HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-22-2020 Community Police Review BoardMEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
DATE: December 17, 2020
TO: CPRB Members
FROM: Chris Olney
RE: Board Packet for special meeting on Tuesday December 22, 2020
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
Agenda for 12/22/20
Recommendation Report — DRAFT #6
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY DECEMBER 22, 2020, 2020
Electronic SPECIAL MEETING — 6:00 PM
ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by going to
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN jbDj0dIRQ2a4mTP-C H6yQ via the internet to visit the
Zoom meeting's registration page and submit the required information.
Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked
for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. A meeting password may
also be included in the email. Enter the password when prompted.
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you may call in by
telephone by dialing (312) 626-6799. When prompted, enter the meeting or webinar ID. The ID
number for this meeting is: 998 4851 6452
Once connected, you may dial "9 to "raise your hand," letting the meeting host know you would
like to speak. Providing comments in person is not an option.
ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
ITEM NO. 2 OLD BUSINESS
• Discussion Item No. 8 of Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial Council
Commitments addressing the Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic
Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police
and calls for action from protesters and residents)
ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO 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
If'you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event,
please contact Chris Olnev at 319-356-5043, chri,stine-olney@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
CPRB Page 2
December 22, 2020
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.
ITEM NO. 4 ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT #6
Date: December. 2020
To: City Council
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Report and recommendation of proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board
pursuant to Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing the Black Lives
Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis
Police and calls for action from protesters and residents).
The members of the Iowa City Community Police Review Board (hereafter, "CPRB") submit the following
report and recommendation for proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board to enhance
community oversight of the Iowa City Police Department.
PROPOSED CHANGE 1—THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT, THE CPRB BE
GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINE, AND THAT THE CPRB BE ALLOWED
TO INCLUDE IN ITS REPORT ITS FINDINGS ON WHETHER THE DISCIPLINE IS REASONABLE AND FAIR.
a. Proposed Change 1
The CPRB is requesting that, upon there being a sustained report of misconduct by the Chief of
Police/City Manager, that it also be provided:
• A report from the Chief of Police/City Manager outlining the discipline to be
administered to the officer as a consequence of the misconduct. Within the report,
the Chief of Police/City Manager shall detail the factors used to determine the
discipline, including: (a) The severity of misconduct in the complaint; (b) Whether
the officer was found to have committed the same or similar type of misconduct in
the past; (c) Prior exemplary conduct of the officer; (d) Prior training related to the
circumstances in which the officer was found to have committed misconduct; (e)
Clarity of the conduct prescribed for an office in the Iowa City Police Department's
Operating Procedures relevant to the circumstances in which the officer committed
misconduct; and (f) Other circumstances that call for enhancing or mitigating the
discipline to be administered.
• Copies of the officer's: (a) discipline history; (b) exemplary conduct history; (c) the
officer's training history; (d) any operating procedures relevant to the Chief of
Police/City Managers determination of discipline for the misconduct; (e) evidence
or documentation relied on by the Chief of Police/City Manager of enhancing or
mitigating circumstances that impacted the decision on the appropriate level of
1
DRAFT #6
discipline to be administered; and (f) any additional documents or other evidence
related to any of the above disclosures made by a reasonable request from the
CPRB.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The most critical role of the Community Police Review Board ("CPRB") is to provide an
independent review, on behalf of the community, over the conduct of the Iowa City Police Department
("ICPD") including its Chief and all officers. When a complaint of misconduct is filed, presently, the CPRB
only has authority to agree or disagree with the findings of the Chief of Police and/or City Manager as to
whether or not misconduct has occurred. The CPRB is not provided with information about how an
officer is disciplined in cases where misconduct is found,
The CPRB believes having information regarding the disciplining of an officer, as well as any
other consequences to an officer where the officer has been found to have committed misconduct, is
integral to having effective oversight of the ICPD. Discipline information allows for oversight to make
sure the discipline matches the offense, to help deter future misconduct, to ensure discipline is
equitably administered, and to align the level of discipline and reasons for variances with precedent and
the community's values.
The importance of the CPRB having information is perhaps best explained by a hypothetical of
an officer using excessive force resulting in serious injury to a community member. Assume that the
Chief of Police issued a report finding the officer to have committed grave misconduct. Through the
current CPRB complaint process, the CPRB would review the Chiefs report and file its own findings in
the CPRB report. In the current system, the CPRB would sustain the Chiefs finding of misconduct, and
report the same to City Council, having no information on, and making no finding regarding, discipline to
the officer. Assume further, for this hypothetical, that the Chief issued no discipline to the offending
officer, despite the seriousness of the misconduct, and despite such lack of accountability being in clear
contradiction to the goals of the Iowa City Community. Such lack of discipline will go undetected by the
CPRB under the current system. Further, instead of being able to raise public awareness as to the lack of
appropriate accountability for misconduct in the ICPD, the CPRB report would be suggestive that the
ICPD was correctly managing complaints of misconduct in so far as it sustained (concurred with) the
ICPD's finding of misconduct. This hypothetical shows that it may do little good, or actual harm, for the
CPRB to only report on the issue of whether misconduct occurred, without being able to review and
opine as to the corresponding consequences when misconduct is found to have occurred.
Establishing a process through which the CPRB can review and report on disciplinary decisions
administered by the Chief of Police/City Manager will greatly improve the oversight into how the ICPD
holds its officers accountable for misconduct, increase transparency, and raise community confidence in
the board's oversight capabilities.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Consensus for proposing this change was reached by the CPRB as the members found it carefully
navigated the line of allowing the CPRB to remain an advisory review board and not an administration
board. That is, the CPRB would still be reviewing decisions made by the administers, as opposed to
administering discipline itself. The issue of how much administrative functions the CPRB should be
2
DRAFT #6
given, especially related to discipline, was the most debated subject for the CPRB. The majority opted
to remain an advisory board for reasons that are explained in more detail in the other proposed
changes, but include: (1) that members are not trained; (2) the need to preserve the administration
autonomy of the Chief of Police to manage the department; and, (3) the potential liability that would
attach to CPRB members if they were the ones determining employment matters such as discipline.
Careful consideration must be given to protect the confidentiality of information such as
discipline information. It is understood that some legislative changes must occur to allow for a CPRB
review to be an exception to the confidentiality laws regarding discipline information. It is believed that
legislation could be narrowly tailored to permit such disclosures, and also the review. This may only be
possible if the discipline part of the review were to remain confidential between the City Council and the
CPRB and not be a public record. Even with this limitation, the public could still have assurances that
the discipline in cases where misconduct is found is being reviewed, and that the CPRB can bring
concerns to the City Council in cases where the CPRB does not find the discipline to be reasonable or
fair. Further, legislation should be drafted so as to limit liability that may attach to a CPRB volunteer for
any accidental disclosure of confidential information.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Some police review boards across the nation have access to disciplinary information and varying
degrees of related authority. In Daytona for example, the Police Department will "provide the board
with the full internal affairs file, unless any portions are determined to be exempt from disclosure or
confidential by law." (Daytona Beach close to launching Citizens' Police Review Board, 2020)'. The
review board will "discuss the allegations of a case, the adequacy of the investigation, the final discipline
that was meted out, and whether the police leadership response was appropriate" during their public
meetings. Id. In addition, "[t]he board will issue a written report that includes the name of the
complainant, the name of the accused officer or officers, a summary of the allegations and board
members' decisions to agree or disagree with the disciplinary findings." Id.
II. PROPOSED CHANGE 2 —THE CPRB SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THE CITY
COUNCIL HAVE A DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
a. Proposed Change 2
The CPRB proposes that in instances where all of the following circumstances exist:
1. There has been a finding of misconduct in a Complaint;
2. The Chief and/or City Manager have disclosed a report with all information on their decision
of how the officer will be disciplined for the misconduct (this assumes proposed change 1
has been accepted); and,
3. The CPRB disagrees with the reasonableness or fairness of the discipline to be administered
by the Chief and/or City Manager;
that there be a mandatory meeting within 30 days of the CPRB's request to the Chief of Police/City
Manager between the CPRB and the Chief of Police/City Manager to discuss the discrepancy in their
respective opinions on the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline the Chief/City Manager propose
to administer.
3
DRAFT #6
If, as a consequence of the meeting, the discrepancy is resolved either due to the Chief/City
Manager having made an independent decision to change the discipline to be administered, or the CPRB
changing their majority opinion as to the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline, the CPRB report
will note that the meeting occurred and that the CPRB agrees to the reasonableness and fairness of the
discipline the Chief/City Manager have determined to administer in the meeting.
If, despite the meeting, the CPRB cannot conclude that the discipline to be administered by the Chief
of Police is reasonable and fair, then the CPRB shall have the discretion to either (1) issue a report
detailing their disagreement with the discipline, or, (2) make an additional request that the City Council
for Iowa City ("City Council") conduct a disciplinary hearing to independently determine whether the
proposed discipline is reasonable and fair. In the event of a hearing, the CPRB shall be allowed to attend,
and, in any event, be informed of all outcomes related to the hearing and/or disciplining of the officer.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The majority of the CPRB believe that this proposed change would allow for the effective
oversight of the disciplining of officers in cases where misconduct is found, while allowing the CPRB to
remain an agent for community review and not an administrator. The goal of the review is to try to
ensure that the operations of the ICPD are in line with the interests of the community. This goal can be
best achieved, when, in instances of disagreement between the CPRB and the Chief/City Manager as to
the appropriateness of the discipline to be administered when misconduct is found, a meeting can be
held to try to reconcile the discrepancy. The CPRB is not trained or authorized in matters of disciplining
police officers or employment law. Deference to the Chief/City Manager's autonomy in their capacity to
govern the ICPD and their knowledge of inner working in the police department beyond the discipline of
a particular case must also be given. The meeting is a forum that would allow for additional
consideration of the Chiefs/Manager's position that may better inform the CPRB members of the
reasonableness and fairness of the discipline to be administered. Similarly, the CPRB might inform the
Chief/Manager of the community's concerns and values as it relates to disciplining of the officer(s) for
the misconduct found. Thus, the meeting in instances of incongruity of opinions between the ICPD and
the CPRB, would hopefully resolve the discrepancy. Such resolution would potentially save time and
tax -payer money by foregoing the potential for a disciplinary hearing.
The meeting is very similar to recent ordinance changes proposed by the CPRB and adopted by
the City Council, to allow a meeting between the Chief/City Manager with the CPRB when there is a
discrepancy between the finding of whether misconduct occurred by the Chief/City Manager and the
CPRB.
The CPRB requests the additional authority of being able to recommend that the City Council
conduct a disciplinary hearing in cases where the CPRB and the ICPD disagree on the reasonableness
and fairness of the discipline in cases when misconduct is found. The CPRB believes this gives some
"teeth" to its findings that may not just be ignored by the ICPD in cases where there is a discrepancy.
Importantly, though, this change would still leave the CPRB being a "review" board, as the
administrative functions for determining and implementing the discipline would remain in the hands of
the City Council and/or the Chief/City Manager.
The effectiveness of the CPRB having the authority to recommend to the City Council to hold an
independent disciplinary hearing for an officer should not be understated. First, it is the consensus of
4
DRAFT #6
the CPRB that sunlight is the best disinfectant and shining a public light on discipline matters that need
additional review or correcting has bite itself. In addition, the very real threat of the City Council
actually conducting a full disciplinary hearing, and certainly the consequences if the discipline proposed
to be administered by the ICPD was found to be unreasonable and unfair by the City Council after such a
hearing, give the CPRB's recommendations real effect.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
The current CPRB is split on whether the CPRB should be given authority to administer discipline
itself. Members of the opinion that the CPRB should remain an advisory board as opposed to an
administrative board rely on the following points in support of their position:
• The CPRB is not trained in employment law or matters of disciplining officers.
• The CPRB should not over -compromise the Chief of Police from carrying out administrative
functions.
• Privacy laws rightfully protect dissemination of sensitive employment information that would be
required to be disclosed to make a truly informed decision on the administering of discipline in
any situation.
• Liability would attach to members of the CPRB when they make determinations affecting an
officer's employment.
• The CPRB members are appointed, and not elected as officials to make such a decision for the
community.
Some members of the current CPRB urge that the CPRB be given the power to administer discipline.
In support of their position, they contend that CPRB decisions on misconduct are irrelevant unless their
decisions carry the power to issue corresponding discipline They would like the CPRB to have the
authority to:
• Discipline an officer for misconduct;
• Discipline an officer for failing to cooperate with an interview or investigation into the
complaint;
• Require an officer to participate in mediation with a complainant;
• Call for a public hearing to hire/fire an officer or Chief of Police; and,
• If there were a disciplinary hearing that there be opportunities for the public to comment
and the final decision as to the appropriate discipline to administer would be made by a
majority vote of the combined bodies of the CPRB and the City Council.
CPRB members wanting authority to discipline officers directly contend that such authority and
public disclosure of the disciplining of an officer is necessary to enhance the understanding of the
officers of the ICPD's interactions with citizens, give opportunities to explain officer actions to citizens,
enhance satisfaction with the complaint process, empower the community members —complainant and
non -complainants alike, give opportunity to learn from mistakes of officers, and enhance the
opportunity to meet community goals. They further contend with regards to the public hearing for
hiring/firing of the Chief of Police, that such a public event would greatly improve the community
confidence in their oversight of the ICPD by allowing real feedback and accountability to the community
members directly.
Ultimately, the consensus of the CPRB was propose the limited change for the CPRB to allow it to
review discipline matters and, in the cases where the CPRB disagreed with the ICPD as to the
reasonableness and fairness of the discipline, to have authority to request the City Council have a
disciplinary hearing.
Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Regarding the authority to review or administer discipline:
o The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board makes
recommendations to the Sheriff regarding discipline, policies, procedures, and programs
(2020)"
o Columbus, Ohio, has a measure on the ballot that would create a review board that
would "make recommendations to the Division of Police, including recommendations
for disciplinary actions if relevant."iii
o The Virginia State Senate recently advanced a bill that would allow review boards to
""make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of
departmental and professional standards."
o Steven Morrison, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law, said
police review "boards are probably better than nothing, but as far as changing things he
believes they have minimal value unless they are given enforcement power.
• Regarding the authority of the CPRB to require mediation:
o According to a guide from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, "[m]ediation focuses on mutual understanding, problem solving, and
reconciliation - all vital aspects of increasing trust between parties." vi The guide further
details mutually beneficial outcomes for mediation. Id. The guide reports that, "[i]n a
series of focus groups in Omaha, Nebraska, individuals were asked to discuss whether
they would file a complaint in response to a hypothetical incident of police misconduct
and what they wanted to achieve if they did. Many participants indicated a desire for an
explanation or apology from either the officer or a responsible official, or they wanted
an opportunity to express their views to the officer in person." Id.
o The Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board found that in some instances, "all the
citizen wants is an apology" and that mediation provides the officer with a forum in
which to "explain to a citizen why he or she acted in a particular manner" (Alberta Law
Enforcement Review Board 1997)". "Research indicates that complainants who choose
mediation do report higher levels of satisfaction than those who choose the traditional
process." Id.
o "Mediation introduces a new dimension to police accountability. In traditional
complaint procedures, an officer accused of misconduct is directly accountable only to
other police officers: internal affairs investigators, the immediate supervisor, and, in
some instances, the chief of police ""(Walker 2001). The officer never has to directly face
or account to the citizen who has filed the complaint. In contrast, an officer participating
t:
in mediation is directly accountable to the citizen who filed the complaint. Mediation
may help personalize American policing." Id.
o In her report on community justice, restorative justice, and community policing,
Caroline Nicholl explains that community justice "is shifting criminal justice from a
purely adversarial approach to include problem -solving methods"'x (Nicholl 2000a).
o The DOJ paper would be a tremendous resource in planning as it goes beyond the
benefits of mediation and details various practical ways to create a program. It states
that "mediation is much less expensive than traditional complaint investigations. The
Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority (CRA) pays a flat rate of $2,000 a year to the
Minneapolis Mediation Center (a community -based nonprofit organization supported by
funding from city and county government agencies, civic organizations, and individuals
and clients) to provide mediators, who work pro bono, to handle police cases."
o There is a nonprofit mediation center in Iowa City, Mediation Services of Eastern Iowa
(About Us - MSEI, 2020)91, with the structure in place like suggests.
• Regarding the authority to hire/fire the Chief of Police:
o In Oakland, California the Mayor is required "to appoint any new Chief of Police from a
list of candidates provided by the Commission" (2020)"
III. PROPOSED CHANGE 3 —THAT AN ACCUSED OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A
CPRB INVESTIGATION OR BE DISCIPLINED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY MANAGER.
a. Proposed change 3—
The CPRB is requesting that the ordinances be changed so that the Chief of Police shall discipline
an officer in the event an officer does not cooperate fully with a CPRB investigation. Discipline should
occur for failure to cooperate with an investigation whether or not the officer is the one accused of the
misconduct. Cooperation includes appearing for and giving thoughtful responses under oath to
interview questions by the CPRB.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, as part of the CPRB investigation, the CPRB has the authority to interview witnesses,
including officers, both accused and non -accused alike. However, there is no present duty or order that
requires an officerto participate in the investigation or interview. Similarly, there is no repercussion to
the officer for not participating. Without such a duty or repercussion, it is likely that an Officer will not
participate in the investigation, respond to a request to be interviewed, or participate in a name -clearing
hearing. Indeed, the collective experience of the CPRB over the years has proven this to be true. With
such repercussions, it is much more likely the Officer's participation can be secured, greatly enhancing
the CPRB's investigation and ensuring more accuracy of its findings and reporting.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At least some members of the current CPRB have concerns over the legality of compelling an
officer to testify in instances of alleged misconduct, especially when the officer may be asked to provide
self -incriminating information.
7
DRAFT #6
Also, and related ly, officers may want or need to be represented by legal counsel to protect
their interests. The CPRB, in kind, will likely also need an attorney present for consultation. This has the
potential to add a large amount of taxpayer expense to the review process. It is hoped that the
discretion of the CPRB would be exercised with this expense in mind so that the requirement for
compelling testimony under oath would be used judiciously. It is believed such interviews may be
compelled sparingly given the prevalent access to body -cameras, car -cameras, and other data that may
make this part of the interview process superfluous. That said, without question, officers will be
interviewed if deemed necessary to complete a thorough investigation of the facts.
Further, in the interests of fairness, an officer would reasonably want the Complainant to be
required to be interviewed as well. Hand in hand with this, is the chilling effect on community members
filing a complaint if they may be interviewed by attorneys.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
IV. PROPOSED CHANGE 4 -A COMPLAINANT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE
CHIEF'S FINDINGS IN THE CHIEF'S REPORT BEFORE THE CPRB SHALL CONDUCT ITS
INVESTIGATION.
a. Proposed Change 4 —
The CPRB is requesting that, after the Chief of Police/City Manager has issued a report to the
CPRB with the findings of fact and whether or not allegations of misconduct are sustained, that a copy of
that report be disclosed to the Complainant. The Complainant would then have the opportunity to
respond to the Chief/City Manager report for the CPRB to consider in advance of their investigation.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Presently, the CPRB conducts its investigation after receiving a copy of the Chiefs report. The
Chiefs report summarizes a narrative -type complaint, identifies specific allegations of misconduct, and
makes conclusions for the same. In some instances, the narrative complaint and the specific allegations
of misconduct are clear. In others, it may be somewhat challenging to ascertain all of the allegations in
the Complaint— most likely prepared without the assistance of legal counsel.
While the CPRB has the capacity in of its review to interview a complainant in the cases of ambiguity
of allegations of misconduct, this is not required. Further, there may be an unintended chilling effect on
the filing of complaints if a complainant is required to be interviewed; many people would be
uncomfortable about speaking to a panel of strangers investigating their sensitive matters. In any event,
there is not any opportunity, otherwise, for a complainant to provide clarifying information or object to
how the Chief/City Manager characterized the allegations of misconduct in their report. If a
complainant were given an automatic opportunity to review the Chiefs report and respond to the CPRB
in a timely fashion, the CPRB report can be more accurate, and it would be more likely that a
complainant would feel his allegations were fairly identified and reviewed.
9
DRAFT #6
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
One can conceive that by providing a response after the ICPD has responded to a complaint may
provide a complainant with a vehicle to keep tacking on complaints. Such a step might allow for "too
many bites at the apple." Also, in the interests of equity, the Chief and/or City Manager may want or
need to have an opportunity to respond to any additional report of misconduct or clarification by the
Complainant. At some point the process must stop and run its course. Still, it is believed that with
careful procedural guidelines, a response from the Complainant could be incorporated that would
benefit the CPRB's review.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
V. PROPOSED CHANGE 5—THE ONLINE DATABASE OF OFFICER COMPLAINTS SHALL BE
IMPROVED TO ALLOW FOR QUICK SEARCHES OFCOMPLAINT HISTORY AND A
COMPUTERIZED RISK -MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ANALYZE TRENDS.
a. Proposed Change 5—
The CPRB is requesting that the online public database be enhanced so that one can search
complaints, discipline, and training records of any officer. Currently, in order to protect sensitive
identifying information such as the officer's name, each officer of the ICPD has been assigned an
individual tracking number. This number can be used in lieu of officers' names to allow for tracking of
complaints, reports on complaints, discipline, and training records for any officer while still protecting
the privacy and safety of the officers.
Notably, the database shall include all complaints, not just those filed by members of the
community or through the CPRB process. The database shall be searchable for snapshots for the
number and type of complaints in any month or any year, their resolution, and any trends.
A computerized risk -management tracking system should be implemented to quickly analyze
data in search of trends.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The CPRB believes that data tracking is important to its effectiveness of examining trends and
repeated instances of misconduct carried out by a few of the officers. When evidence shows that
officers who engage in misconduct tend to do so repeatedly, it is vital to be able to identify officers who
have emerging patterns of complaints. Treating each complaint as an isolated incident without tracking
data of individual officers makes it impossible to discover problematic officers and remove them from
public engagement.
Having a database online that allows the public to quickly identify all complaints for an officer
will allow patterns of conduct for an individual officer to be identified and investigated. Similarly,
snapshots of the type of complaints over a month, and a year, will allow for identification of trends and
areas where more oversight is needed.
