Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett, based in Springfield, announced last week that Mayor Domenic Sarno’s Community Complaint Review Board, which handles police-citizen matters, is officially an advisory board of the mayor’s office and is therefore not subject to Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

The ruling supported an earlier opinion issued by city solicitor Ed Pikula (pictured in the mayor’s office, far right, last winter).

Unsatisfied, City Councilor Bud Williams (pictured, second from right) was quoted in an article in this week’s Republican saying he’s considering an appeal to the office of Attorney General Martha Coakley on the matter. “What’s the big secret?” Williams said to reporter Peter Goonan. “What are you hiding? This administration talks about transparency.” Williams would like to see meetings posted 48 hours in advance and made open to the public. Mayor Sarno’s stance is that at times, citizen complaints against the police need to be kept confidential.

Yesterday, City Clerk Wayman Lee’s office announced that the City Council will consider an ordinance, put forward by Councilors Tim Rooke, Jose Tosado, and Williams, to make the review board bound by the open meeting law. (Text of the draft ordinance is at the bottom of the post.)

Mayor Sarno appeared to lag in addressing the CCRB upon taking office, after having swiftly terminated its full-time administrator, Melinda Pellerin-Duck. He claimed that his chief of staff, Denise Jordan, would handle those duties on a part-time basis instead, which former Mayor Charles Ryan essentially labled the death knell of the board’s efforts.

The still-unproven board at last reconvened under Sarno with some members let go and some newly appointed. But some in the city expressed frustration that the board will not handle internal police matters, can only make non-binding recommendations to the police commissioner, and cannot issue subpoenas, as Maureen Turner wrote in an August Valley Advocate piece titled, “Worth the Wait?”

Rev. Talbert Swan II told Turner, “[W]ith or without the [pastors'] council [which filed a discrimination complaint that eventually led to the painstaking, paid-consultant-directed creation of the CCRB], I intend on pushing for a model that has some teeth, that has some statutory authority, that actually can do some independent investigations on police misconduct cases, and not just settle for a board in a name only.”

During a December 2006 presentation to the Finance Control Board, consultant Amy Farrell talked about some guiding principles that eventually led to the creation of the civilian review board. “[O]versight should be transparent,” she said. “There should be some type of regular reporting, to the community, about what has taken place in those review or oversight processes.”

“If this system is going to work,” Farrell continued, “whatever model it may be, it has to be a system in which the community feels confident they received enough information about that review process that they believe in [its] legitimacy. That also has to [take] into account the balancing of officers’ right to privacy, and the needs of people, that all information that occurs in the reviews [doesn’t necessarily] become a matter of public record. It’s a balance between transparency and fairness.”

“It should be seen as an avenue in which people can understand the good work that the department is doing,” Farrell added, “as well as issues of misconduct. Going out into the community and talking about the oversight process; having some sort of group be able to talk about reviews and reports when they occur, actually enhances peoples’ points of contact in positive ways, as opposed to just negative ways, with law enforcement.”

What might Farrell and her co-consultant, Jack McDevitt, say today about how the Sarno administration has handled the review board?

By reinforcing the technical idea of the CCRB as an advisory board of the mayor, the current administration appears to be losing an opportunity to build public confidence and trust. Privacy is important; the consultants recommended it be maintained. They also said there is no single perfect model for this type of review board. But frequent, transparent communication with the public is totally essential, and must be an intrinsic part of what this board works to do, one reason why a full-time coordinator was initially appointed.

Striving toward transparency, Sarno’s team posted online a group photo of the CCRB members once they were reconvened, along with a detailed caption. The cheerful diversity of the panel is readily apparent, a real plus.

Unfortunately, the administration struggles to give the board its proper name. On the city’s Web site, the CCRB’s page is noted as, “Community Control Board Review Board Membership,” as seen in the screen capture below.

This is just a minor clerical error, perhaps, but it’s also an important symbolic one, underlining a general, unspoken, if also denied-in-the-press message that the board (and perhaps, by extension, a genuine relationship with the public) is not getting the attention it may require. By not convening right away or getting the ball rolling immediately in the public eye, and by not facilitating to the maximum degree possible a relationship with citizens who are genuinely very invested in the proper functioning of this board, its effectiveness to resolve conflicts seems even further weakened than it already may appear to be by design.

By giving the board a mysterious and more confusing name on its Web site—for, after all, “Community Complaint Review Board” is not an entirely helpful name as it is, indicating nothing explicitly about police relations—the Sarno administration sends a peculiar message.

Someone ill-informed could conceivably land on this page and wonder if the mayor has a review board for its state-run Finance Control Board. The board has been in place since 2004, anticipated to dissolve in less than a year; the CCRB is no control board.

Some residents may have liked the appeal of a mayor who goes to bat for them, even in vain, against the powers that be. It is never too late for rebellion and resistance, during an election.

How much more weighty would Sarno’s administration be if he had campaigned not only on the promise to put 50 more cops on the street, but also to help those cops engage with the public in better ways, as well as educate the public about their rights, smoothing relations between civilians and police, and trying to avoid future lawsuits.

If there really were a Community Control Board Review Board, what issues would it take on, and would its meetings be open to the public?

Mayor Sarno seems to be much less oppositional to the control board now than he was around this time last year. He has had to work with control board staff for months into his term. He has also enjoyed the pleasures of his mayoral gravitational pull, now that he can hold press conference after press conference within the mayor’s office, instead of the larger and more accommodating Room 220 next door—that is, when he’s not issuing a written statement instead, or denying phone calls from the press or refusing to return them. This is all his prerogative, but it also does leave a lasting impression.

There’s nothing wrong with leaving the CCRB as is, if only it had a full-time coordinator, who could really invest some time and attention in public involvement and information.

Below is the text of the draft City Council ordinance as of October 2.

AMENDING TITLE 2, OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, 1986, AS AMENDED HEREBY

FURTHER AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.100 THERETO:
COMMUNITY COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD

Chapter 2.100

Community Complaint Review Board for Springfield Police Department

The City Council of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, does hereby order that the Community Complaint Review Board (CCRB), created by Ordinance, shall operate as follows:

1. Selection of Board Members

The Mayor shall appoint the members of the CCRB. In doing so he may give consideration to recommendations made from a broad array of groups across the City.

The Board shall consist of 9 members and three associate members.

In addition, 3 Associate members shall participate in all training and preparatory meetings of the full Board but shall serve as alternate members, designated by the chairman of the Board to sit on the Board in case of absence, inability to act or conflict of interest on the part of any member thereof, or in the event of a vacancy on the Board until said vacancy is filled.

The CCRB shall not be a Board of the City but a Board of the Mayor.

Once convened, the CCRB Board members will elect a chairperson from, its membership for a one year term.

The chairperson will lead, quarterly full Board meetings and work with the CCRB Coordinator to determine the full Board meeting schedules and agendas.

The term of appointment of members shall be two years, however, the initial, appointments shall include 3 members who shall serve an initial one year appointment, in order to stagger the terms for future appointments.

2. Qualifications for Board

The members of the CCRB do not need to have had investigatory experience; however, they trust be persons of integrity with diverse backgrounds.

Potential CCRB members should recognize the significant commitment of time that Board membership requires and be willing to commit sufficient time to the effort.

In addition to bi-weekly Board meetings, Board members will be occasionally asked to participate in community outreach and education activities.

The members of the CCRB in Springfield must agree to keep information on specific complaints or investigations confidential as is the present practice within the [board]. This is a fundamental responsibility and failure to keep private information confidential will be grounds for removal from the Board.

3. Thresholds for cases to be reviewed by the Board

The Board has authority to review au civilian complaints involving allegations of improper use of force or violations of Departmental rules and regulations regardless of whether a complaint was filed, where a suspect was physically struck or wrestled to the ground in the process of arrest or cases where the officers used their baton, pepper spray or their firearm.

4. Training for Board Members

The Springfield police department shall develop a training program for all new Board members. This training shall include discussions of:

• The current procedures for Filing and investigating a complaint
• The elements of a thorough investigation including a review of a number of actual case files from closed investigations.
• The Policies of the SPD regarding respectful treatment of civilians.
• The Policies of the SPD regarding appropriate use of force.
• The Role of Civilian Oversight Boards in other jurisdictions.
• Legal Requirements for protection and confidentiality of private governmental documents.

As part of this training a set of reference materials should he provided to each Board member. These materials should include copies of all relevant Massachusetts statutes, all SPD policies and procedures regarding officer misconduct and use of force, and a copy of this ordinance.

This training should be repeated annually or when new members are appointed to the Board

5. Removal from Board

The Mayor may remove a member from the Board, before their term expires, for cause.

Reasons for removal include but are not limited to: consistent failure to attend Board meetings, public disclosure of any private or confidential information from investigative files, or failure to participate in Board training or outreach activities

6. The Civilian Oversight Coordinator

The Mayor shall appoint a Civilian Oversight Coordinator (COC) responsible for all of the day-to-day administration of the Board, such as scheduling review groups, scheduling quarterly full Board meetings, following up on Board recommendations or requests, and assisting in drafting policy recommendations.

The COC will be the primary administrative support for the Board, serving as the liaison between the Board and other officials such as the Mayor or representatives from the Police Department.

The Coordinator will schedule all meetings for the Board, review all files in preparation for meetings by the Board, and coordinate outreach and education activities across the community of Springfield.

The COC will be a mayoral appointee to serve as a member of the mayors staff and will serve as a liaison between the Board, the Police Commissioner and the Mayor on matters falling within the scope of CCRB responsibilities.

The COC will he responsible for assisting the CCRB in preparing an annual report to the City of activities engaged in by the Board including recommendations of any policies of the SPD that might be changed to promote better performance by members of the SPD.

The qualifications for the coordinator position will include strong administration and communication skills, experience with neighborhood outreach activities, experience with formal municipal administrative operations and a willingness to participate in community outreach and education activities.

7. Annual Review Process

An independent annual review process shall occur to discuss any needed changes to the CCRB. Some areas that might be reviewed annually are:

• Representativeness of Community Complaint Review Board
• The size of the Board
• The role of the Community Oversight Coordinator
• Additional resources that may he necessary to improve the functioning of the Board
• Other types of complaints (e.g. internal complaints, sustained complaints) that may need to be regularly reviewed.
• Are the recommendations of the CCRB being heeded by the department? What has been the department response to the policy recommendations made by the CCRB?
• The existing union requirement that complaint investigations and discipline decisions be completed within 90 days.
• Adequacy of the public information about the functioning of the Board that has been provided to the community to date.

8. Three Stage Review Process of IIU reports

1st Tier: Internal Investigation

Complaints from community members will come to the Springfield Police Department through the existing mechanisms, with one exception.

The CCRB office will also be able to directly receive complaints from the public which will he forwarded to SPD for investigation.

Once the complaint is received, Internal Investigation Unit (IIU) conducts an investigation on all civilian complaints and use of force reports through the normal investigative process.

IIU will be encouraged to complete investigations within 60 days.

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement contractual requirements, complaint investigations and dispositions must be completed within 90 days.

Complaints where a suspect was physically struck or wrestled to the ground, in the process of arrest or cases where the officers used their baton, pepper spray or their firearm will be forwarded to the CCRB for review.

2nd Tier: Community Complaint Review Board

Scope of Authority

The Community Complaints Review Board (CCRB) reporting to the Mayor reviews all complaints where a suspect was physically struck or wrestled to the ground in the process of arrest or cases where the officers used their baton, pepper spray or their firearm.

