Leaders of the Center for Dispute Settlement, which operates Rochester’s current police oversight process, believe the process needs major improvements. And they say they would support having a neutral, trained, outside investigator or agency handle investigations of civilian complaints against police involving shootings or personal injuries.
This is significant, because City Council is currently reviewing the police oversight process. Spurring Council’s work: controversy around the treatment of Rochester teenager Rickey Bryant last summer and an April report criticizing the oversight process, prepared for two citizens group, Enough Is Enough and the Coalition for Police Reform. Bryant says officers responding to a crime report knocked him from his bike and beat him, seriously injuring him. Bryant wasn’t subsequently charged.
City Council has subpoenaed records related to Bryant’s case, and it’s reviewing them now. This is the first time in the history of the civilian review process that Council has used its subpoena power.
As part of its broader look at police oversight, Council president Loretta Scott and Public Safety Chair Adam McFadden want Council to hire the Center for Governmental Research to study the review process. A vote on their request is on the agenda for Council’s June 20 meeting.
Currently, when a civilian files a complaint about the actions of a Rochester police officer, that complaint is investigated by officers in the Police Standards Section of the Rochester Police Department. The police chief then reviews the complaint and the PSS investigation and decides whether or not to uphold the complaint.
The PSS investigations are then reviewed by the Civilian Review Board, trained civilians who serve on panels operated by the Center for Dispute Settlement. But the Civilian Review Board can’t perform investigations on its own. It simply reviews the PSS investigations. The chief’s findings are the official ones, not those of the Review Board.
In recommendations to Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren and City Council in October, Sherry Walker-Cowart, then president and CEO of the Center for Dispute Settlement, and Frank Liberti, who now holds those positions, listed eight changes they believe should be made. Among them: that the Civilian Review Board’s findings should be the official findings. The police chief would determine disciplinary or other administrative action.
CDS also recommended that police officials publicly report the results of investigations “to the extent allowable” by state law. (State law provides stringent privacy protections for officers’ personnel records.)
The October CDS recommendations did not include having an independent body conduct the investigation. But in an interview last week, Liberti and Cheryl Hayward, director of CDS’s Police and Community Relations Program, said the organization has previously recommended independent investigations into complaints against police involving a shooting or personal injury. And Liberti said they would support that change now – if investigators are neutral and if they are trained in such investigations and in police procedure and policy.
Council President Scott said last week that before Council makes a decision on reforming the current process, it will consider the recommendations of CDS, the citizens- groups’ report, and other recommendations after the Center for Governmental Research completes its review. “It is time,” she said, “for this exhaustive research.”
Related Stories
This article appears in Jun 14-20, 2017.
Frank Liberti and Cheryl Hayward of the Center for Dispute Settlement (CDS) (Towler, 6/17/17, “Police-review leaders want change”) profess that the Civilian Review Board (CRB) “needs major improvement.” Barbara Lacker-Ware and I, in conjunction with Enough Is Enough and the Rochester Coalition for Police Reform, released a report in February that details how the CRB has failed the people of Rochester. The Center for Dispute Settlement (CDS) seems to be a bit late to the party if they are just now noticing that the CRB “need major improvements.”
The failures of the current CRB are many: it is administered by a private nonprofit that requires, among other hurdles, potential board members to be trained in and practice mediation for three years (this training is the bread and butter of CDS); the CRB has no independent investigative power (the police conduct the only investigations into complaints of misconduct); the CRB has no subpoena power (meaning that the CRB has no legal recourse to command the production of evidence or compel testimony); and finally, the Chief of Police makes the final determination for all complaints and imposes any discipline he sees fit. These have been the failures of the civilian review process under the Center for Dispute Settlement for 25 years.
Barbara and I looked at 15 years of data, specifically 1,173 allegations of police use of force against civilians, where only 2% of allegations (23 total) were sustained (meaning it was determined that the officer acted wrongly). Only 14 of those 23 sustained allegations led to discipline; the harshest discipline imposed was six suspensions. Police have routinely used unnecessary force against unarmed civilians and the current CRB has done nothing to curtail this misconduct for decades.
At the end of our report is an ordinance calling for the Police Accountability Board (PAB) to be created. The PAB would be an 11 member board with subpoena power and have independent investigative authority directly overseen by City Council. It would also have the power to compel the Chief to impose discipline, using a disciplinary matrix, if complaints were sustained. In short, the PAB would be a review board with teeth.
Liberti and Hayward’s proposed changes to a system that needs “major improvement” feel tepid and quickly deployed in an attempt to get in front of a situation that they can’t control. They have not cared about fixing the system before, and the only reason they care now is because their failure has been exposed. I encourage you all to read the full report (http://enoughisenough.rocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Case-for-an-Independent-Police-Accountability-System-2.1.17-FINAL.pdf) and come to your own conclusions.
“It’s toothless,” he said. “It more or less rubber-stamps the decisions of the police chief.” Community activist Howard Eagle said those words 18 years ago at a rally outside of City Hall denouncing the CRB as “not effective,” according to a Democrat & Chronicle article from 9/4/99. Eighteen years later, his words continue to ring true.
Ted, Thanks for the acknowledgement.
18 years later — my thoughts are as follows:
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT: “This is the first time in the history of the civilian review process that Council has used its subpoena power” (NOT BECAUSE THEY NECESSARILY WANTED TO, BUT BECAUSE — CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES — THEY REALLY HAD NO CHOICE).SECONDLY, IN MY STAUNCHLY-UNEQUIVOCAL, AND INFORMED VIEW — IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY, AND WOULD BE FISCAL IRRESPONSIBLE TO “hire the Center for Governmental Research [AND PAY THEM THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS] to study the review process.” The process has literally been studied to death. We know the major problem and issue. It is as follows: “Currently, when a civilian files a complaint about the actions of a Rochester police officer, that complaint is investigated by officers in the Police Standards Section of the Rochester Police Department. The police chief then reviews the complaint and the PSS investigation and decides whether or not to uphold the complaint.” IN OTHER WORDS, WE KNOW DARN WELL (WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHAT SO EVER) THAT THE POLICE CAN NOT/WILL NOT POLICE THE POLICE. THERE IS NO EXAMPLE ANYWHERE IN THE NATION, IN WHICH THE POLICE DO A THOROUGH, OBJECTIVELY-FAIR AND UNBIASED JOB OF INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING ON THEMSELVES. IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN. THE BLUE CODE/WALL OF SILENCE IS SIMPLY MUCH TOO OLD AND MUCH TOO STRONG FOR THIS TO EVER HAPPEN — PERIOD.
With regard to studies, I am absolutely certain that any pertinent information that City Council wants or needs, is contained in the recent report developed by Enough Is Enough and the Coalition for Police Reform, and/or other MUCH OLDER REPORTS (some of which date back to at least the 1970’s, if not earlier). Am I the only one who remembers the infamous “Crimi Report in 1976 — commissioned after a [Rochester] police officer shot and killed an 18-year-old African-American woman during a family dispute?” How about the 2004 “Hargrave-Miller Report, prompted by the deaths of an African-American teenager and of four African-American men in 2001 and 2002. All five died during or shortly after contact with police officers?” The latter Report “is based on more than 100 anonymous interviews with community residents and police officers.” Former Rochester Mayor “Johnson called it the most comprehensive outside look at the Police Department since the Crimi Report in 1976.” HOW MANY MORE STUDIES AND REPORTS DO WE NEED??? IT’S BEYOND TIME TO ACT, AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. https://www.policeone.com/archive/articles…
The Center for Dispute Settlement cannot be trusted to work honestly with a process. During the memorial day parade years in the 1980s the center handled a dispute between the peace groups wishing to be part of the parade, and the veterans who had gotten the permit for the parade. BEFORE the dispute settlement meetings the head of the Center for Dispute Settlement went to the mayor and asked him what he wanted to have happen. This was reported in a doctoral thesis by a student studying the Memorial Day parade history in Rochester, NY. This organization should have NO part in a civilian review board, and especially one with no subpoena power.
I wanted to clarify a glaring mistake caught in my comment above.
I wrote, “potential board members to be trained in and practice mediation for three years.” This statement is incorrect.
Our understanding is that after potential Civilian Review Board (CRB) panelists get trained, they are required to engage in a Center for Dispute Settlement (CDS) mediation apprenticeship. According to an Enough Is Enough member who attempted to get into the pool to be on the CRB, she was told that after the initial mediator training, she would be required, for at least a year, to sit in on three CDS mediations, conduct a co-mediation, and then conduct a mediation on her own, all of which would be unrelated to the CRB. After this, she said she would be evaluated and then put into a pool to be trained for the CRB; which would include Rochester Police Department (RPD) ride-alongs and RPD policies and procedures.
Potential panelists do not have to engage in mediation for three years before being admitted to the pool of CRB panelists. That was a mistake. I confused it with the fact that, every year a panelist is on the CRB, they are required to do three mediations, unrelated to the CRB, to maintain their state certification as well as their standing to be in the pool of CRB panelists.
My apologies on this error.
Theodore Forsyth