9
DRAFT #6
Further, if the CPRB is given authority to review discipline, having access to other complaints,
discipline, and training will be important to assess the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline. The
database should be searchable type of complaint, and findings of misconduct, on a monthly and annual
report, and identify the officers under the categories. This would allow any member of the community
to see the trends and raise concern in the public section of the CPRB meetings.
While some members of the CPRB would like names to be released, the clear majority disagreed
out of concern for officer safety. A compromise was reached whereby each officer will be assigned a
unique, consistent, anonymous identification number that would accompany each complaint, to allow
for more thorough tracking and review while still protecting the privacy of the officer.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Extreme caution should be taken to protect against disclosure of identifying information of
officers outside of their tracking number in order to protect the safety of the officer.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Regarding the need to identify repeat offenders/trends:
o According to a July, 2001 National Institute of Justice Research Brief (Walker, Alpert and
Kenney, 2020)x"' "10 percent of officers cause 90 percent of the problems," and
investigations have revealed that approximately "two percent of all officers are
responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints."
o A publication by the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil
Rights states that "Improving existing accountability procedures will assist in preventing
police misconduct and will provide the public with confidence that such acts of
misbehavior will be documented and that officers will be disciplined accordingly."'
Regarding the use of tracking systems:
o Computerized tracking systems have been installed in various police departments across
the nation, including the Pittsburgh city police, the Los Angeles Police Department, and
the New Jersey State Police, among others. In Pittsburgh, reports of police misconduct
have dropped by more than half on average since the tracking system was installed."
(Chapter 4: Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures, 2020)'
VI. PROPOSED CHANGE 6—ALL COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MONTHLY DISCLOSURES TO THE CPRB.
a. Proposed Change 6—
The CPRB is requesting that copies of all complaints filed by a community member to the ICPD
be included with the monthly packet of information the ICPD discloses to the CPRB .
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, the CPRB is only given the reports from community members that are made to the
CPRB directly, as well as a quarterly summary of complaints made to the ICPD. If the CPRB is provided
10
R
with copies of the reports made to the ICPD and not the CPRB, it allows for the CPRB to exercise
discretion for doing additional independent investigation of the complaint. Disclosure on a monthly
basis would allow the CPRB to do so in a timely fashion.
Also, since the George Floyd incident, it has become even more obvious that many persons in
our community did not have knowledge of the CPRB or its functions. There is a very real possibility that
complainants may not have known of the CPRB when filing a complaint directly with the ICPD. This is
especially true with Iowa City being a college town with many students temporarily transplanted in Iowa
City. Having the reports filed with the ICPD within a month of when they were filed would help protect
against these community members missing out on the oversight of the CPRB in instances they did not
know of the CPRB.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
VII. PROPOSED CHANGE 7 - CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS TO REVIEW FOR CERTAIN TRENDS
a. Proposed Change 7—
The CPRB is requesting that, included in the quarterly reports provided by ICPD, that it also be
given the following information:
i. Total number of detained individuals;
ii. Demographics of the individuals detained;
iii. Total number of arrested individuals; and,
iv. Demographics of those arrested.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Perhaps as important as providing an independent examination and report of individual claims,
is to provide such oversight for trends and larger ways in which the Iowa City Police are executing its
duties on a day to -day basis. While the CPRB is provided with some information already to assist with
such larger oversight, some additional information would be useful to help protect against intentional or
unintentional bias or disproportionate outcomes.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
11
DRAFT #6
Vill. PROPOSED CHANGE 8 — CPRB SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR TO REVIEW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURES.
a. Proposed Change 8—
The CPRB is requesting that it be given authority and sufficient funding to hire an independent
auditor to review ICPD's internal investigation procedures.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Since ultimate authority for investigatory outcomes is held by the ICPD, it is vital to ensure that
its procedures are unbiased, complete, and follow best practices. A regularly scheduled independent
audit (every 1-2 years at the CPRB's discretion) would provide an opportunity for the Police Department
to receive consistent review and recommendations for improvement that can be implemented in the
interims. In addition, the CPRB should have the authority to recommend an audit if they believe that
there is an immediate procedural issue that cannot be reconciled through other means.
None.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Other cities that have used independent auditors to review police procedures include but are
not limited to:
o Charleston SC (https://www.charleston-sc.gov/2250/Racial-Bias-Audit),
o North Charleston SC, (Yee, 2020)'°' (Dennis and Yee, 2020)x°!
o Salem NH, ((Audit of Community Policing Policies, Procedures and Programs, 2020)'"Iii
(Police Audit I Salem NH, 2020)xix
o Albany NY (https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Albany-hiring-firm-to study
racial-bias-in-police-15509749 php),
o Roswell (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/roswell-pay-77k-for-external-audit-police-
department/EfCl6kzsYigRhzhIOBUY5K/ ),
o Vallejo CA (https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/north-bay/valleoo-to release
third -pa rtv-audit-of-pol ice-dept-next-week/2308338/),
o Eugene OR(htti)s://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18785/Civilian Review
Board -Policies),
o Los Angeles CA,
(http://www.lapdonline.org/inside the lapd/content basic view/8772)
IX. PROPOSED CHANGE 9 — CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED CITY FUNDING TO PROMOTE
AWARENESS OF THE CPRB AND ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY TO ITS SERVICES.
a. Proposed change 9—
The CPRB is requesting that it have sufficient funds provided to advertise its existence, services,
and make its services more accessible to the public. This would include. but not be limited to, funds for
12
DRAFT #6
outreach activities, meetings being streamed live, and enhancements to the website to make them
more user friendly.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
After the George Floyd incident and the protests, attendance at our meetings and public forum
was high, and a common report from feedback from the community was that they did not previously
know of the CPRB. It was also obvious many in the community who were informed enough to attend
the CPRB forum did not have a clear understanding of the purpose or function of the CPRB. Presently,
there is little effort or funding provided to inform the community about the CPRB.
In order to be effective, the CPRB needs to improve public engagement. The CPRB proposes the
following specifically:
1. Making the CPRB website more user friendly;
2. Having all CPRB meetings live streamed on the City of Iowa City
Facebook page (and posted about on that page in advance),
3. Holding community forums twice a year,
4. Having basic CPRB contact info printed on the back of every police
officer card. (The suggestion was offered during our 2020 Community
Forum by one of the longtime community members who just recently
learned of the CPRB);
5. Having funds to host other awareness activities from time to time; and,
6. Having information about the CPRB services provided to every
community member at the time they are issued a citation or at the time
they are released from custody in the event they were arrested.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
The Eugene, OR CRB Code states that its board is to "conduct outreach activities and disseminate
information throughout the community" and "seek open, candid and non -defensive dialogue with
stakeholders to both educate and learn from different communities in Eugene." (EUGENE CIVILIAN
REVIEW BOARD POLICIES and PROCEDURES MANUAL)"
X. PROPOSED CHANGE 10 —COMPLAINANTS SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A LAWYER AND SOCIAL
WORKER/MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WITH TRAUMA AWARENESS TRAINING FOR PURPOSES
OF ASSISTING COMPLAINANTS THROUGHOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
a. Proposed Change 10—
The CPRB proposes that community members have access to both legal counsel and a social
worker or other medical professional with trauma awareness training for purposes of facilitating and
assisting complainants with a CPRB complaint throughout the complaint process.
13
DRAFT #6
b. Reasoning for the proposal
It is reasoned that community members file complaints against officers because they believe
they have been wronged. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the experience may have been
traumatic for a complainant. Indeed, some community members have reported the trauma from the
underlying event, and a separate trauma from fear associated with reporting the complaint, including
fear of retaliation, fear of sharing a personal traumatic event, and fear of their claims being judged as
either validated or invalidated. Such trauma deserves a trained professional to help a complainant at
the outset of the complaint process and through to its resolution.
It should be recognized that in CPRB complaints, there is an inherent imbalance of power due to
the complaints being against an officer who has several advantages including access to reports and
information, familiarity with procedures and personnel, and levels of tort immunity. While the CPRB
tries to be accessible to all members of the community and strives to make the complaint process as
straight forward as possible, the process can be daunting and pose certain challenges. This may be
especially true for marginalized populations such as community members that are undocumented,
unhoused, sex workers, drug users, and/or formerly incarcerated. Put simply, some members of the
community simply do not have the capacity or resources to file an effective complaint. Having access to
legal counsel would greatly assist community members with the filing of complaints. They will be
informed of legalities, have clarity of the process, as well as other assistance that would greatly enhance
the complaint process.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At least some members of the CPRB are of the opinion that If Iowa City provides the
complainant services such as use of a lawyer and/or social worker/medical professional with trauma
awareness training, that the mere act of providing such services would be an admission of culpability by
the City on behalf of the ICPD for its alleged conduct in any complaint. Further, such services could be
laying a foundation for a complainant to initiate legal actions against an officer and/or Iowa City
regardless of the actual merits of a complaint.
The majority of the CPRB believe that Iowa City can provide the legal and medical services for a
complainant without acknowledging culpability. To the contrary, legal counsel and trauma/medical
professionals for the complaint process might facilitate a more thorough and meaningful resolution of
the complaint for a complainant in instances; whether or not the complaint is sustained. Having
assistance to understand the events and processes might reduce the need for additional litigation and
draw a sense of closure and completeness to the incident in which the community member perceived to
be harmed.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Evidence suggests that individual -level secondary prevention interventions aimed at bolstering
resilience and reducing the likelihood of adverse effects following trauma are effective."
(authors & Magruder).`
• "Trauma affects how victims see themselves" and "these beliefs affect how victims respond to
services and the criminal justice system and underscore the importance of task forces taking a
14
DRAFT #6
trauma -informed approach, not only through service delivery but also throughout the
investigation" process. (Human Trafficking Task Force e-Guide)"""
• "Public health impact of trauma exposure is staggering for both communities and individuals"
and that "the social environment can stimulate recovery after trauma." (authors & Magruder).
• "The perception of social support has been found to be an influential factor for the effects of
traumatic events on the individual as well as the community" (Kleber, 2019)"`11'
• "Many suggest that a true public health approach requires mental health integration beyond
primary care to include sectors such as education, justice, welfare, and labor through
partnerships with government, non -governmental organizations, and the faith -based
community." (Collins, Insel, Chockalingam, Daar, & Maddox, 2013; Ko et al., 2008) Providing a
professional trained in trauma awareness to complainants would be a step towards such
integration.
• Urbana, Illinois Community Police Review Board has a designated representative to provide
mental support and other relevant assistance with the complaint process for the complainant.
(https://www.city.urbana.il.us/ Agendas - Packets - Minutes/Agendas 2006/07 10
2006/Citizen Police Review Ordinance Draft pdf). See, also: Columbia, Missouri
(httys://www.como gov/law/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/CPRB-Brochure pdf), Dallas,
Texas(http://mothersagainstpolicebrutality org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Task Force
Report-on-Citizen-Review-of-Police-15-February-2017-FINAL pdf).
XI. PROPOSED CHANGE 11— EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CPRB FROM FIVE TO NINE
MEMBERS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND REPRESENTATION
FROM A CURRENT OR FORMER MEMBER OF THE POLICE OR POLICE POLICY EXPERT.
a. Proposed Change 11—
The CPRB requests to change its membership from the current five member -board to one with
nine members. In selecting from candidates for the CPRB, an emphasis shall be placed on the person
being of a minority race, and at least four of the members shall be from a minority race.
Further, the ordinances should make it mandatory, (no longer simply suggested), that the board
have at least one member from a current or former member of a police department or a police policy
expert. The City Council shall allow for this position to be filled by someone who is not a member of the
Iowa City community.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Having additional members increases the diverse opinions of the board, will disperse the
workload, and allow for larger subgroups to meet without constituting a quorum and triggering the
public meeting requirement. As is, the current members are volunteering time to review individual
complaints. This almost always entails watching hours of video footage, possible additional
investigations, procedural discussions, voting, report writing, and review of report before its filing.
Members also review various police ordinances and policies, as well as quarterly reports from the police.
Besides this, members are tasked with writing public forum reports, and, from time to time, having
various sub -committees for purposes of completing tasks. Presently, subcommittees can only be
15
DRAFT #6
comprised of two members as more would entail a forum requiring a public meeting. There is a large
time and workload commitment required of the CPRB members.
Proposed change outlined in this document would only increase, in some cases dramatically, the
amount of work being carried by a five -member volunteer board. With additional members, the
individual burden would be lessened.
With regard to the composition being favorable to minority groups, this stems from an agenda
to help achieve racial equality in the justice system. Objective data points to clear racial disparities in
policing on a statewide and national level. Having a minimum composition of members from minority
groups for overseeing the police would help protect minority interests in the carrying out of CPRB
reviews. The Board feels there should be no less than four members (of a nine -member panel) whom
are from a minority race for its composition.
To help ensure fairness and equity in the review process, the recommendation that one
member of the board have a police background shall become mandatory. It is important that, when
reviewing police conduct, someone with police experience and training be consulted. If there were
concerns over objectivity, perhaps the residency requirements for this member should be waived,
and/or a police procedure expert be retained for the CPRB to consult with regularly during the closed
sessions.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
XII. PROPOSED CHANGE 12 - CPRB complaints should be permitted whether filed
anonymously or through third persons so long as there is sufficient knowledge of the
underlying circumstances.
a. Proposed Change 12 —
The CPRB is requesting that complaints be permitted whether they are filed anonymously or
through third persons without naming individual complainant, so long a sufficient personal knowledge
of the underlying circumstances is alleged in the complaint.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The purpose of the CPRB is to provide effective community oversight of the ICPD. If information
can be brought forward to help identify instances of misconduct without the need of the person who
was perceived to have been harmed being personally named, the CPRB procedures should allow it,
provided there are sufficient safe -guards against unfounded complaints being filed. Allowing for
anonymity may well remove a very real obstacle preventing community members from filing
complaints: fear of public humiliation and/or retaliation by those implicated in the complaint. This could
especially be true with several marginalized members of the community including those that are
16
DRAFT #6
undocumented, unhoused, sex workers, drug users, and/or those formerly incarcerated. These
members statistically have a higher number of interactions with the police and are more likely to be
subject to police misconduct. This change would provide some assurances that they can file a complaint
without retaliation.
Perception of fairness and equity is also important for the community members to have faith in
the CPRB system. Currently, for a CPRB complaint, the identity of the complainant is disclosed while the
identity of an officer implicated in a complaint of misconduct is not. This seems inequitable, especially
considering the inherent power imbalance in filing a complaint against a police officer, and can be
resolved with the option to file anonymously.
To protect against an unfettered amount of complaints being filed against officers, a threshold
of requiring sufficient facts to demonstrate a complainant has personal knowledge of the underlying
circumstances alleged in a complaint should be put in place.
a. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB are fearful that allowing a complaint without the identity of the
complainant and their respective attestation to the truth of the statements (the current system), will
open the floodgates for frivolous complaints. They believe the CPRB complaint process could be used to
harass officers and deter them from interacting with certain members of the community that might try
to use the process to retaliate against officers themselves.
The majority of the CPRB believes that the safeguard of requiring demonstration of personal
knowledge of the events will check such potential abuses. Further, until abuses of frivolous complaint
filing occurs with regularity, the benefits for incorporating this change outweigh the costs.
b. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
• The National Association For Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) supports
anonymous reporting and complaints of police misconduct may be filed anonymously in:
Cleveland, OH"''v �
• Anonymous reporting in Seattle, WA-v'
• Anonymous reporting in Wolcott, CP-ii
XIII. PROPOSED CHANGE 13—THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR FILING A CPRB COMPLAINT
SHALL BE LENGTHENED FROM 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT,
TO 180 DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
a. Proposed Change 13 —
The CPRB requests that the timeline for allowing a member of the community to file a complaint
with the CPRB be extended from 90 days after the underlying incident of misconduct alleged in the
complaint to 180 days from the same.
b. Reason for the proposal
17
DRAFT #6
When a community member has had an interaction with an officer that may warrant the filing of
a complaint, there needs to be time to process the occurrence, and perhaps handle other ways the
encounter impacted them including loss of job, criminal charges, and trauma. The CPRB believes 18D
days from the date of the alleged incident better accommodates complainants with those
circumstances. The CPRB further believes that such an extension still preserves the recency of the
events so that memories may be recalled, and evidence gathered. In comparison, the deadline to file a
complaint to either the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/departments-and-divisions/equity-and-human-rights) or the Iowa City Office of Equity and
Human Rights (https:Hicrc.iowa.goy/file-complaint) is 300 days.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB support having no statute of limitations. In support they site the
trauma and fear that may be associated with being a victim of police misconduct that would take
perhaps several years or more to bring forward. The majority of the CPRB members, however, believe
the 180 days is a better balance between allowing sufficient time to file a complaint and the ability to
investigate a complaint with recent evidence.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
In comparison, the deadline to file a complaint to either the Iowa Civil Rights Commission
(https://www.icgov.org/city-government/departments-and-divisions/equity and human rights) NEED
FOOTNOTE CITATION or the Iowa City Office of Equity and Human Rights (https://icrc.iowa.gov/file-
complaint) NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION is 300 days.
' The Daytona Beach News -Journal. 2020. Daytona Beach Close To Launching Citizens' Police Review Board. [online]
Available at: <https://www.news-iournalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2020/09/24/daytona-beach-to-choose-
citizens-police-review-board-members/5850368002/> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
"2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
"' 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-Citizen ReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020).
'" 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-Citizen ReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
" 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
" Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and Leigh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide
for Police and Community Leaders Web Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2002)
"" Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board. 1997. Judgments. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Law Enforcement Review
Board.
Walker, S. 2001. Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen Oversight. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Nicholl, C. 2000a. Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
" Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and Leigh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide
for Police and Community Leaders Web Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2002)
x' MSEI. 2020. About Us -MSEI. [online] Available at: <https://mediateiowa.org/about-us/> [Accessed 6 November 20201.
11
DRAFT #6
x" Cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://cao-
94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/oakO62931.pdf> [Accessed 1 November 2020].
"" Walker, S., Alpert, G. and Kenney, D., 2020. Early Warning Systems: Responding To The Problem Police Officer.
[online] Ncjrs.gov. Available at: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/188565.pdf> [Accessed 6 November 2020].
"" Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia: Citizen Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Procedures —A
Review of Existing Law, Legislative Initiatives, and Disciplinary Models. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2020, from
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wvOI04/main.htm
x" Usccr.gov. 2020. Chapter4: Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures. [online] Available at:
<https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wv0104/ch4.htm> [Accessed 6 November 2020).
"'Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-officials-cast-first-
votes-toward-racia I-bias-audit-of-police-department/article_682b6916-01d b-lleb-b325-d3855f59169e. htm I>
[Accessed 31 October 20201.
"' Dennis, R. and Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-
awards-contra ct-for-long-awa ited-race-bias-aud it-of-po I i ce-force/a rticle_9841779e-09a6-1leb-b038-
cb026ceed72b.html> [Accessed 2 November 2020].
""" Cityofsalem.net. 2020. Audit Of Community Policing Policies, Procedures And Programs. [online] Available at:
<https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/police-audit.aspx> [Accessed 1 November 20201.
xIX Townofsalemnh.org. 2020. Police Audit / Salem NH. [online] Available at:
<https://www.townofsalemnh.org/home/news/police-audit> [Accessed 30 October 2020).
xx Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia: Citizen Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Procedures —A
Review of Existing Law, Legislative Initiatives, and Disciplinary Models. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2020, from
https'//www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wvOI04/main.htm
""' Authors, A., & Magruder, K. (n.d.). Trauma is a public health issue. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.tandfon line.com/doi/ful l/10.1080/20008198.2017.1375338
' i Human Trafficking Task Force e-Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved November 04, 2020, from
https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforceguide/eguide/4-supporting-victims/41-usi ng-a-trau ma -informed -approach/
xx"' Kleber, R. (2019, June 06). Trauma and Public Mental Health: A Focused Review. Retrieved October 13, 2020,
from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00451/full
FAQs. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2020, from
https://www.nacole.org/fags?fbclid=IwAR2fuO7OU7ixwrOkzlrisKZkhbx8jBiq_iOG06epRIwOzS RuQ_ITUvleo
91
City of Cleveland Office of Professional Standards Civilian Police Review Board. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11,
2020, from http://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/ops_publications/0PS_BrochureEnglish.pdf
10N1 Anonymous Complaint Form. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.seattle.gov/opa/complaints/file-a-complaint/anonymous-complaint-form
Civilian Police Review Board. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.wolcottpd-org/about/civilian-police-review-board/
19
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #&
Date: December J 2020
To: City Council
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Report and recommendation of proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board
pursuant to Resolution 20-159 (Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing the Black Lives
Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis
Police and calls for action from protesters and residents).
*********************************************************************
The members of the Iowa City Community Police Review Board (hereafter, "CPRB") submit the following
report and recommendation for proposed changes to the Community Police Review Board to enhance
community oversight of the Iowa City Police Department.
PROPOSED CHANGE 1— THAT IN INSTANCES OF A SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT, THE CPRB BE
GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINE, AND THAT THE CPRB BE ALLOWED
TO INCLUDE IN ITS REPORT ITS FINDINGS ON WHETHER THE DISCIPLINE IS REASONABLE AND FAIR.
a. Proposed Change 1
The CPRB is requesting that, upon there being a sustained report of misconduct by the Chief of
Police/City Manager, that it also be provided:
A report from the Chief of Police/City Manager outlining the discipline to be
administered to the officer as a consequence of the misconduct. Within the report,
the Chief of Police/City Manager shall detail the factors+ -used into 4ete ,•n*7 ing
determine the discipline to adm; n:sp including: (a) The severity of misconduct in
the complaint; (b) Whether the officer was found to have committed the same or
similar type of misconduct in the past; (c) Prior exemplary conduct of the officer; (d)
Prior training related to the circumstances in which the officer was found to have
committed misconduct; (e) Clarity of the conduct prescribed for an office in the
Iowa City Police Department's Operating Procedures relevant to the circumstances
in which the officer committed misconduct; and (f) Other circumstances that call for
enhancing or mitigating the discipline to be administered.