The CCRB must have the ability to directly receive complaints (which will be forwarded to SPD IIU) and conduct outreach to the community of Springfield about issues of citizen oversight and the complaint review process generally.

Role and Activities of CCRB

The Board shall not conduct its own investigations; rather the Board will review the investigations and recommendations already completed by IIU. This review will focus on the question, “was this investigation complete and, balanced?” The members of the Board will have the authority to send a case back to IIU for additional investigation and forward to the commissioner a recommendation as to whether the complaint should he or should have been sustained which shall be advisory only.

The CCRB must have unfettered access to all investigative files and departmental information pertinent to review of the Incident including tapes, transcripts, notes, and witness statements.

Timing of Review and Open Meetings

Due to the time constraints placed on the process by the 90 day rule discussed above, review groups shall be made up of 3 Board members rotating among the nine members as assigned by the Chair who will meet as necessary to review new cases that meet the review criteria and are ready for review.

CCRB must complete all reviews and forward final recommendations to the Police Commissioner within 14 days front the time they receive the investigation reports from IIU.

The membership of the Board should be of staggered, terms initially to allow for fresh ideas, while maintaining some institutional history about Board activities.
2nd Tier CCRB Meetings shall be subject to the Open Meeting Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3rd Tier: Outcomes and Reporting

If the CCRB is unsatisfied with the completeness or accuracy of the investigation, the complaints or use of force incidents will be returned to the IIU for additional investigation.

In cases where the CCRB is unsatisfied it can provide a separate recommendation as to whether a compliant should he or should have been sustained to the Police Commissioner.

The Board will, not recommend discipline. That function remains the responsibility of ‘the Police Commissioner.

The CCRB will provide regular, at least annual, public reports on the integrity of the department’s complaint and use-of-force investigations.

The CCRB shall not have subpoena power.

9. Public Outreach and Communication

To help increase the open access to the complaint process the department will need to educate the public about the complaint reporting process, including information about when and how to file a complaint.

Presentations to community groups, schools, community organizations and religious groups about the complaint reporting process may be necessary as part of a broader effort to help people increase trust and confidence in the complaint investigation process.

This communication process should involve both members of the IIU and members of the new Community Complaints Review Board. Joint presentations will help reflect the openness of the department.

Such presentations should be made in the neighborhoods of Springfield and should be done in conjunction with existing community organizations whenever possible.

In addition to general education and outreach, the SPD needs ID improve timely communication with complainants about the status of investigations.

When funding permits, an enhanced computerized case tracking system should be put in place to help IIU generate automatic status reminders, and allow for digital transfer of case files to the Community Complaint Review Board.

Until an automated system is put in place, the SF0 should implement a paper-based communication system that sends regular updates to all individuals involved in a complaint.

At the conclusion of the investigation the Department shall promptly notify the complainant and the officer about the finding in a correspondence that provides sufficient detail in nontechnical language to allow all parties to fully understand the outcome of the complaint investigation.

For the complainant, correspondence shall he sent by certified mail to help ensure they receive notice of the outcome.

The Police department shall send satisfaction surveys, similar to those used by the Cambridge Police Department, to both complainant and officers when each complaint is closed.

10. Improving Civilian Complaint Processes through Mediation

The CCC with the CCRB shall develop and recommend a plan for Voluntary Mediation as a tool for improving the civilian complaint process, whereby the complainant and the officer have an opportunity to talk over their concerns and often come to an amicable solution.

Mediation sessions must he led by a formally trained mediator, recommend[ing] that during the first year of Board operations, the Community Oversight Coordinator work with IIU and Police Patrolmen and Supervisor’s Unions to develop a plan for the feasibility of offering mediation as an alternative to the formal complaint process that can be instituted and conform with collective bargaining requirements.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am and is filed under Community building, Finance Control Board, Media, Public safety, Springfield, Urban Compass.