,
51 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
pretty big turnout for the city council work session on the police civilian review board. should be starting any minute now!
several members of the civilian review board in fairfax have been invited to present on their county’s efforts to implement police oversight.
the meeting is streaming here:
charlottesville.org/departments-an…
charlottesville.org/departments-an…
the first panelist from fairfax has prepared some written remarks: 
“while some feel that the superior quality of our police department is an argument against” the need for police oversight, but a good police department should not shy away from increased accountability and transparency, he says.
he says it’s important to define the scope of the body. in fairfax the panel investigates “serious misconduct” and “abuse of authority” by police officers.
he also says it’s important to define to whom the oversight body reports. they report not to the police department, not to the county executive, but to the elected board of supervisors. (our equivalent would be county exec = city manager, BOS = city council)
the fairfax panel does not have independent investigative power, rather they review the process by which the complaint was originally investigated. charlottesville’s CRB is seeking independent investigative power.
if the fairfax panel finds that an investigation into a complaint was incomplete or inadequate and advise additional investigation, that recommendation is mandatory. that’s pretty heavy - i can’t imagine the hysterics we’d see about requiring our PD to do anything.
“we just don’t want to run that risk,” he says of their panel’s scope - they don’t take testimony or hold hearings.
“that’s not really the way it needs to be,” he says of the standard police practice of using investigatory exemptions to FOIA too broadly.
he says they have quarterly meetings with county staff, supervisors, and two members of their panel at which they discuss whether or not certain things should come before the panel. this allows them to skirt public meeting requirements.
the second presenter is a current member of fairfax’s panel. he’s a former police officer himself and used to work at the office of police complaints in DC.
the first speaker used to be a special assistant to the director of the FBI. i’m not sure a panel made up of cops is actually truly independent of the police? 🤔
the third presenter from fairfax is their “management analyst I, office of the independent police auditor.” (one of the big battlegrounds for our CRB is funding for full time hires like this!)
their police auditor’s office tracks all complaints in their own database. she says they received 31 last year and 21 so far this year.
“outreach is very key” to an oversight body’s success. part of her job is reaching out to community groups & setting up meetings with the panel.
one of her recommendations is that all panel members are given a designated city email address for panel business. it makes FOIA requests much less painful.
their fourth presenter is richard schott, their independent police auditor. he is one of three full time employees in fairfax county’s office of the police auditor (himself + 2 analysts).
he was an FBI agent for 27 years.
he was an FBI agent for 27 years.
he says his reviews of internal affairs investigations almost always have a use of force component. not all complaints automatically trigger review by the auditor but serious use of force or in custody deaths do.
“independence has to be first and foremost, physically and theoretically,” - the police auditor’s office is physically separate from the police department & he reports to the police oversight panel.
he reiterates a previous presenter’s statement that the oversight body must be allowed full access to internal affairs investigation files and that the final reports of the panel must be public, otherwise you’re not fulfilling the mission of public transparency.
the first analyst wasn’t hired until 6 months after the auditor started. you’re really building an office from the ground up, he says. he struggled at first with community outreach, which he agrees is critical.
“if you’re going to do this, you have to dedicate the resources to make it happen. otherwise you’re setting your board up to fail,” says fairfax county’s police auditor.
he also addresses an issue raised repeatedly by our CRB - can the city attorney, who represents the city (and its police department) properly represent the independent body doing police oversight? he doesn’t think he can. they have independent counsel in fairfax.
another nontrivial but necessary expense, he says, is training. both from local police and from a police oversight body like NACOLE. it may be expensive but it’s necessary to ensure the board can do the work they’re charged with.
“this will work best, and maybe it will only work, if there is a respectful professional relationship with your police department,” he says. (there’s some scoffing and chuckling from the audience - our police department has been pretty hostile to the idea of a CRB)
of the need for training, he lists these key optics: FOIA, police procedure, constitutional law, use of force, and mandatory police ride-alongs 2x per year for every board member.
(some of our CRB members have been really outspoken against being made to get into a police car for reasons that should be obvious)
former cville CRB member sarah asks what fairfax’s panel’s independent counsel does for them. their attorney attends every panel meeting & is working on drafting a new action item put forth by the BOS.
the panel’s chair consults with the attorney frequently about issues about FOIA, jurisdictional questions, etc.
mayor walker asks how they arrived at this particular scope. steel, the first presenter, says they took the language from virginia beach’s police oversight body.
“serious misconduct” is not a well defined term. he says those quarterly meetings with county staff & panel members (specifically designed to keep them from being public!) allow them to hash out which complaints qualify. (this sucks!)
fairfax county received about 140 applications for their panel of 9 members. the members of the panel were selected by the board of supervisors in a closed session.
wes asks them if they believe a paid, dedicated staff member is necessary & required. fairfax’s auditor says it really is. no matter how dedicated a volunteer board is, it’s a full time job to do it right.
fairfax’s police oversight panel does not automatically get every police complaint. when the police dept finishes their own investigation of themselves, the finding letter sent to the complaintant tells them how to appeal the decision to the panel.
wes says, rightly, that seems like a flawed process.
the auditor clarifies that his office automatically reviews use of force and in custody deaths. but everything else has to be initiated by a member of the public.
the auditor clarifies that his office automatically reviews use of force and in custody deaths. but everything else has to be initiated by a member of the public.
wes asks how they built trust with the community, especially with former law enforcement on the panel. aguilar, a former cop, says he isn’t aware of any belief in the community that his background makes him biased. he says his past experience is a benefit.
steel says there was some community pushback about both his & schott’s FBI backgrounds. he says you just have to tell the community “watch us and see what we do.”
steel really keeps emphasizing how important it is not to have public meetings. that’s not really encouraging at all.
steel says the police department had no involvement in hiring the independent auditor.
now opening it up for public comment. former CRB member sarah up again asking about their experience making policy recommendations & having access to full police policy manuals.
the fairfax board of supervisors asked their police auditor to conduct an in-depth study of use of force. these statistics “naturally have to be compiled by the police department.” he will work with the department to complete this study.
civil rights attorney jeff fogel says many cases are decided on the basis of credibility. without the ability to conduct their own investigation or even talk to the parties involved, how can they make determinations about credibility?
aguilar says they sometimes have recordings to go off of. steel says it’s not a perfect world but “i don’t think we feel hampered” by the limitations.
it’s weird that a board made up mostly of people with ties to law enforcement doesn’t have issues taking law enforcement at their word when making determinations about police conduct.
this is not what we’re trying to build here. this is not the example we want to follow.
tanesha asks how many members of their panel have past histories of encounters with law enforcement, how many have filed complaints against the police? how many regular, low-income people are on that body?
aguilar says he can’t speak for other panel members, but he has seen & been the recipient of negative police encounters in honduras, where he is from.
when a black woman asks about the diversity of your panel
steel describes a case where they investigated whether there had been “some racial... whatever” and says the complaintant really didn’t help with the “optics” by actually being guilty of possessing marijuana.
very cool unbiased panel chair y’all have!
very cool unbiased panel chair y’all have!
