From the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression
With Mayor Slay’s veto of Board Bill 69, he would have us believe that the Kennedy Bill is dead. Nevertheless, you have a voice. There is no reason you must accept his legal analysis, his characterization of BB 69 as antipolice, or his current proposal. Your vote will have consequences for police-community relations, the officers under your charge and the citizens the department serves.
It is not too late for you to work with the Board of Aldermen in creating a Civilian Review Board (CRB) which reflects the wishes of the community.
Is the mayor’s proposal effective?
The mayor’s plan for Civilian Review does not reflect the community consensus necessary for it to work. Similar to the plan rejected in 2004, it leaves all control over the CRB to the Police Department. This is not the independent review required.
Police Commissioners have final say regarding CRB membership and can fire members at any time. The police control the purse strings. There is inadequate staff designated to carry out the powers granted. They have no ability to conduct investigations or call witnesses. They can sit in on Internal Affairs interrogations of witnesses only after requesting permission from the chief and can ask no questions themselves.
There is inadequate time allowed for the CRB to get answers on follow-up questions. It will be a setback for Civilian Review to have a plan which fails to deliver real accountability.
The mayor claims that this is the only CRB structure that will withstand legal scrutiny. If that were true, we would need to abolish state control of the department before instituting Civilian Review. However, the attorney for the Board of Aldermen has vetted the Kennedy Bill and disagrees with the city counselor’s analysis. You should seek a broad range of legal opinion
before acting.
Is the Kennedy Bill antipolice?
Many critics assume that BB 69 is antipolice. Some comments by members of the Police Board reflect the same sentiment. This is simply incorrect.
We support neither coddling criminals nor handcuffing the police. We simply stand for equal justice. No one should be allowed to break the law without consequence. Those who do so while wearing a badge dishonor the department and their fellow officers.
We know that the many fine officers who reject rogue behavior welcome Civilian Review. A study of national trends shows that officers have nothing to fear from a CRB. Such boards do not harass officers or nit-pick their behavior. In fact, review boards sustain complaints, on average, at a rate no higher than Internal Affairs.
The advantages of a CRB lie in the greater transparency and confidence which it fosters. Its user-friendly face does elicit a greater number of complaints. This is a plus for police. It provides greater, more accurate information which you can feed into internal accountability systems, such as the new Early Warning System. Thus you will be better able to spot problems, evaluate supervisors, and reward those who are effective.
The Review Board will also help those officers who are the source of a complaint but who are exonerated by the new system. When those who have the confidence of the community tell complainants that an officer acted correctly, the issue is more likely to be settled once and for all. Such a Review Board decision will satisfy complainants, discourage the lawsuits
which would be the citizens next remedy, and thus save the city money.
The Kennedy Bill includes numerous provisions to insure that it is not antipolice. Review Board members and staff will go on police ride-a-longs and receive training regarding policies and field procedures. We believe it is essential that they understand the policeman’s point of view.
Hearings will be conducted in private to avoid public grandstanding. Confidentiality requirements protect the personnel files which, under state statute, can not be made public. Feedback forms will be given to officer and complainant alike. A mediation option is provided, so that officer and complainant can sit down and resolve the issue themselves.
Is the preamble of the Kennedy Bill inflammatory? It does mention a “blue wall of silence among some officers.” Any organization tends to “circle the wagons” to protect its own. The police are no different. Acknowledgment of that fact, and the subsequent need for external oversight, is not
inflammatory, and should not be held out as an excuse for rejecting the bill.
Many police departments initially view Civilian Review with resistance, but come to appreciate it. They are happy with the community confidence and subsequent cooperation it instills. Since police rely on the community to do their job, the result is greater effectiveness and safety for all involved in stopping crime. That is why review boards have proliferated in recent years, leaving St. Louis as one of the last remaining large cities without one.
Community policing
Slay recently said, “This board [the Police Commissioners] needs to reconnect with the people of St. Louis who are paying the bills.”
Though the mayor was speaking on a subject other than Civilian Review, we would agree with his remarks. With his veto of the Kennedy Bill, he should think about reconnecting himself.
Perhaps we have all been hampered by the revolving door which has left the Police Board with constantly changing members. Since the process for Civilian Review began in 2000, there have been eight presidents of the Police Board. With such a turnover, the board could not develop the institutional memory necessary for such a long process. Over that time, the board’s viewpoint has shifted several times, and no one has been there as a consistent negotiating partner. We urge you not to make your decision in that vacuum.
Still, the freshness with which the current board tackles this issue can have its positive side. You are not tied to the mistakes made by previous boards. We urge you to develop an approach designed to facilitate your understanding of the community’s decision.
We are encouraged by Julius Hunter’s remark that you are “open to fair and balanced discussion from all points of view.” Failure to follow through with that openness will be to retreat once again into an isolation which does not serve either officer or citizen.
Just as the Kennedy Bill provides a cooperative model for joint investigations by IAD and civilian investigators, so too does it call for the cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Police Commissioners. It recognizes the jointly held powers encoded in the state statutes which give you the power to run the department and the aldermen the power to create Civilian Review. This is the balance possible under current Missouri law; it is the best available remedy to foster the needed partnership between police and the policed.
Jamala Rogers and Zaki Baruti are co-chairpersons of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression.