Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-1999 Communication City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 11, 1999 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney ~ Re: Status of Issues to be Discussed at Joint Meeting Between the Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB)and City Council on February 11, 1999 On Monday, FebrUary 8 Sarah and I met with representatives of the PCRB and their legal counsel. We discuss(~d those topics identified by the PCRB in the attachment to the minutes of the PCRB's February 2, 1999 meeting entitled "Topics for Discussion." This document was included in your agenda packet eadier this week and, with one exception, includes the issues identified in my last memo to you that you discussed at your meeting on January 29. As I understand it, the final issue identified in my last memo due to its inclusion in the PCRB's annual report - deferential standard of review - is not a topic that the PCRB wishes to discuss at this time. At my meeting with representatives of the PCRB we discussed our respective concerns and ways of resolving the specific issues that have been identified. As I understand it, after this meeting the PCRB discussed the issues at their meeting on February 9th. Doug Russell reported the results of that meeting to me yesterday morning. Following my conversation with Doug I discussed the proposed resolutions with Steve Atkins and Chief Winkelhake. The following will identify what I believe to be the status of discussions between my office and the PCRB on each of the identified issues. 1. Identification of officers. I believe the Board appreciates both my concerns, those being: a. The need for a clear understanding that an allegation/accusation of misconduct is not evidence of misconduct; and b. Confidentiality vis-a vis the public. The following means of addressing those concerns was discussed at my meeting with representatives of the PCRB. I understand from Doug that this approach is acceptable to the PCRB. To address the former concern, we propose that a specific standard operating procedure be drafted and put in place which makes it clear that an allegation/accusation of misconduct is not, and cannot be used as, evidence of misconduct. To address the confidentiality issue, although R. J.'s reports to the Board will use a specific identifying number for each officer, in the Board's public reports it will use a numbering system that will not allow identification of the officer by the public (e.g., #1, #2, #3; etc.). This proposed resolution adequately addresses my two concerns, although there is one remaining issue that will require additional discussion. The ordinance allows the Board to make public the name of the officer in the case of a sustained complaint. Although to date the Board PCRB/City Council Joint Meeting February 11, 1999 Page 2 has not found such identification to be appropriate, Doug tells me that the Board believes it important to reserve the right to identify the officer involved in a sustained complaint in the event that such identification is necessary to assure that wrongdoing or misconduct is exposed. As I told Doug by phone yesterday, my suggestion is that further discussion of this issue at the staff level (City staff and PCRB counsel/representatives) take place. In general, my initial reaction is that guidelines for determining when such identification would occur need to be codified. Such guidelines would likely involve the balancing of competing interests. Thus, to summarize, I believe the resolution set fodh above adequately addresses my concerns with the one caveat that we will need to have further discussion about the parameters for determining when an officer's name can be released when the PCRB sustains a complaint 2. Use of two complaint forms. Both staff and the PCRB find what we have labeled the "Dee Norton solution" to be acceptable, i.e., attaching an information card to the Police Department and PCRB complaints which simply explains the options available to the concerned citizen. The second prong of this issue is whether and to what extent the PCRB will be provided with information concerning complaints made about a police officer but made to the Police Department rather than on a PCRB complaint form. At my meeting with representatives of the PCRB, I asked that the Board identify the following: 1) What types of non-PCRB complaints they wish to know about; and 2) for what purpose they wanted those complaints. They have responded that they would like a report of the writterl complaints to the Police Department and that they do not believe such complaints to be relevant to outcome but rather as part of their supervisory or oversight role. The PCRB would use such information not to track the complaints made against individual officers but rather to help identify potential problems or areas of concern. I understand from Doug that for this purpose the PCRB does not find it necessary to have the officer against whom the complaint is made identified. I have spoken to both R. J. and Steve about this matter. We believe the information requested (written complaints to Police Department) and the proposed purpose (identification of potential patterns/problems) is appropriate. We would propose that R. J. provide to the PCRB, on a quarterly basis, a summary of the date and nature of each written complaint made on a Police Department complaint form. 3. Complainant's Right to Appear at Summary Dismissal Hearings. The PCRB understands my concern about inviting the complainant to an open meeting to discuss the summary dismissal issue. Doug reports that the Board is less concerned about the forum in which they obtain the information and more concerned about gathering the information from the complainant. The PCRB and I agree that a standard operating procedure be drafted which gives the Board the opportunity to investigate the issue of timeliness by other methods such as interviews or written submissions, but not by an invitation to the complainant to appear at an open meeting. 4. Time for Completion of Police Chief's Report to Board. I understand from Doug that the Board's main concern is that there be a definite time period although they prefer 60 days over 90 days. They have asked whether the Chiefls 60 day period includes a review by my office. R. J. tells me that his 60 day estimate is only for the investigation by the Police Department. I continue to request that an additional 30 days be added to the 60 days for review by my office. PCRB/City CounciIJoint Meeting February 11,1999 Page 3 5. Time for Filing of Complaints. As I told you earlier, the PCRB's proposal that the statute of limitations be changed from 60 to 90 days is reasonable when compared to statutes of limitation which are applicable in other contexts. 6. Extension of Deadline for Board's Public Report from 30 Days to 45 Days of Receipt of Chief's Report. The Board recommends that its time period for reporting to the Council be changed from 30 to 45 days. After your joint meeting with the PCRB I will proceed to draft whatever changes to the ordinance and SOPs are approved at that meeting. I will share these drafts with counsel for the PCRB and obtain his input prior to submittal of the same to the City Council. As you may or may not know, Doug Russell is one of two nominees for appointment to the Johnson County District Court Bench that have been submitted to Governor Vilsack, who will make an appointment by the end of February. If Doug is appointed he must wrap up his private practice within 30 days. If he is appointed, I would hope to finalize these issues before he assumes the judgeship rather than waiting to take them up with the PCRB's next attorney. I will see you later today. cc: Steve Atkins Marian Karr R. J. Winkelhake Sarah Holecek Doug Russell, PCRB Counsel