,
26 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
quick midday meeting between some members of the police civilian review board and a few members of council - so far we just have sarah from the CRB & mike and kathy from council. that seems to be all we’re expecting, so technically they didn’t need to make it open to the public.
i deeply appreciate the CRB’s commitment to doing their business in the public eye. i hope the police department can rise to the occasion.
“a lot of them begin after something tragic happens,” sarah says of police review boards in other communities they researched. it can take years for the body to fully take shape.
“it doesn’t matter how good it is,” if you build something that doesn’t meet the community’s specific needs, says sarah of the importance of doing adequate community outreach and engagement as the civilian review board takes shape.
galvin asks where the proposed staff hire would be housed, would it be under the police department? sarah says they’re not 100% settled, but the position would be independent of the CPD, probably housed under the city manager.
sarah acknowledges the police chief had made a commitment to improve the processing of complaints, but that improvement process hasn’t been outlined in writing. there are 2+ year old unresolved complaints. there are serious issues with keeping complainants updated.
the CRB hopes to be able to provide monthly updates about complaint status to every complainant with an unresolved issue. upon resolution by internal affairs, their independent investigator would have access to the entire file for review.
mike & kathy have concerns about confidentiality of those records. sarah says they propose confidentiality agreements for anyone accessing those files. mike is skeptical and asks about how that would be enforced. (same as any confidentiality agreement, i assume?)
sarah says they are working on a memorandum of understanding with the commonwealth’s attorney’s office — if there is a criminal prosecution involved, the CRB’s investigation would be on hold until it is resolved.
mike & kathy are really stuck on the idea of establishing consequences for hypothetical violations of confidentiality agreements that haven’t even been written yet.
sarah says they are proposing having an attorney present at every meeting where cases are being discussed to make sure they stay within the bounds of the law & confidentiality agreements.
“clearly all of it is a personnel matter when you’re dealing with a complaint,” says kathy. sarah says she’s not sure that *all* of it is. the attorney would help determine what is and isn’t personnel matters subject to closed session.
currently, the CPD gets about 30 complaints a year. sarah says what they’ve heard from the community is that people don’t bother filing complaints because they don’t trust the process. they anticipate fielding more complaints once there is an independent process.
it sounds like kathy is coming around to the idea that the board needs a hired, professional, full time investigator. “it provides continuity,” she says, nodding along to sarah’s explanation of the proposed process.
mike asks if they could combine the two proposed full time positions into one. “let the data tell you” if you need that second position later, kathy agrees.
(it feels kind of weird being the only observer of this conversation between three people in a tiny conference room. i feel less like i’m observing a public meeting and more like an awkward unwanted eavesdropper... still very glad they kept this a public meeting!)
sarah is pushing back on the idea that the number of complaints is a valid metric for measuring the need for police oversight. it’s more about the culture & relationship between the police and the community.
sarah hesitantly concedes that one staff person could serve the function to start.
mike asks if they’ve considered linking this to the human rights office, which already has staff (to investigate employment & housing discrimination). kathy says they could maybe share staff.
mike asks if they’ve considered linking this to the human rights office, which already has staff (to investigate employment & housing discrimination). kathy says they could maybe share staff.
sarah says she’s talked to charlene in the human rights office a bit, but figuring out where this belongs within city government hasn’t really been within the scope of their work so far. she says she sees some organizational complications, though, in linking the bodies.
now we’re talking about the tough stuff: money. NACOLE received a grant from the DOJ to research budgets of police oversights nationwide. their study isn’t complete, but board member josh did some research of his own. (this was presented at their 4/9 mtg)
localities studied are larger than charlottesville. you have to keep economy of scale in mind. a large portion of the cost of doing anything is just the cost of startup & structure, unrelated to the final scope of the project. (we won’t have 1/10 the cost of a city 10x our size)
mike says the staff member could also facilitate communication between the community and the police department, assisting the department in making reforms to better reflect the needs & desires of residents.
the board needs to know if there is support for professional staff. says there is only ONE civilian review board in the country that is all volunteer with no paid staff “and it doesn’t run very well.”
“to me this is in the realm of feasibility,” kathy says of the CRB’s current proposal, cautioning that she still needs to look at the details.
call me a cynic, but kathy kind of has to throw her support behind the CRB. she keeps leaning on her vote to authorize it as evidence that she’s a progressive proponent of criminal justice reform in her campaign for state delegate. it would be damaging to her campaign to fight it
(mike signer has left - the meeting is just kathy and sarah now and i’m just weirdly sitting in a corner watching two people talk 👍)
