For several months, Rochester’s City Council has been considering changes to the way the city handles complaints about police conduct. Activists pushing for reform want a new police review board that would have more citizen involvement, greater access to officers’ personnel information, and responsibility for disciplining officers when complaints against them are found to be justified.
Right now, Council is waiting for a report from a consultant it hired earlier this year. At the time, Council President Loretta Scott said she hoped the report would be completed in time for Council to vote on reforms in April, but the consultant is still at work. The sticking points: state law says police officers’ personnel records are confidential. And changes in oversight have to be negotiated with the police union.
Deputy Mayor Cedric Alexander – who was Rochester’s police chief from 2002 to 2005 – is likely to be asked to weigh in on the issue at an upcoming event. He’ll be the keynote speaker at this year’s Greater Rochester Regional Police Community Relations Summit on Saturday, June 16. The event, which is sponsored by United Christian Leadership Ministry, will be held at First Church of God, 334 Clarissa Street, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Although Alexander is a nationally known figure in law enforcement, he has a difficult line to walk. It’s likely that many people at the summit want strong police reform, and they may be conflicted by what Alexander has to say.
Alexander says he has no problem with police accountability boards, and he notes that their importance was highlighted by a task force appointed by President Obama in 2015 to study police practices. Alexander served on the task force, and he says he supports strong citizen participation on accountability boards.
But, he said in an interview on Sunday, reform supporters need to understand that under state law, review boards “do not have the ability to sanction or discipline.”
“I have no issues with them doing investigations,” he said. “Accountability boards do a really important job, not just for the community, but for the police department, too.”
While citizens serving on the boards have to be fair and balanced, Alexander said, police departments need to be more transparent, and they need to let review boards look into complaints and draw their own conclusions.
And, said Alexander, while review boards serve a purpose, what’s most important is building partnerships between police and the community. Continued lack of trust between police and communities of color is hindering those partnerships.
“From the beginning of time, it seems police have struggled to build trust in their communities,” he said. “Whether it was during Jim Crow or the Civil Rights era right up to today, this has been happening across the country for a long time.”
Rochester has some of the best trained officers anywhere, Alexander said, and part of that training involves building relationships in the community. But a single incident caught live on a cellphone camera can instantly destroy that relationship unless some level of trust has been built, he said.
“Policing is a dangerous job,” Alexander said. “They have the responsibility to protect us as citizens, and sometimes that involves the use of force. They also have the right to protect themselves and each other, and that may also involve the use of force.”
But if the perception is that police have gone overboard, the divide will continue to widen, he said.
“That’s why I keep saying, it’s a partnership,” he said.
This article appears in May 30 – Jun 5, 2018.
Well said Sir, it absolutely should be a partnership!
Perception plays a big part in all of this. I believe we do not have the right to look into personnel files of police officers. HIPPA laws are in place to protect our confidential information. As I see it, personnel information is just as confidential. What is to be gained by looking into officers personnel records? Just opening another dirt road that we don’t need to go down.
I am thrilled that doctor Alexander was asked his opinion and be a keynote speaker, as he has been on “both sides of the coin” and his honor and opinions are truly that of a righteous man.
Ms. Miller, you are misinformed on this issue.
As an advocate for the Police Accountability Board (PAB), in Rochester, NY, I am writing to correct several misconceptions perpetuated in Dr. Cedric Alexanders comments in last weeks City Newspaper article Alexander: Police-citizen partnership is key (6/4/18). Dr. Alexander, other city officials, and the article have repeated misinformation with regards to 1) state law and disciplinary power, 2) the Locust Club (Police) collective bargaining agreement, 3) PAB access to officer personnel records, and 4) relationship building between the police and the community.
