A body of men, holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody. — Thomas Paine

After years of community and legal pressure, New Rochelle’s City Council now has before it an proposed ordinance to establish a Civilian Complaint Review Board to regulate police conduct in New Rochelle, but it is weak and unacceptable as currently drafted. I encourage you to read this excellent article in last Monday’s NewRoAR News, which covered the proposal and background, and please scroll down to the Comment section for my “hot take” from a first reading of this material.

What follows below are my more detailed comments. There will be a public hearing on the proposal on September 10th, and I hope you will join the community to support establishing a stronger CCRB.

The full text of the working draft of the law envisions a CCRB even weaker than we had feared in terms of investigatory power (no subpoenas), enforcement, policy-making and Board member training. For example, look at the proposed NR Code Section 9-117(A), which would provide for training of the Board members by police personnel only.  Contrast that with the last two sentences of the City of Albany (population 100,000) Ordinance for its Community Police Review Board  (“Albany Code”) Section 42-339, which provides for input from the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (“NACOLE”) and attorneys who regularly represent either side of police/civilian legal disputes.

In fact, there’s much to be said for the Albany ordinance overall. We in New Rochelle (pop. 80,000 and growing) could even look at wholesale adoption of its provisions, although that was not what last year’s City Council contemplated. After last November’s elections, however, we have a more progressive Council and apparently less momentum at the County level for robust police oversight. We in NR could take the lead and serve as a model in adopting certain elements of the Albany plan, such as:

1.  Albany Code sec. 42-334(F):  Guaranteed annual budget for the CCRB equal to at least 1% of police department budget.

2.  Albany Code sec. 42-334(G):  Option for Board use of Corporation Counsel and outside counsel.

3.  Albany Code sec. 42-335: Removal of Board Member for cause by two-thirds vote of Council (i.e., 5 votes) rather than simple majority per Sec. 9-115 of proposed NR ordinance; or alternatively Mayor plus at least 3 other council members. Also, proposed Sec. 9-116 should make it clear that a majority of the CCRB (i.e., 4 ) is required for a meeting quorum and that number is also required to pass or approve any of its motions or other actions (other than to adjourn).

4.  Albany Code sec. 42-339:  As described above, broader training on civilian oversight for CCRB members.

5.  Albany Code sec 42-340(A):  CCRB recommendations to City Council regarding police policies and proceduresincluding additional police training; need not be based on a specific complaint, but rather CCRB may investigate on its own motion; and that it may investigate incidents occurring before establishment of the CCRB for such policy suggestions, although not for discipline purposes with regard to such pre-establishment incidents or facts
.
6.  Albany Code Secs.42-342 to 42-345:  CCRB investigation and report before the Commissioner’s determination of discipline, if any; and not, per proposed legislation, the other way around. In any event, the Commissioner should have 60 days to explain his/her determination in writing. There should be user-friendly complaint systems, subpoena power, accessibility to records and no per se delays due to other criminal or civil proceedings relating to a complaint — rather place such suspensions of investigations within the discretion of the CCRB (see Albany Code sec. 42-348).

7.  Albany Code sec. 42-343(B):  CCRB collaboration with Commissioner on a matrix of disciplinary guidelines.

8. Albany Code sec. 42-346:  Mediation (and restorative justice)  encouraged and facilitated.

Additionally, there other potential features to consider, such as:

1.  Increase the proposed size of the Board from 7 to  9 to share the workload of this all-volunteer group, maybe with two more at-large members with a view toward increasing representation for communities historically impacted by interaction with the police. And, like the “district” designees, maybe the Mayor’s at-large designee(s) should be subject to a full Council vote.

2.  Include strong whistleblower provisions protecting complainants and witnesses, with authority to investigate and sanction retaliation (in addition to parties’ other remedies in court).

3.  Include a statement of intent that the power to discipline resides with the Commissioner and ultimately the Council itself;  to the extent possible, oppose the diminution of that power in any collective bargaining agreement; permit the City to offer increased compensation and benefits as further inducement for police support of the implementation of this enforcement regime; and give the Board the opportunity to review and comment on proposed  police CBA’s.

4.  Further to that “buy-in” point and the further professionalization of policing, advocate for statewide licensing for police officers as recently instituted in New Jersey.

5. Advocate for termination of judge-made qualified immunity defense and for personal liability insurance requirement.

6.  Provide sufficient resources to create strong community awareness of existence of CCRB, its jurisdiction and its mechanisms ant to offer it as a model to other communities.

7.  Require the Council to diligently seek enabling legislation at other levels of government (e.g., “home rule,” Taylor Law amendment), if necessary to implement the CCRB and seek appropriate grant funding from such other levels of government.

8.  Continue the Community Police Partnership Board (“CPPB”C) in New Rochelle, with police and citizen membership, as an ongoing source of dialogue and a means of exchanging information and recommendations with the CCRB.

Damon Maher