Copies of the officer's: (a) discipline history; (b) exemplary conduct history; (c) the
officer's training history; (d) any operating procedures relevant to the Chief of
Police/City Manager's determination of discipline for the misconduct; (e) evidence
or documentation relied on by the Chief of Police/City Manager of enhancing or
mitigating circumstances that impacted the decision on the appropriate level of
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #re
discipline to be administered; and (f) any additional documents or other evidence
related to any of the above disclosures made by a reasonable request from the
CPRB.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The most critical role of the Community Police Review Board ("CPRB") is to provide an
independent review, on behalf of the community, over the conduct and of the Iowa City
Police Department ("ICPD") including its Chief and all officers. When a complaint of misconduct is filed,
presently, the CPRB only has authority to agree or disagree with the findings of the Chief of Police
and/or City Manager as to whether or not misconduct has occurred. The CPRB is not provided with
information about how an officer is disciplined in cases is eases -where misconduct is founds either by
or
The CPRB believes having information regarding the disciplining of an officer, as well asany
other consequences to an officer where the officer has been found to have committed misconduct 74
ease` where ' complaintof Fniseenduct h hAPR;u;WiAPd is integral to having effective oversight of
the ICPD. The disGi,..'^,eDiscipline information allows for oversight to make sure the discipline matches
the offense. •^t^ •�•h�e-to heln deter future misconduct, it •�� Fie, to ensure discipline is
equitably administered. equk °^the ,'rr'^' ^c ^u: end to align the level of discipline and
reasons for variances with
to be ...,minirteFed aF@ eeRsistent with precedent and the community's values.
The importance of the CPRB having information is perhaps best explained by a hypothetical of
an officer using excessive force resulting in serious injury to a community member. Assume that the
Chief of Police issued a report finding the officer to have committed grave misconduct. Through the
current CPRB complaint process, the CPRB would review the Chiefs report and file its own findings in
the CPRB report. In the current system, the CPRB would sustain the Chiefs finding of misconduct, and
report the same to City Council, having no information on, and making no finding regarding, discipline to
the officer. Assume further, for this hypothetical, that the Chief issued no discipline to the offending
officer, despite the seriousness of the misconduct, and despite such lack of accountability being in clear
contradiction to the goals of the Iowa City Community. Such lack of discipline will go undetected by the
CPRB under the current system. —Further. aad-instead of being able to raise public awareness as to the
lack of appropriate accountability for misconduct in the ICPD of sbich ...'rho^al'..^a ^s m0qcGnd Jrth
the 'the CPRB report would be suggestive that the ICPD was correctly managing complaints of
misconduct in so far as it sustained (concurred with) the ICPD's finding of misconduct. This hypothetical
shows that it may do little good, or actual harm, to have the for the CPRB to only report 4s-on the issue
of fiFidi;g as the whether misconduct occurred, without being able to review and opine as to the
corresponding consequences when misconduct is found to have occurreedLi bUt ^^t ri•—'lash• be pre• 'a a
he ... ^a..^. ,
t
�r,�-..,:seo.,oa�
Establishing a process through which the CPRB can review and report on disciplinary decisions
administered by the Chief of Police/City Manager will greatly improve the oversight into how the ICPD
2
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #6
holds its officers accountable for misconduct increase transparency, and raise community confidence in
the board's oversight capabilitiesefc,.�;e
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Consensus for proposing this change was reached by the CPRB as the members found it carefully
teed -navigated the line of allowing the CPRB to remain an advisory review board and not an
administration board.teF That is. the CPRB would still be reviewing decisions made by the administers
as opposed to administering discipline itself. This was attempted to be aGhiyed by prepesing ehanges
and net having autheFity tG issue diseipl4The issue of how much allthGFaty-administrative functions
the CPRB should be given, especially related tot administeFing discipline,: -was the most debated
subject for the CPRB. The - with the majority eptiag-_opted to remain an advisory board for reasons that
are explained in more detail in the other proposed changes, but include: (1) that members are not
trained: (2) the need to preserve the administration autonomy of the Chief of Police to manage the
department: and, (3) the potential liability that would attach to CPRB members if they were the ones
determining emolovment matters such as discipline
Careful consideration must be given to protect the confidentiality of private information asleed
such as discipline information.
chang" in pall G 'I"Fdiselp"AaFy FeGGFdS aFe confidential, It is understood that some legislative
changes must occur to allow for a CPRB review to be an excetion to the confidentiality laws regarding
discipline information It is believed that legislation could be narrowly tailored to permit such
disclosures, and also the review. This may only be possible if the discipline part of the review were to
remain confidential between the City Council and the CPRB and not be a public record Even with this
limitation, the public could still have assurances that the discipline in cases where misconduct is found is
being reviewed, and that the CPRB can brine concerns to the City Council in cases where the CPRB does
not find the discipline to be reasonable or fair do its best to r"• t" naFFeW aRy exeeptien4 to thisc thp
well be'"" "f the effir.PF Further, legislation should be drafted so as to also be G9HSide ed that „M "d
limit liability that may attach to a CPRB volunteer for any accidental disclosure of confidential
information.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Some police review boards across the nation have access to disciplinary information and varying
degrees of related authority. In Daytona for example, the Police Department will "provide the board
with the full internal affairs file, unless any portions are determined to be exempt from disclosure or
confidential by law." (Daytona Beach close to launching Citizens' Police Review Board, 2020)1. The
review board will "discuss the allegations of a case, the adequacy of the investigation, the final discipline
that was meted out, and whether the police leadership response was appropriate" during their public
meetings. Id. In addition, "[t]he board will issue a written report that includes the name of the
complainant, the name of the accused officer or officers, a summary of the allegations and board
members' decisions to agree or disagree with the disciplinary findings." Id.
3
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #b
CPRB SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE A DISCIPLINARY
HEARING.
a. Proposed Change 2
The CPRB proposes that in instances where all of the following circumstances exist:
1. There has been a finding of misconduct in a Complaint;
2. (Assam`"" pFepased Ghange 1 has a` Tthe Chief and/or City Manager have disclosed
a report with all information on their decision of how the G9FFe^^9g-officer will be
disciplined for the misconduct (this assumes proposed change 1 has been accepted); to the
nffireralgAg with their^.+and diSGIGSUFes in support Of h , and,
3. The CPRB disagrees with the reasonableness or fairness of the discipline to be administered
by the Chief and/or City Managed
that there be a mandatory meeting within 30 days of the CPRB's request to the Chief of Police/City
Manager- o discuss the discrepancy in
their respective opinions on the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline_the Chief/City Manager
propose to administer.
If, as a consequence of the meeting, the 6RR�discrepancv is resolved ^ ^^^^ a a t�-
discipline to be administeFe' as ab �' ` ' ' ither due to the Chief/City Manager having made
an independent decision to change the discipline to be administered, or the CPRB changing their
majority opinion as to the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline, the CPRB report -will note that
the meeting occurred and that the CPRB agrees to the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline the
Chief/City Manager have determined to administer in the meeting.
If, despite the meeting, the CPRB cannot conclude that the discipline to be administered by the Chief
of Police if -is reasonable and fair, then the CPRB shall have the discretion to either (1) issue a report
detailing their disagreement with the discipline, or, (2) make an additional request that the City Council
for Iowa City ("City Council") conduct a disciplinary hearing to independently determine whether the
proposed discipline is the -reasonable and fair. a'^^0^l'^^ that she ld
^^"^^^"^"^" of the ^"'"^ ' a In the event of a hearing, the CPRB shall be allowed to attend,
and, in any event, be informed of all outcomes related to the hearing and/or disciplining of the officer.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The majority of the CPRB believe that this proposed change would allow for the effective
oversight of the disciplining of officers in cases where misconduct is found, while allowing the CPRB to
remain an agent for community review and not an administrator. The goal of the review is to try to
ensure that the operations of the ICPD are in line with the interests of the community. This goal can be
best achieved, when, in instances of disagreement between the CPRB and the Chief/City Manager as to
the appropriateness of the discipline to be administered when misconduct is found, a meeting can be
held to try to reconcile the discrepancy. The CPRB is not trained or authorized in matters of disciplining
police officers or employment law. Deference to the Chief/City Manager's autonomy in their capacity to
govern the ICPD and their knowledge of inner working in the police department beyond the discipline of
a particular case must also be given. The meeting is a forum that would allow for additional
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #r&
consideration of the Chiefs/Manager's position that may better inform the CPRB members of the
reasonableness and fairness of the discipline to be administered.- Similarly, the &44,-the CPRB might
inform the Chief/Manager of the community's concerns and values as it relates to
disciplining of the officer(s) for the misconduct found • eFnbbeFS, a;, -Thus, the meeting in instances of
incongruity of opinions between the ICPD and the CPRB, a mcct.RC «_ would hopefully 9&WAae«
'^Sigh" 1^«9 the FeaseRing can hopefully resolve the discrepancy.ic_
Aides. TheFneet+!?g Such resolution would �^ 'a.. �^
potentially save time and tax -payer money by foregoing the
r
�I�eere�endaYaea-e�for aa-ex#teRsive-a disciplinary hearing.
The meeting is very similar to recent ordinance changes proposed by the CPRB and adopted by
the City Council, to allow a meeting between the Chief/City Manager with the CPRB when there is a
discrepancy between the finding of whether misconduct occurred by the Chief/City Manager and the
CPRB.
�w the meeting on this Pasp
With The CPRB haviAg ;ew-requests the additional authority to -of being able to
recommend that the City Council conduct a disciplinary hearing to the—ea:,s;;in cases where the
CPRB and the ICPD disagree on the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline in cases when
misconduct is found. The CPRB believes this gives some "teeth" to its findings that may not iust be
ignored by the ICPD in cases where there is a discrepancy. Importantly, though this change would still
leave the CPRB being a "review" board as the administrative functions for determining and
implementing the discipline would remain in the hands of the City Council and/orthe Chief/City
Manager.
With it. That is, With SUGh R FPPRFAMPA.PlatieR, the (;RRB is F?AeFely FePGFtiHg te tl4e City Gouneil that iff
The pew The effectiveness of the CPRB having the authority to recommend to the Citv Council
to hold an independent disciplinary hearing for an officer Fe::ew hould not be understated. First, it is
as it h' ^`«^^ s^ •^d that -"the consensus of the CPRB that sunlight being -is the best disinfectant and
shining a public light on discipline matters that need additional review or correcting has bite itself." In
addition, this ^'^pas^a change add "teeth" `the very real threat of a the City Council actually
conducting a full disciplinary hearing, and certainly the consequences if that would nG doubt Fesult if a
the discipline proposed to be
administered by the ICPD was found to be unreasonable and unfair by the City Council after such a
hearing, give the CPRB's recommendations real effect.
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #6
C.—Additional comments/concerns for consideration
The current CPRB is split on whether the CPRB should be given authority to IssGr: ;a:
administer discipline itself. "^^ ^a'^o F^- ^tF ^^- a Members of the opinion that the
CPRB should he an remain an advisory board as opposed to an administrative board rely on the
following points in support of their position
• The CPRB is not trained in employment law or matters of disciplining officers.
• The CPRB should not over -compromise the Chief of Police from carrying out administrative
functions.
• Privacy laws rightfully protect dissemination of sensitive employment information that would be
required to be disclosed to make a truly informed decision on the administering of discipline in
any situation.
• Liability would attach to members of the CPRB when they make determinations affecting an
officer's emplomembeFS of the GPRB as yment. .
I
. The
CPRB members are appointed, and not elected as officials to make such a decision for the
community.