1.) Dr. Alexander claims that reform supporters need to understand that review boards do not have the ability to sanction or discipline, police under New York State (NYS) Law. This is false. Section 75 of Civil Service Law outlines the procedures for disciplining public employees in New York State: The hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred. . . (75(2)) Therefore, Civil Service Law explicitly acknowledges that a governmental body, such as the proposed Police Accountability Board, can have disciplinary authority. To date, neither Rochesters corporation counsel, nor any public officials, have been able to specifically cite any state law or case that would prevent Rochester from enacting a PAB with disciplinary power. Further, PAB disciplinary power is absolutely essential given the long history in Rochester of officers escaping punishment for misconduct under the current process. (See The Case for an Independent Police Accountability System: Transforming the Civilian Review Process in Rochester, New York (http://rochester.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/The%20Case%20for%20an%20Independent%20Police%20Accountability%20System%202.1.17%20FINAL.pdf)).
2.) The City article stated that new oversight needs to be negotiated with the police union. However, the New York State Court of Appeals has recently held that cities can make changes to police disciplinary procedures despite a conflicting collective bargaining agreement. (See Police Benevolent Ass’n of New York State Troopers, Inc. v. Div. of New York State Police 11 N.Y.3d 96 (2008) and City of Schenectady v. New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd. 30 N.Y.3d 109 (2017).) Therefore, Rochester City Council has the power to enact a PAB and strengthen the disciplinary procedures without requiring the consent of the Locust Club.
3). The article says: state law says police officers’ personnel records are confidential. While it is true that NYS Civil Rights Law 50-a prevents officer disciplinary records from being released to the public without a court order, this would not hinder the proposed Police Accountability Board, because under 50-a(4), government agencies are allowed access to officer disciplinary records in furtherance of the agencys official functions. Therefore, just as New York Citys Civilian Complaint Review Board and Syracuse’s Citizen Review Board have access to officer disciplinary records, the proposed Rochester PAB would legally have access to officer disciplinary records.
4.) Finally, Dr. Alexander told City that building partnerships between police and the community is difficult because the perception is that police have gone overboard. Yet, the problem surpasses mere perceptions. Real lives have been lost and damaged. Recent examples include: Benny Warr, Dwayne Ivery, Phyllis Harmon, Keyoni Adams, Silvon Simmons, David Vann, Lentorya Parker, Branden Carter, Clarence Thompson, Brenda Hardaway, Quintin Keene, Scean Gordon, Daryl Appleberry, and Travis Welch. Ultimately, trust is built upon mutual respect, consent, communication, and action. It is built upon people having equitable levels of power. Police have and have had an inordinate amount of power in Rochester for a very long time. If Dr. Alexander and other public officials really value police-citizen partnerships they must prioritize a Police Accountability Board that is an independent agency of city government with the power to investigate complaints of police misconduct, with subpoena power to compel the production of evidence and witnesses, with disciplinary power to ensure that officers are actually held accountable for their misconduct, and with the power to evaluate systemic patterns, practices, policies and procedures to prevent misconduct from happening in the first place. A strong PAB would be a good first step towards giving the community more equitable control over how they are policed. Until the community has such equitable control, a true partnership is impossible.
Mr. Forsyth,
I am a bit confused in trying to follow all of the above. You made a couple of claims disputing what Dr. Alxendaer mentioned about the PAB’s ability to sanction and discipline; yet, your own comments seem to be contradictory.
In point (1) you stated, “Civil Service Law explicitly acknowledges that a governmental body, such as the proposed Police Accountability Board, can have disciplinary authority. ”
In point (2) you stated, “If Dr. Alexander and other public officials really value police-citizen partnerships they must prioritize a Police Accountability Board that is an independent agency of city government with the power to investigate complaints of police misconduct, with subpoena power to compel the production of evidence and witnesses, with disciplinary power to ensure that officers are actually held accountable for their misconduct, and with the power to evaluate systemic patterns, practices, policies and procedures to prevent misconduct from happening in the first place.”
So, I am confused about whether the PBA will be a governmental body or independent agency. It seems as if the PBA is a governmental body then it will be able to function in one way; but, if it is an independent agency then it would function slightly different. Please clarify.