Police review board moves to front burner again
This is an updated version of a story that appeared in print on Oct. 23.
CHAMPAIGN — As the police department prepares to turn a corner with high-ranking leaders approaching retirement, a city council member says he has enough of his colleagues interested in a citizen police review board to get a discussion going.
If history is any indication, the debate promises to be vigorous. The last time the citizen review board came up for discussion in Champaign was in 2007, when it was narrowly rejected by a 5-4 vote.
But there have been some key changes to the council since that time: Most notably, Mayor Don Gerard has replaced then-Mayor Jerry Schweighart, a retired police officer and strong opponent of such a board. Three of the five members who voted against the idea four years ago still sit on the council today, and they all say they at least are willing to hear the discussion.
"A citizen review board would allow the necessary dialogue to go forth and start these difficult conversations," said council member Will Kyles, who was not on the council during the 2007 vote. He's got enough of his colleagues interested in the topic to trigger a council study session and, most likely, a straw poll to see if the council wants to create a citizen review board.
Kyles had other representatives interested in a discussion before upset citizens confronted the council on Oct. 25. They alleged 18-year-old Calvin Miller was beaten by police, a claim police unequivocally have denied.
But the event has inspired activists to renew their calls for a citizen review board, and Kyles said the turmoil certainly adds urgency to the discussion.
The review board is a mechanism for mediating citizen complaints against police officers. Under the current system in Champaign, the police department conducts an internal investigation into alleged wrongdoing when it receives a complaint from a member of the public.
Ultimately, the police chief will judge whether an officer's actions were consistent with training and department policy, and the chief will, if necessary, hand down any discipline he deems necessary.
But a process where cops police themselves is inherently flawed, opponents have told the city council. As the community has put a magnifying glass over the department since the October 2009 fatal police shooting of 15-year-old Kiwane Carrington, many have called for an independent board that sorts through citizen complaints.
Council member Karen Foster opposed a citizen review board in 2007. At the time, she thought it was "the proverbial additional layer of government" that did not make the complaint process any more effective.
Kyles' comments caught her a bit off-guard.
"I was surprised he brought it up," Foster said. "I hadn't even thought of that for a very long time. I would be in favor of listening in a study session to proposals."
But as to whether she would support it this time around, "I guess the devil would be in the details," she said.
"With the changes going on, maybe it's just time to look," Foster said.
The "changes" she referred to were top police positions that are about to turn over. Police Chief R.T. Finney will leave the department in January, and a search for his replacement is already under way. One of his second-in-command, Deputy Chief John Murphy, announced last week that he will retire in March.
Gerard said that might make it a good time to review the process.
"I think it's certainly something worth talking about," Gerard said. "Historically, it's my understanding that a citizen review board has been viewed as sort of a slap in the face to police, but I don't think it has to be viewed that way."
City officials should talk with police officers, too, to gauge their reaction to the proposal, Gerard said.
"We need to have buy-in from the police themselves," he said. "They need to understand that this by no means diminishes the job they do or the value we place on them."
Tom Bruno, who voted against the board in 2007, said this is not a good time for the discussion, specifically because officials do not know who will be in the police chief's office early next year.
"I'm not inclined to raise this issue before we've got a new police chief in place and allowed him or her to become familiar with our community and the department," Bruno said.
But he will nonetheless have an open mind, he said: "There may be some benefits to a citizen review board, but I'm not sure this is good timing."
In an ideal world, he would like to hear the opinion of the incoming police chief. If the new chief favored such a board, that could be "enough of a green light" for Bruno.
Deborah Frank Feinen also voted against creating a citizen review board in 2007, and she agreed with Bruno that the council should wait to hear the recommendation of a new police chief.
The city should also work with the department if it were to consider the proposal, she said.
"For me, it's really about making sure that there's officer buy-in and that there's administrator buy-in," she said.
She's also aware of the complaints about the complaint process itself.
"We've implemented some changes over the past couple years, and we haven't really given those an opportunity to work yet," Feinen said.
Last year, the city took steps to make the complaint process easier and more accessible to the public. The changes were one of City Manager Steve Carter's "six initiatives" in response to the Carrington shooting.
"I've heard people who are unhappy with the complaint process. I'm aware that people can be frustrated with that process," Feinen said. But, like some of the others, her concern is not knowing where the incoming police chief stands on the issue.
When he publicly introduced his interest this week, Kyles acknowledged that there are imperfections with a review board, too, and suggested the police chief be a member of such a panel. He also suggested that, if the council were to discuss the proposal, that it consider a sunset clause in order to have a chance to reevaluate the effectiveness of the board.
"I believe that if we set this group up for success, then it will be successful," Kyles said.
Being a cop is a difficult job and no doubt some complaints are either overstated or made up completely. However, some complaints are valid and some police sometimes engage in misconduct and abuse. It's not a 'slap in the face' to the police to expect that they be held accountable to the people who they serve. To be effective, police have to have the trust and confidence of the community. They cannot maintain that trust and confidence by insisting that only they have the right to police themselves.
Police officers often say that if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear from them. The same applies to police conduct and citizen review boards. If people are concerned that the review process can be abused, doesn't it follow that police procedures can be similarly abused?
It's not an unnecessary 'extra layer of government'; it's a process that takes a small step in making people accountable for the actions they engage in while wearing Champaign police uniforms. A commenter on another thread compared police in this city to a foreign occupation force and said people should just learn to accept that. Is that the kind of city you want to live in? If we set this up constructively, a review board can be a way to give all citizens a voice in how we as a city police ourselves.
To be sure, a review board, set up properly and not just to promote any one group’s agenda, could be a positive and appropriate means of “check and balance.” Anyone who knows the first thing about human nature agrees that absolute power corrupts absolutely and measures need to be taken to prevent it. On the other hand, the proper perspective must be brought to the creation of a review board. Too few people realize what is necessary to carry out the duties of a cop. If one believes that force is not sometimes a necessary tool for subduing criminals, he is living in a fantasy world. I'm not a police officer but I’ve dealt with violent, at-risk youth for many years – mostly 15-18 y/o boys - who are often as strong as many full-grown men. When they become violent toward others (or even themselves!), a physical restraint is almost invariably the only answer to controlling them. Given that a police officer is dealing with more desperate, physically mature and, potentially, lethally armed individuals, they must be allowed latitude for subduing these criminals by forceful and, when appropriate, even lethal means. It’s too bad we all can’t experience at least one situation wherein our survival (let alone our safety!) is not assured because of a violent criminal. Not many of us can say that we live with the potential threat of not returning home from "a day at the office." I don't mean to be flip but police officers are flesh and blood like us all and no amount of training can guarantee they don’t overreact occasionally. A well-constructed review board could deal with both questionable and blatant abuses of force by police and be a plus for our community. My biggest fear is that there are groups out there who would see it as a means to promote their own agenda and persecute law enforcement at every opportunity.
I think we're more or less in agreement. I'd just reiterate the point of my second paragraph: if it's true that the review process can be abused, then it follows that police procedure can be similarly abused. Therefore, police must be subject to citizen review.
I'm sure that we can come up with multiple ways to ensure that our citizen review board is neither toothless nor a vehicle to 'persecute law enforcement at every opportunity.'
I sincerely believe that a Police Review Board is a necessary entity to be implemented for all concerned. The rational by Tom Bruno & Deborah Frank Feinen to wait and see what a new police chief thinks of this idea is simply harking back to the old adage of allowing the "Fox To Guard The Henhouse!" What does it matter what any new police chief feels about this idea? It is the city council's job to enhance the quality of life for the greater public. If an applicant for police chief doesn't like the idea, then they can remove their name from consideration, simple. Are we expected to revisit this decision every time there is a turnover at the top? Why do they think the previous Mayor, (a former police chief), was so vehemently against such a proposal? Until we have such an unbiased check and balance system in place, there will always be a distrust of the powers that be.
Thank You.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.