Some members of the current CPRB
pneugh it is theiF PeSltieR that Of the l'DD use that the CPRB be given the power to administer
discipline. In support of their position. they contend that As
^ endat'^^^ e,_ CPRB decisions on misconduct are irrelevant "^'^^^ ^ t' -• t ^^^ ^^• ---
unless their decisions carry the power to issue corresponding discipline They would like
the CPRB to have the authority to:
• Discipline an officer for misconduct;
• Discipline an officer for failing to cooperate with an interview or investigation into the
complaint;
• Require an officer to participate in mediation with a complainant;
• Call for a public hearing to hire/fire an officer or Chief of Police; and,
• If there were a disciplinary hearing that there be opportunities for the public to comment
and the final decision as to the appropriate discipline to administer would be made by a
majority vote of the combined bodies of the CPRB and the City Council.
These ` PRR membe s -• ggestCPRB members wanting authority to discipline officers directly
contend that that islevlef-such authority and public disclosure of the disciplining of an officer fer
the is necessary to enhance the understanding of the officers of the ICPD's interactions with
citizens, give opportunities to explain officer actions to citizens, enhance satisfaction with the complaint
process, empower the community members —complainant and non -complainants alike, the ive
opportunity to learn from mistakes of officers, and enhance the opportunity to meet community goals.
They further contend with regards to the public hearing for hiring/firing of the Chief of Police that such
a public event would greatly improve the community confidence in their oversight of the ICPD by
allowing real feedback and accountability to the community members directly.
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #r&
Ultimately, the raajeF4-y-consensus of the CPRB was propose the limited
change for the CPRB to allow it to review discipline matters and in the cases where the CPRB disagreed
with the ICPD as to the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline to have authority to request the
City Council have a disciplinary hearing as P -tee 'R this
Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Regarding the authority to review or administer discipline:
o The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board makes
recommendations to the Sheriff regarding discipline, policies, procedures, and programs
(2020)"
o Columbus, Ohio, has a measure on the ballot that would create a review board that
would "make recommendations to the Division of Police, including recommendations
for disciplinary actions if relevant..""'
o The Virginia State Senate recently advanced a bill that would allow review boards to
""make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of
departmental and professional standards.'v
o Steven Morrison, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law, said
police review "boards are probably betterthan nothing, but as far as changing things he
believes they have minimal value unless they are given enforcement power.'
• Regarding the authority of the CPRB to require mediation:
o According to a guide from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, "[m]ediation focuses on mutual understanding, problem solving, and
reconciliation - all vital aspects of increasing trust between parties." ` The guide further
details mutually beneficial outcomes for mediation. Id. The guide reports that, "[i]n a
series of focus groups in Omaha, Nebraska, individuals were asked to discuss whether
they would file a complaint in response to a hypothetical incident of police misconduct
and what they wanted to achieve if they did. Many participants indicated a desire for an
explanation or apology from either the officer or a responsible official, or they wanted
an opportunity to express their views to the officer in person." Id.
o The Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board found that in some instances, "all the
citizen wants is an apology" and that mediation provides the officer with a forum in
which to "explain to a citizen why he or she acted in a particular manner" (Alberta Law
Enforcement Review Board 1997)v". "Research indicates that complainants who choose
mediation do report higher levels of satisfaction than those who choose the traditional
process." Id.
7
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #b
o "Mediation introduces a new dimension to police accountability. In traditional
complaint procedures, an officer accused of misconduct is directly accountable only to
other police officers: internal affairs investigators, the immediate supervisor, and, in
some instances, the chief of police ""(Walker 2001). The officer never has to directly face
or account to the citizen who has filed the complaint. In contrast, an officer participating
in mediation is directly accountable to the citizen who filed the complaint. Mediation
may help personalize American policing." Id.
o In her report on community justice, restorative justice, and community policing,
Caroline Nicholl explains that community justice "is shifting criminal justice from a
purely adversarial approach to include problem -solving methods"'" (Nicholl 2000a).
o The DOJ paper" would be a tremendous resource in planning as it goes beyond the
benefits of mediation and details various practical ways to create a program. It states
that "mediation is much less expensive than traditional complaint investigations. The
Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority (CRA) pays a flat rate of $2,000 a year to the
Minneapolis Mediation Center (a community -based nonprofit organization supported by
funding from city and county government agencies, civic organizations, and individuals
and clients) to provide mediators, who work pro bono, to handle police cases."
o There is a nonprofit mediation center in Iowa City, Mediation Services of Eastern Iowa
(About Us - MSEI, 2020)"', with the structure in place like suggests.
• Regarding the authority to hire/fire the Chief of Police:
o In Oakland, California the Mayor is required "to appoint any new Chief of Police from a
list of candidates provided by the Commission" (2020)"'
III. PROPOSED CHANGE 3 —THAT AN ACCUSED OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A
CPRB INVESTIGATION INN UOING T-1 IE REQ JEST TO 21
OR BE DISCIPLINED
BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE/CITY MANAGER.
a. Proposed change 3—
The CPRB is requesting that the ordinances be changed so that the Chief of Police shall discipline
an officer in ir-the event an officer does not cooperate fully with a CPRB investigation, F^'dtoa
Discipline should occur for failure to cooperate with an investigation whether
or not the officer is the one accused of the misconduct. Cooperation includes appearing for and
sitting and theughtft4IY ivin thou htful fe&PGA&1g- sponses under oath to interview questions by
the CPRB,;
M nteFvwew should be made wi;&F oath.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, as part of the CPRB investigation, the CPRB has the authority to interview witnesses,
including officers— both accused and non -accused alike. However, there is no present duty or order
that requires an officer to participate in the investigation or interview. Similarly, there is no
repercussion to the officer for not participating. Without such a duty or repercussion, it is likely that an
Officer will not participate in the investigation, respond to a request to be interviewed, or participate in
a name -clearing hearing. Indeed, the collective experience of the CPRB over the years has proven this to
91
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #6
be true. With such repercussions, it is much more likely the Officer's participation can be secured,
greatly enhancing the CPRB's investigation and ensuring more accuracy of its findings and reporting.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At least some members of the current CPRB have concerns over the legality of compelling an
officer to testify in instances of alleged misconduct, especially when the officer may be asked to provide
self -incriminating information.
Also, and relatedly, officers may want or need to be represented by legal counsel to protect
their interests. The CPRB, in kind, will likely also need an attorney present for consultation. This has the
potential to add a large amount of taxpayer expense to the review process. It is hoped that the
discretion of the CPRB would be exercised with this expense in mind so that the requirement for
compelling testimony under oath would be used judiciously. It is believed such interviews may be
compelled sparingly given the prevalent access to body -cameras, car -cameras, and other data that may
make this part of the interview p_ ess'^••^s•'^ '^^' ^^ superfluous. That said, without question,
officers will be interviewed if deemed necessary to complete a thorough investigation of the facts.
Further, in the interests of fairness, an oOffiicer would reasonably want the Complainant to be
required to be interviewed as well. Thp Con;AWRARt We will likely waRt legalll
This begs the questign of i.m*ether a rmFAPlaiF1aA% ShOUld be afforded legal FelaFesentation at the
taxpayer' and h9w t^ appai • suGh legal FepFesentatiep. Hand in hand with this, is the chilling
effect on community members filing a complaint if they may be interviewed by attorneys.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
IV. PROPOSED CHANGE 4 -A COMPLAINANT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE
CHIEF'S FINDINGS IN THE CHIEF'S REPORT BEFORE THE CPRB SHALL CONDUCT ITS
INVESTIGATION.
a. Proposed Change 4—
The CPRB is requesting that, after the Chief of Police/City Manager has issued a report to the
CPRB regardiag-with toe -the findings of fact aad-and whether or not allegations of misconduct are
sustained, that a copy of that report be disclosed to the Complainant. The Complainant would then
have the opportunity to respond to the Chief/City Manager report for the CPRB to consider in advance
of their investigation.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Presently, the CPRB conducts its investigation after receiving a copy of the Chiefs report. The
Chiefs reporte#e+}summarizes a narrative -type complaint identifies specific allegations of
misconduct, and makes conclusions for the same. In some instances the narrative complaint and the
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #6
specific allegations of misconduct are is clear. In others, it may be somewhat challenging to ascertain all
of the allegations in the C+ omplaint—most likely prepared without the assistance of legal counsel.
While the CPRB has the capacity in seuiRg its its review to interview a complainant in the
cases of ambiguity of allegations of misconduct this is not required. Further, there may be an
unintended chilling effect on the filing of complaints if a complainant is required to be interviewed;
many people would be uncomfortable about speaking to a panel of strangers investigating their
sensitive matters. In any event, there is not any opportunity, otherwise, for a complainant to provide
clarifying information or object to how the Chief/City Manager GhaFaeteFizatiaAs characterized e€the
allegations -of misconduct in their reporter Fnnr, • + � v r . If a complainant were given
an automatic opportunity to review the Chiefs report and respond to the CPRB in a timely fashion, the
CPRB report can be more accurate, and it would be more likely that a complainant would feel his
allegations were fairly identified and reviewed.
C. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
One can conceive that the- bv providing a response after the ICPD has responded to a complaint may
provide a complainant with a vehicle to keep tacking on complaints__a^ate �; a; g 5_uch a step might allow
for T'additiewal-too many bites at the apple." TeeAJ in the interests of equity, the Chief and/or City
Manager may want or need to have an opportunity to respond to any additional report of misconduct or
clarification byen the Ccomplainantt. At some point the process must stop and run its course. Still, it is
believed that with careful procedural guidelines, a response from the Complainant could be
incorporated that would benefit the CPRB's review.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
V. PROPOSED CHANGE 5 —THE ONLINE DATABASE OF OFFICER COMPLAINTS SHALL BE
IMPROVED cn TWATIT GAAu nc nnnRE EASILY c orucn To
ALLOW FOR QUICK SEARCHES OF -COMPLAINT HISTORY, AND A COMPUTERIZED RISK -
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ANALYZE TRENDS. SHOULD HE IMPLFftuAlTrD.
a. Proposed Change 5 —
The CPRB is requesting that the online public database be enhanced so that one can search
complaints, discipline, and training records of any officer. Currently, iln order to protect sensitive
identifying information such as the officer's name, each officer of the ICPD shall be has been assigned an
individual tracking number. This number can be used in lieu of officers' names 4e-to allow for tracking
of wkieh all complaints, reports on complaints, discipline, and training records for the-aaMofficer-while
still protecting the privacy and safety of the officers attaeh. T-he ••^^vm^•- ^• � d i s
the ^u•_ naFRetieF
Notably tThe database shall include all complaints, not just those filed by members of the
community or through the CPRB process. The database shall be searchable for snapshots for the
number and type of complaints in any month or any year, their resolution, and any trends.
10
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #r&
in add at! A-thP htaffd Fernmmpnds the of a computerized risk -management
tracking system tashould be implemented to quickly analyze data in search of trends.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The beafd CPRB believes that data tracking is important to its effectiveness of examining trends
and repeated instances of misconduct carried out by a few of the officers. When evidence shows that
officers who engage in misconduct tend to do so repeatedly, it is vital to be able to identify officers who
have emerging patterns of complaints. Treating each complaint as an isolated incident without tracking
data of individual officers makes it impossible to discover problematic officers and remove them from
public engagement.
Having a database online that allows the public to quickly identify what ..then GempiamAts, if a
iA whirl; all complaints for an officer wasinvolved, will allow feFpatterns of conduct for an individual
officers to be identified and investigated. Similarly, snapshots of the type of complaints over a month,
and a year, will allow for identification of trends and areas where more oversight is needed.
Further, if the CPRB is given authority to review discipline, having access to other complaints,
discipline, and training will be important to assess the reasonableness and fairness of the discipline. The
database should alsa-be searchable type of complaint, and • 4et4e�findines of misconduct, was feand
on a monthly and yea annual report, and identify the officers under the categories. This would allow
any member of the community to see the trends and raise concern in the public section of the CPRB
meetings.
While some members of the CPRB would like names to be released, theFe was net a maje ' the
clear majority disa reed out of oncern for
the -officer safetO4 e tye ooQ A compromise was reached whereby each officer will be
assigned a unique, consistent, anonymous identification number that would accompany each complaint,
to allow for more thorough tracking and review while still protecting the privacy of the officer.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Plane aa-Fextreme caution should be taken to protect against disclosure of identifying
information of officers outside of their tracking number in order to protect the safety of the officer.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Regarding the need to identify repeat offenders/trends:
o According to a July, 2001 National Institute of Justice Research Brief (Walker, Alpert and
Kenney, 2020)"i, "10 percent of officers cause 90 percent of the problems," and
investigations have revealed that approximately "two percent of all officers are
responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints."
o A publication by the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil
Rights states that "Improving existing accountability procedures will assist in preventing
11
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #b
police misconduct and will provide the public with confidence that such acts of
misbehavior will be documented and that officers will be disciplined accordingly."V
Regarding the use of tracking systems:
o Computerized tracking systems have been installed in various police departments across
the nation, including the Pittsburgh city police, the Los Angeles Police Department, and
the New Jersey State Police, among others. In Pittsburgh, reports of police misconduct
have dropped by more than half on average since the tracking system was installed."
(Chapter4: Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures, 2020)x"
VI. PROPOSED CHANGE 6— ALL COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT R 9^ ov A GGA.04 I^ =
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MONTHLY DISCLOSURES TO THE CPRB.
a. Proposed Change 6—
The CPRB is requesting that copies of all complaints filed by a community member to the ICPD
be included '^tea -with the monthly packet of information the ICPD discloses to the CPRB.—that4t
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Currently, the CPRB is only given the reports from community members that are made to the
CPRB directly, as well as and a quarterly summary of complaints made to the ICPD. laaviag-If the CPRB is
provided with copies of the reports made to the ICPD and not the CPRB it allows for the CPRB to
exercise discretion for doing additional independent investigation of the complaint Disclosure on a
monthly basis III the r��,a� ' would allow the CPRB",�o;:ra to do
so in a timely fashion,
i
Also, since the George Floyd incident, it has become even more obvious that many persons in
our community ^,.pmhpFq have did not have knowledge of the CPRB or its functions e*pFess, �„ 4hatz;ey
only just leamed of the (;PRR In lw.va There aFeg•� vris a very real possibility that
complainants that -may not have known -of the CPRB when they-arafiling a complaint directly with the
ICPD. This is especially true with Iowa City being a college town with many students temporarily
transplanted in Iowa City. Having alImthe reports filed with the ICPD within a month of when they were
filed would help protect against these community members missing out on the oversight of the CPRB in
instances they did not know of the CPRB
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
12
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #6
VII. PROPOSED CHANGE 7 - CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS TO REVIEW FOR CERTAIN TRENDS
a. Proposed Change 7 —
The CPRB is requesting that, included in the quarterly reports provided by ICPD, that it also be
given the following information:
L Total number of detained individuals;
ii. Demographics of the individuals detained;
iii. Total number of arrested individuals; and,
iv. Demographics of those arrested.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Perhaps as important as providing an independent examination and report of individual claims,
is to provide such oversight for trends and larger ways in which the Iowa City Police are executing its
duties on a day: -to: -day basis. While the CPRB is provided with some information already to assist with
such larger oversight, some additional information would be useful to help protect against intentional or
unintentional bias or disproportionate outcomes.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
Vill. PROPOSED CHANGE 8— CPRB SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR TO REVIEW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURES.
a. Proposed Change 8 —
The CPRB is requesting that it be given authority and sufficient funding to hire an independent
auditor to review ICPD's internal investigation procedures.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Since ultimate authority for investigatory outcomes is held by the ICPD, it is vital to ensure that
its procedures are unbiased, complete, and follow best practices. A regularly scheduled independent
audit (every 1-2 years at the CPRB's discretion) would provide an opportunity for the Police Department
to receive consistent review and recommendations for improvement that can be implemented in the
interims. In addition, the CPRB should have the authority to recommend an audit if they believe that
there is an immediate procedural issue that cannot be reconciled through other means.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
13
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #6
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Other cities that have used independent auditors to review police procedures include but are
not limited to:
o Charleston SC(httys://www.charieston-sc.gov/2250/Racial-Bias-Audit),
o North Charleston SC, (Yee, 2020)" i (Dennis and Yee, 2020)"v",
o Salem NH, ((Audit of Community Policing Policies, Procedures and Programs, 2020)""°
(Police Audit ) Salem NH, 2020)x'"
o Albany NY (htt s: www.timesunion.com/news/article/Albany-hiring-firm-to-studv-
racial-bias-in-police-15509749 php),
o Roswell (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/rosweII-pay-77k-for-external-audit-police-
department/EfCl6kzsYigRhzhIOBUYSK/ ),
o Vallejo CA (https://www.nbcbavarea.com/news/local/north-bay/valleoo-to-release-
t h i rd-pa rtv-a u d it-of-po l i ce-d a pt-n ext-we a k/2308338/),
o Eugene OR (https://www.eugene-or gov/DocumentCenter/View/18785/Civilian-Review
Board -Policies),
o Los Angeles CA,
(http://www.lapdonline.org/inside the land/content basic view/8772)
IX. PROPOSED CHANGE 9 — CPRB SHALL BE PROVIDED CITY FUNDING TO PROMOTE
AWARENESS OF THE CPRB AND ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY TO ITS SERVICES.
a. Proposed change 9—
The CPRB is requesting that it have sufficient funds provided to advertise its existence, services,
and make its services more accessible to the public. This would include, but not be limited to, funds for
outreach activities, meetings being streamed live, and enhancements to the web -site to make them
more user friendly.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
it is aften explained to the CPRR frAn; F:APmbPFq Of thP PE)FAmunity that they Plod PAt A-AA kRA;.
^tee. After the George Floyd incident and the protests, attendance at our meetings and
public forum was high, and a common report from feedback from the community was that they did not
previoulsy know of the CPRB. It was also obvious many in the community who were informed enough to
attend the CPRB forum did not have a clear understanding of the purpose or function of the CPRB.
Presently, there is little effort or funding provided fo o inform the community about
the CPR
In order to be effective, the CPRB needs to improve public engagement. The CPRB proposes the
following specifically:
1. Making the CPRB website more user friendly;
2. Having all CPRB meetings live streamed on the City of Iowa City
Facebook page (and posted about on that page in advance),
3. Holding community forums twice a year,
14
REDLINE VERSION
A
4. Having basic CPRB contact info printed on the back of every police
officer card. (The suggestion was offered during our 2020 Community
Forum by one of the longtime community members who just recently
learned of the CPRB);
5. Having funds to host other awareness activities from time to time; and,
6. Having information about the CPRB services provided to every
community member at the time they are issued a citation or at the time
they are released from custody in the event they were arrested.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
The Eugene, OR CRB Code states that its board is to "conduct outreach activities and disseminate
information throughout the community" and "seek open, candid and non -defensive dialogue with
stakeholders to both educate and learn from different communities in Eugene." (EUGENE CIVILIAN
REVIEW BOARD POLICIES and PROCEDURES MANUAL)"
X. PROPOSED CHANGE 10—COMPLAINANTS SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A LAWYER AND SOCIAL
WORKER/MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WITH TRAUMA AWARENESS TRAINING FOR PURPOSES
OF ASSISTING COMPLAINANTS THROUGHOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
a. Proposed Change 10—
The CPRB proposes that community members wanting *^ file , I h row
r a
have access to both legal counsel and a social worker or other medical professional with trauma
awareness training for purposes of facilitating and assisting complainants with ther-a CPRB complaint
throughout the complaint process.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
It is reasoned that community members file complaints against officers because they believe
they have been wronged. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the experience may have been
traumatic for a complainant. Indeed, some community members have reported the trauma from the
underlying event, and a separate trauma from fear associated with reporting the complaint, including
fear of retaliation, fear of sharing a personal traumatic event, and fear of their claims being judged as
either validated or invalidated. Such trauma deserves a trained professional to help a complainant at
the outset of the complaint process and through to its resolution.
It should be recognized that in CPRB complaints, there is an inherent imbalance of power due to
the complaints being against an officer who has several advantages including access to reports and
information, familiarity with procedures and personnel, and levels of tort immunity. While the CPRB
tries to be accessible to all members of the community and strives to make the complaint process as
straight forward as possible, the process can be daunting and pose certain challenges. This may be
15
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #6
especially true for marginalized populations such as community members that are undocumented,
unhoused, sex workers, drug users, and/or formerly incarcerated. Put simply, some members of the
community simply do not have the capacity or resources to file an effective complaint. Having access to
legal counsel would greatly assist community members with the filing of complaints. They will be
informed of legalities, have clarity of the process, as well as other assistance that would greatly enhance
the complaint process.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
At least some members of the CPRB are of the opinion that If Iowa City provides the
complainant services such as to make use of a lawyer and/or social worker/medical professional with
trauma awareness training, that the mere act of providing such services' would be
an admission ofackoG b ed 49.4 culpability en behalf G4he-by the City on behalf of the ICPD
for its alleged conduct in the-atecomplaint. Further, such services could be laying a foundation for a
complainant to initiate legal actions against an officer and/or Iowa City regardless of the actual merits of
the -a c6omplaint.
The majority of the CPRB believe that Iowa City can provide the legal and medical services for a
cComplainant without acknowledging culpability. To the contrary, legal counsel and trauma/medical
professionals for the complaint process might facilitate a more thorough and meaningful resolution of
the complaint for the -a complainant in instances;. whether or not the complaint is sustained. Having
assistance to understand the events and processes might reduce the need for additional litigation and
draw a sense of closure and completeness to the incident in which the community member perceived to
be harmed.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
• Evidence suggests that individual -level secondary prevention interventions aimed at bolstering
resilience and reducing the likelihood of adverse effects following trauma are effective."
(authors & Magruder)'"'
• 'Trauma affects how victims see themselves" and "these beliefs affect how victims respond to
services and the criminal justice system, and underscore the importance of task forces taking a
trauma -informed approach, not only through service delivery but also throughout the
investigation" process. (Human Trafficking Task Force e-Guide)""'.
• "Public health impact of trauma exposure is staggering for both communities and individuals"
and that "the social environment can stimulate recovery after trauma." (authors & Magruder).
