Guest columnist
The mayor’s current involvement with the issue of civilian review raises some hope that a bill will be passed in the near future. Most of the revised Kennedy bill, currently before the Board of Aldermen, has met with his approval. If the mayor is able to bring on board an unresponsive police chief and Board of Police Commissioners, perhaps a deal can be struck.
There is still the issue of how Civilian Review Board members will be selected. The mayor has shown some movement in this area, with his latest proposal shifting more power to the Board of Aldermen. This plan calls for seven groups of alderpersons, with four in each group. Each alderperson could nominate one candidate, and the mayor would then appoint one member from each of the seven groups. If all the alderpersons in a group agree on one candidate, the mayor would be required to appoint that person.
Unfortunately, this proposal is a recipe for political dissension. If only one alderperson in each group allies herself with the mayor, he can pick his preferred seven candidates, ignoring the will of the majority of alderpersons and the citizenry. Accusations of “sell out” and magnified distrust from constituents will surely follow such political horse-trading.
Better to keep any appointments (the Kennedy Bill calls for three appointed and four elected members) solely within the Board of Aldermen, where they will be
more responsive to grassroots input.
It is unfortunate that the mayor remains unconvinced that elected members would serve the community well. Some of us simply have more faith in the community than others. The mayor does not believe that the electorate will choose wisely. That is his prerogative, and he has the veto power to impose his perspective.
Nevertheless, it is time for him to compromise in the interests of the city. We need to create a Civilian Review Board which functions well; it must have the confidence of those most in need of its services in order for them to file complaints and accept its results. These citizens see little value in a review board solely representing the same political structure which has too seldom reflected average civilian voices.
The election of some members to the board can not be seen in isolation. Changes in the Kennedy Bill make elections more important. The greater cooperation between the Internal Affairs Department and the review board will result in smoother, more efficient functioning. It also increases the risk that members will lose their independent perspective as they work closely with the police. All the more reason to have some elected members directly accountable to the citizenry to guarantee the board does not drift over time from its stated purpose.
The mayor threatens to disrupt the Kennedy Bill’s delicate balance and the consensus now coming from all parts of the community.
Of course, elections are not the only issue left to sort out. As we head into the final phases of a five-year process, let’s not settle for a papered-over solution which raises expectations and dashes hope down the line. Some elected members should sit on a review board which is adequately funded, well-staffed, and has the powers and multifaceted perspective to meet the needs of police officers and lay persons alike.
John Chasnoff is a member of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression.