|
|
CUAPB's Analysis of the Civil Rights Department Plan for Civilian Review
Overview
PLEASE NOTE: Throughout this document, for brevity, the term "CRA" will refer to Civilian Review Authority. The term “plan” or “the plan” will refer to the Civil Rights Department’s Civilian Review Redesign Plan.
In analyzing the Civil Rights Department's Civilian Review Redesign Plan, we find this plan to be significantly flawed and an inaccurate reflection of the recommendations of the Outcomes Subcommittee of the CRA Redesign Working Group.
This is of no small consequence, as members of the Outcomes Subcommittee along with members of the Working Group as a whole spend hundreds of hours researching best practices and determining structural and functional recommendations for a more effective CRA. The Outcomes Subcommittee recommendations, which were adopted by the Working Group as a whole, reflect those best practices and incorporate feedback obtained from the community during numerous meetings and focus groups.
History
On February 15, 2002, the City Council voted to reduce the CRA budget to $200,000 and directed the Health and Human Services Committee to develop a plan for a CRA redesign. On March 1, 2002, the Health and Human Services Committee directed the City Coordinator to convene a working group to develop a redesign of the CRA for purposes of improving efficiency and efficacy.
The working group was composed of twelve representatives of City departments and twelve representatives of the community. We met as a whole starting April 17, 2002, through June 25, 2002. Subcommittees were formed and they met between working group meetings. The Outcomes Subcommittee was charged with formulating the final set of recommendations from the working group, based on research on best practices and feedback from community meetings.
City Coordinator John Moir took the CRA Redesign Working Group recommendations and prepared and presented a report to the City Council on July 12, 2002. Unfortunately, that report did not accurately reflect the recommendations of the Working Group, which had voted overwhelmingly to support an independent ombudsman model, separate of the Civil Rights Department. Despite this, and despite testimony to that effect from the community, the City Council voted to place the CRA under the Civil Rights Department. The director of the Civil Rights Department, Vanne Owens-Hayes, was then instructed to develop a plan for incorporating the CRA into her department.
Analysis and Areas of Concern
The Civil Rights Department's Civilian Review Redesign Plan is, essentially, an implementation plan for bringing the CRA into the Civil Rights Department. As such, it should not change or ignore the recommendations of the CRA Redesign Working Group but should, instead, examine how to implement those recommendations within the department. However, it appears that little in the way of recommendations has been brought forward in this plan.
Independence: It was the desire of the working group that the CRA remain autonomous and independent. A Swedish ombudsman model was favored by the majority of the working group. Under this model, the ombudsman has authority to receive and self-initiate complaints, to investigate, to subpoena and secure evidence, and to determine outcomes. The ombudsman would work with a civilian review board to track and trend complaints and to make policy recommendations based on this analysis of complaints.
The plan has an ombudsman position but without any of the authority normally attributed to the position. In other words, the ombudsman position is in name only. Moreover, since the Ombudsman will clearly be subordinate to the Civilian Review Board and the board will only have power to make recommendations to the Chief of Police, who is free to disregard them, it would appear that the Chief of Police is the REAL ombudsman of the CRA.
Training of Investigators: There is no provision in the plan for the training of investigators by a nationally recognized body, as outlined in the Outcomes Subcommittee recommendations. In the past, this has led to training by the Minneapolis Police Department and has resulted in a pro-police bias among investigators and inappropriate ties between the organization that is charged with investigating police misconduct and the police department.
Firewall Issue: The plan assures us that there will be a firewall between the civil rights division and the CRA division. However, this plan breaches this “firewall” in two important ways—1) the “Ombudsman” will report to the Director of the Civil Rights Department and will be an employee of that department, and 2) there is no provision in plan indicating who will serve as legal council. One can conclude, then, that the City Attorney’s office will serve that function for the process and department. This is of special concern because since the City of Minneapolis is self indemnified, the City Attorney’s office has an inherent bias in limiting liability for the city, which can certainly affect the outcomes of CRA findings.
Lack of Evidentiary Hearing: Evidentiary hearings serve to determine the prima facea of case—i.e. whether there is enough evidence to go forward. Moreover, they establish the authenticity of both sides’ positions, minimize the ability to manufacture evidence, allow the complainant to be represented by legal council in a formal hearing, and allow police officers to face their accusers.
Subpoena Power: In the absence of subpoena power and evidentiary hearings, the plan suggest that investigators should accept “reliable hearsay.” This is a legal term for police reports without having officers present to authenticate the reports or be questioned or cross-examined. Accepting police reports at face value will have a profoundly damaging affect on the rights of the complainant and tacitly encourages police officers to falsify reports to prevent a finding of brutality or misconduct later.
Lack of Appeals Process: The plan appears to have no appeals process. An appeals process is absolutely necessary to fully ensure the rights of the complainant. The lack of an appeals process will likely result in a greater number of legal actions taken against the City by people who will feel they have no other outlet for justice.
Misstatement on the Role of the Mayor: The plan states that “the City Charter vests in the Mayor the sole authority to appoint, remove and control Minneapolis Police Officers. By City Ordinance, §171.20, the Mayor’s disciplinary authority has been delegated to the Chief of Police under the direction and discretion of the Mayor.” (p. 6 of Plan). This is, in fact a misstatement in that the Mayor has authority over the Chief of Police but not over individual officers. Moreover, this statement ignores the role of the Civil Service Commission and fails to mention that final determination of discipline rests with the courts.
Economics of Plan: When the idea of putting the CRA under the Civil Rights Department was initially presented, the idea was advanced as a way to reduce costs for the CRA based on shared rent, equipment, etc. In fact, the budget for this plan, as presented both to the Working Group and to the City Council incorporated the idea that the CRA would share space and resources. However, the plan being presented by the Civil Rights Department calls for the CRA to be housed in separate facilities. Since economics, then, is no longer a consideration, there seems to be no other rationale for incorporating the CRA into the Civil Rights Department.
Timetable Presented in Plan: The timetable, as presented in the plan, is unworkable in several respects. Although we have not had a working CRA since early summer, this plan calls for appointing interim staff by November 27, 2002. What is to happen to complainants who need to file a complaint prior to that date? This plan also indicates that community education and intake of complaints will happen by February 28, 2003 but staff will not be hired and working until March 21, 2003. Presumably, these staff members will need training before assuming their full duties. One wonders who will accept and investigate the possible flood of complaints that will result from a new, more accessible intake process and community outreach.
Apparent Lack of Will to Pursue Needed Legislative Changes: From the outset of the CRA redesign process, we were assured that if legislative changes were deemed necessary as a result of working group recommendations, those changes would be pursued by the City. This appears no longer to be the case, in that the plan shows no provision for seeking subpoena powers, adopting the point system for tracking discipline, providing more transparency to the process and other important recommendations. In fact, the plan notes that the CRA process has been hampered by a lack of subpoena powers but then recommends a solution that actually damages the rights of the complainant and gives an unfair advantage to the police department (see above). This plan is not presented as if it is an interim plan pending legislative changes, but is presented as a final plan for moving CRA into the Civil Rights Department.
|
|