• 'The perception of social support has been found to be an influential factor for the effects of
traumatic events on the individual as well as the community" (Kleber, 2019)"'"
• "Many suggest that a true public health approach requires mental health integration beyond
primary care to include sectors such as education, justice, welfare, and labor through
partnerships with government, non -governmental organizations, and the faith -based
community." (Collins, Insel, Chockalingam, Daar, & Maddox, 2013; Ko et al., 2008) Providing a
professional trained in trauma awareness to complainants would be a step towards such
integration.
• Urbana, Illinois Community Police Review Board has a designated representative to provide
mental support and other relevant assistance with the complaint process for the complainant.
W
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #66
(https://www.city.urbana.il.us/ Agendas - Packets - Minutes/Agendas 2006/07 10
2006/Citizen Police Review Ordinance Draft pdf). See, also: Columbia, Missouri
(https://www.como.gov/law/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/CPRB-Brochure pdf), Dallas,
Texas (http://mothersagainstpolicebrutality org/wp-content/uploadsz20l8/03/Task Force
Report-on-Citizen-Review-of-Police-15-February-2017-FINAL pdf).
XI. PROPOSED CHANGE 11— EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CPRB FROM FIVE TO NINE
MEMBERS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND REPRESENTATION
FROM A CURRENT OR FORMER MEMBER OF THE POLICE OR POLICE POLICY EXPERT.
a. Proposed Change 11—
The CPRB requests to change its membership from the current five --member -board to one with
additaewa�nine members._ In selecting from candidates for the CPRB an emphasis shall be Placed on the
person being of a minority race, and at least four of the members shall be from a minority race
Further, the ordinances should make it mandatory, (no longer simply suggested) that the board
have at least one member from a current or former member of a Police department or a police policy
expert. The City Council shall allow for this position to be filled by someone who is not a member of the
Iowa City community.
b. Reasoning for the proposal
Having additional members increases the diverse opinions of the board, will disperse the
workload, and allow for larger subgroups to meet without constituting a quorum that and triggering the
fequiresa public meeting requirement. f9F all As is, the current members are volunteering
time to review individual complaints. This almost always entails watching hours of video footage,
possible additional investigations, procedural discussions, voting, report writing, and review of report
before its filing. Members also review various police ordinances and policies, as well as quarterly
reports from the police. Besides this, members are tasked with writing public forum reports, and, from
time to time, having various sub -committees for purposes of completing tasks. Presently,
subcommittees can only be comprised of two members as more would entail a forum requiring a public
meeting. There is a large time and workload commitment required of the CPRB members
The pProposed change alsoutlined in this document would only increase, in some cases dramatically,
the amount of work being carried by a five -member volunteer board. With the additional twe ee feuf
members, the individual burden would be lessened.
With regard to the composition being favorable to minority groups, this stems from an agenda
to help achieve racial equality in the justice system. Objective data points to clear racial disparities in
policing on a statewide and national level. Having a minimum composition of members from minority
groups for overseeing the police would help protect minority interests in the carrying out of CPRB
reviews. The Board feels there should be no less than theee four members (of a nine member panel)
whom -are from a minority race for its composition.
17
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #g
To help ensure fairness and equity in the review process, the recommendation that one
member of the board have a police background shall become mandatory. It is important that, when
reviewing police conduct, someone with police experience and training be consulted. If there were
concerns over objectivity, perhaps the residency requirements for this member should be waived,
and/or a police procedure expert be retained for the CPRB to consult with regularly during the closed
sessions.
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
None.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
None.
XII. PROPOSED CHANGE 12 - CPRB complaints should be permitted whether filed
anonymously or through third persons so long as there is sufficient knowledge of the
underlying circumstances.
a. Proposed Change 12 —
The CPRB is requesting that complaints be permitted whether they are filed anonymously or
through third persons without naming individual complainant, so long a sufficient personal knowledge
of the underlying circumstances is alleged in the complaint. This tim ling F, so, , ,
o r r
b. Reasoning for the proposal
The purpose of the CPRB is to provide effective community oversight of the ICPD. If information
can be brought forward to help identify instances of misconduct, it without
the need of the person who was perceived to have been harmed being personally named, the CPRB
procedures should allow it provided there are sufficient safe -guards against unfounded complaints
being filed. Allowing for anonymity may well remove a very real obstacle preventing community
members from filing complaints: fear of public humiliation and/or retaliation by those implicated in the
complaint. This could especially be true with several marginalized members of the community including
those that are undocumented, unhoused, sex workers, drug users, and/or those formerly incarcerated.
These members statistically have a higher number of interactions with the police and are more likely to
be subject to police misconduct. This change would provide some assurances that they can file a
complaint without retaliation.
Perception of fairness and equity is also important for the community members to have faith in
the CPRB system. Currently, for a CPRB complaint, the identity of the complainant is disclosed while the
identity of an officer implicated in a complaint of misconduct is not. This seems inequitable, especially
considering the inherent power imbalance in filing a complaint against a police officer, and can be
resolved with the option to file anonymously.
18
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #&
To protect against an unfettered amount of complaints being filed against officers, a threshold
of requiring sufficient facts to demonstrate a complainant has personal knowledge of the underlying
circumstances alleged in tea cComplaint should be put in place.
a. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB are fearful that allowing a complaint without the identity of the
complainant and their respective a��attestation to the truth of the statements (the current
s stem will open the floodgates for frivolous
complaints. They believe the CPRB complaint process could be used to harass officers and deter them
from interacting with certain members of the community that might try to use the process to retaliate
against officers themselves.
The majority of the CPRB believes that t is faF MOFe likely that M ry F the safeguard of
requiring alleging demonstration of fig -personal knowledge of the events will check such
potential abuses. Further, until A wh abuses of frivolous complaint filing weeld occurs with regularity,
the benefits for incorporating this change outweigh the costs.
b. Additional sources relevant to consideration of the proposed change
The National Association For Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) supports
anonymous reporting and complaints of police misconduct may be filed anonymously in:
Cleveland, OHx iv xx
Anonymous reporting in Seattle, WAO"
Anonymous reporting in Wolcott, CTxx°II
XIII. PROPOSED CHANGE 13 — THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR FILING A CPRB COMPLAINT
SHALL BE LENGTHENED FROM 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT,
TO 180 DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
a. Proposed Change 13 —
The CPRB requests that the timeline for allowing a member of the community to file a complaint
with the CPRB be extended from 90 days after the underlying incident of misconduct alleged in the
complaint to 180 days from the same.
b. Reason for the proposal
When a community member has had an interaction with an pe -e-officer that may warrant the
filing of a complaint, there needs to be -time to process the occurrence, and perhaps handle other ways
the encounter impacted them including loss of job, criminal charges, and trauma. The CPRB believes
180 days from the date of the alleged incident better accommodates complainants with those
circumstances. rh,� t he CPRB further believes -that such an extension still preserves the recency
of the events so that memories may be recalled and evidence gathered. In comparison, the deadline to
file a complaint to either the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/departments-and-divisions/equity-and-human-rights) or the Iowa City Office of Equity and
Human Rights (https://icrc.iowa gov/file-complaint) is 300 days.
19
REDLINE VERSION DRAFT #g
c. Additional comments/concerns for consideration
Some members of the CPRB support having no statute of limitations. In support they site the
trauma and fear that may be associated with being a victim of police misconduct that would take
perhaps several years or more to bring forward. The majority of the CPRB members, however, believe
the 180 days is a better balance between allowing sufficient time to file a complaint and the ability to
investigate a complaint with recent evidence.
d. Additional sources relevant to the proposed change
Plene _In comparison, the deadline to file a complaint to either the Iowa Civil Rights Commission
(https://www.icgov ore/city-government/departments-and-divisions/equity-and human rights) NEED
FOOTNOTE CITATION or the Iowa City Office of Equity and Human Rights (https:Hicrc.iowa goy/file-
complaint) NEED FOOTNOTE CITATION is 300 days.
'The Daytona Beach News -Journal. 2020. Daytona Beach Close To Launching Citizens' Police Review Board. [online]
Available at: <https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2020/09/24/daytona-beach-to-choose-
citizens-police-review-board-members/5850368002/> [Accessed 28 October 2020].
" 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
'" 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 2020].
"2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/InternalAffairs-CitizenReviewBoard.aspx> [Accessed
28 October 20201.
"' Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and Leigh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide
for Police and Community Leaders Web Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2002)
"" Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board. 1997. Judgments. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Law Enforcement Review
Board.
"' Walker, S. 2001. Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen Oversight. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
'x Nicholl, C.2000a. Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
x Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold and Leigh Herbst, Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide
for Police and Community Leaders Web Version (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (2002)
x' MSEI. 2020. About Us -MSEI. [online] Available at: <https:Hmediateiowa.org/about-us/> [Accessed 6 November 2020].
"" Cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://cao-
94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/oakO62931.pdf> [Accessed 1 November 2020].
x`1 Walker, S., Alpert, G. and Kenney, D., 2020. Early Warning Systems: Responding To The Problem Police Officer.
[online] Ncjrs.gov. Available at: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/189565.pdf> [Accessed 6 November 20201.
x'" Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia: Citizen Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Procedures —A
Review of Existing Law, Legislative Initiatives, and Disciplinary Models. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2020, from
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/WV0104/main.htm
x" Usccr.gov. 2020. Chopter4: Alternative Models For Police Disciplinary Procedures. [online] Available at:
<https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wvOlO4/ch4.htm> [Accessed 6 November 20201.
x"'Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-officials-cast-first-
votes-toward-racial-bias-audit-of-pol ice-department/article_682b6916-Old b-1 leb-b325-d3855f59169e.htm I>
[Accessed 31 October 20201.
go
REDLINE VERSION
DRAFT #6
Dennis, R. and Yee, G., 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-
awa rds-contract-for-long-awaited-race-bias-aud it-of-police-force/article_9841779e-09a6-lle b-bO38-
cb026ceed72b.html> [Accessed 2 November 2020].
"""' Cityofsalem.net. 2020. Audit Of Community Policing Policies, Procedures And Programs. [online] Available at:
<httPS://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/police-audit.aspx> [Accessed 1 November 20201.
"'xTownofsalemnh.org. 2020. Police Audit / Salem NH. [online] Available at:
<https://www.townofsalemnh.org/home/news/police-audit> [Accessed 30 October 20201.
xx Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia: Citizen Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Procedures —A
Review of Existing Law, Legislative Initiatives, and Disciplinary Models. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2020, from
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wvOlO4/main.htm
"I Authors, A., & Magruder, K. (n.d.). Trauma is a public health issue. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.ta ndfonli ne.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2017.137S338
"" Human Trafficking Task Farce e-Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved November 04, 2020, from
https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforcegu ide/egu id a/4-su pporti ng-victims/4l-using-a-trauma-informed-approach/
m"' Kleber, R. (2019, June 06). Trauma and Public Mental Health: A Focused Review. Retrieved October 13, 2020,
from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00451/full
FAQs. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2020, from
https://www.nacole.org/faqs?tbclid=lwAR2fu O70U7ixwrOkzirisKZkhbx8j BIq_iOGO6epRlwOzgRuQ_lTUv leo
91
" City of Cleveland Office of Professional Standards Civilian Police Review Board. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11,
2020, from http://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/ops_publications/0PS_BrochureEnglish.pdf
Anonymous Complaint Form. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.seattle.gov/opa/complaints/file-a-complaint/anonymous-complaint-form
Civilian Police Review Board. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.wolcottpd.org/about/civilian-police-review-board/
21