisions which impact on the lives of the
defendants. Would he say that the legal system be changed
so as to prevent amateur civilian citizens from serving on
juries because they do not know the law and might think
that they do? Who would he propose that we replace them
with? Police officers? Lawyers? Former judges? Academics
specializing in constitutional law and/or other forms of
law? As with grand juries or trail juries, those brought
before a civilian review board should be expected to make
arguments to the board members which convince them
and make them understand why the board should take no
actions or make no recommendations in their case. It is
incumbent upon the defendant to educate the members of
the board on what the appropriate law is and how to interpret
the relevant law in the case before them just as one
would expect from the advocates in a grand jury hearing
or a court hearing with a jury.
Just because a process is adversarial does not mean that
it is unworkable which is what the Mayor seems to be
implying. In one stroke, the mayor appears to be condemning
the entire U.S. legal system for its adversarial structure
as being unworkable. I assume he would prefer closed nonjury
court proceedings where the defendant is not allowed
to challenge the prosecution or question the witnesses.
Furthermore, if the Mayor’s standards of not allowing
amateurs who are not experts review, evaluate, pass judgment
on or make recommendations concerning decision in
fields where they are not certified as being experts are valid,
then I am left with the question of how can members of the
City Council assess and evaluate, decide to enact or reject
proposals and proposed legislation of a technical nature
brought before them by the city staff consisting of engineering
projects and designs, municipal planning, finance, and
so on which they have no expert knowledge or certification
to suggest that they are anything more than competent amateurs
in most cases at best? How many members of city
council have engineering degrees and licenses, credentials in
city planning, municipal finance or risk management, information
systems, or any one of a multitude of issues and subjects
that come before them for review and decision?
CONCLUSIONS
There is not just one type of citizen review process; there
are many different forms of review that are possible—each
having different focuses and levels or types of decision
making authority attached to them. While there may be
good arguments in support of and/or against each of the
various forms of civilian review, those offered by La Due
and the Mayor are not among them.
Both sides of this issue need to bracket their pre-established
points of view and be much more open-minded in
approaching a serious examination and discussion of all
the questions and issues involved. The fact that municipalities
such as San Diego, Fort Collins, Iowa City, Corvallis,
New York City, Pittsburg, Oakland, Baltimore, and Dallas
have found that some form of citizen police review process
was useful enough to institute one should suggest that the
subject merits a serious open-minded discussion, analysis,
and assessment of the possibilities.
There certainly is no harm in trying out an acceptable
method of citizen review which will accomplish or help
bring about the goals of the community for some fair and
alternative mechanisms to investigate, review, evaluate,
and adjudicate instances of alleged police misconduct and
abuse so as to allow the community to have some formal
input into the decision-making – even if that is merely to
furnish recommendations to the decision-makers in
authority. There must be methods available which will
protect the rights of both the police officers and the members
of the community, which are more transparent and
more available to the public than currently is the case.
Such a review process should provide an alternative set of
avenues for handling citizen complaints that the members
of the public can avail themselves of when and if they do
not trust or have faith in the police department handling
such things in-house without any public scrutiny.
Get Connected
Search Public i
Public i
Get Connected
Archives
- October 2024
- July 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- June 2005
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- November 2002
- October 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001