Amid Outcry, Civilian Review Plan Advances

The crowd said: Start over. The alders voted to move ahead.

That was the upshot of a passionate three-hour public meeting Tuesday night where a panel of alders presented a new version of a long-delayed proposal for a police Civilian Review Board (CRB).

More than 100 people packed the aldermanic chamber of City Hall Tuesday evening for the hearing, held by the Board of Alders Legislation and Public Safety Committees.

The committees were hearing a revised version of an ordinance to create a new version of a CRB to monitor public complaints about police misconduct. The alders were supposed to create this new CRB years ago as a result of a 2013 charter referendum. But it has been stuck because of fundamental arguments over who should serve on it, and whether it should (or can) have subpoena power.

The new version still does not give the CRB subpoena power to independently investigate complaints from citizens. It allows the CRB to review the work of the police department’s internal affairs division. In a change from the previous version, it would house the CRB in the city’s Commission on Equal Opportunities (CEO) office rather than Corporation Counsel office. Alders argue that law doesn’t allow for subpoena power.

The latest proposed version comes up for a public hearing at City Hall Tuesday beginning at 6 p.m. Click here to read the latest proposal.

The activists who showed up Tuesday night uniformly blasted the new version for, among other issues, lacking that subpoena power. It has been suggested that the Board of Alders president could convey her subpoena power to a CRB.

Even top city cops, including Chief Anthony Campbell, testified Tuesday night that the ordinance doesn’t accomplish its goals and should be reworked.

After listening to three hours of testimony, alders — over the objection of two of their colleagues and pretty much everyone else in the room — voted to advance the ordinance to the full Board of Alders for final approval.

Activist Kerry Ellington suggested that rather than approve this version, the alders create a community task force to explore a better model, the way the alders did in creating an affordable housing task force to come up with better policy.

“The only power that you’ve given it is the power to review internal affairs. Internal affairs is under the police department. It’s not independent of the police department. It will only be able to investigate what internal affairs has done,” Ellington told the alders. ​“To suggest that it reopen an investigation is not enough. It’s not independent.”

Activist Rodney Williams noted that most New Haven police officers live out of town. He said that only a small number of cops are guilty of serious misbehavior; he said the city needs a stronger CRB to ​“help us get rid of them.”

“What are you protecting? You are protecting people who don’t live here. Y ou’re protecting people who don’t pay no taxes. You’re protecting people who didn’t elect you.”

“You guys are smart enough to figure out how legally” to strengthen the CRB, Williams argued.

Alders who favored moving the ordinance forward called it best to move to get a CRB up and running rather than delay it further. They also noted that the draft ordinance that made it out of committee could still be further amended before it is voted on in about month. The committee members amended the draft ordinance to allow the CRB to receive a copy of any civilian complaint of alleged police misconduct within five days instead of 48 hours and to allow for a review of the board’s work after a year. They suggested that the subpoena issue could be tweaked later, perhaps through the powers of the CEO.

Dixwell Alder Jeanette Morrison, among others, argued that she still hadn’t been convinced that any alternative exists to obtaining subpoena power from the state. Downtown Alder Abigail Roth, citing a 2015 legal opinion by the city’s corporation counsel among other sources, argued that workarounds exist for placing subpoena power in the CRB without needing state action.

Prospect Hill/Newhallville/Dixwell Alder Steve Winter, who has been involved for eight years with groups pushing for a stronger CRB, also urged the joint committee to establish subpoena power before advancing the ordinance. He said that experience in other cities shows that only those CRBs with subpoena power end up being effective. And if the CEO has subpoena power, he asked, citing a similar view in a previous opinion by the corporation counsel’s office, why can’t the CRB?

Winter (who isn’t on the committees hearing the legislation) added that the CRB should be set up in a way so that if the police chief disagrees with a finding, there would ​“still be some public accountability.”

The alders who voted against the proposal Tuesday night — Roth and Upper Westville Alder Darryl Brackeen Jr. — both said they thought it best to take a little more time to craft the ordinance and give further consideration to whether or not the CRB needs subpoena power.

When she realized her colleagues intended to go forward with moving the legislation out of committee, Roth made an attempt to amend the ordinance that would have given the CRB authority to conduct independent investigations. Brackeen seconded her motion.

Westville Alder Adam Marchand asked colleagues to vote against the amendment saying that he isn’t in favor of putting subpoena power in the ordinance at this time.

The voice vote, after several technical amendments, prompted Newhallvile resident Rodney Williams to shout from the back of the chamber: ​“Why the hell did you have us come down here?”

Williams wasn’t the only raised voice of the evening. People heckled the alders, at one point forcing Legislation Committee Chair Rosa Santana to recess the meeting briefly to restore order.

Brackeen said that he understood that it had been a long process but he noted his dismay that his fellow alders refused to take a little longer to make sure it was putting together the best possible ordinance.

“I know we want to wrap it up but there are some glaring and obvious things that the community is asking for,” he said. ​“It’s almost like deja vu with the same people and the same testimony. We’re not willing to rush on other items that we’ve had before us, I don’t understand what the rush is now. We need to hear from our community.”

Marchand said after the meeting that he didn’t feel 100 percent confident that adding subpoena power to the ordinance would be ​“legally watertight,” despite an opinion from Corporation Counsel that suggested the board could have it. He said that he thought it would be better to get the CRB up and running first, collect some data, and reaccess how it is working in a year.

Several people pointed out that the public hearing wasn’t conducive for an exchange of ideas. A number of Tuesday’s attendees were Yale University undergraduate and law students who have been studying and collecting data on police misconduct in the state. A number of them pressed Amity/Beverly Hills Alder and Majority Leader Richard Furlow after the meeting, who said that he believed that the CRB would effectively have subpoena power. He also told the students that amendments to the draft ordinance were coming that would strengthen the future board.

“Trust the process,” he told the students.

“I honestly don’t trust you at all,” a student said.

Williams certainly didn’t encourage the students to trust. His advice to students: ​“Vote their asses out.”

Click the Facebook live videos below to catch portions of the hearing. 

Following is a detailed background memo from the Board of Alders staff about how this issue has progressed since the 1990s: 

The Board of Alders has been considering a Civilian Review Board for nearly a quarter century. Even before the 1997 police shooting of Malik Jones on Grand Avenue, the idea was floated by various alders and community members. Several proposals have been submitted to the BoA over the years, but none brought to completion.

Where We Are Now

New Haven Civilian Review Board: A Legislative History and Analysis

The 2013 revision of the city charter included language (below) calling for establishment of an ​“independent, fair, thorough” civilian review board. The ballot referendum approving the new charter is a formal mandate for the Board of Alders to enact a civilian review board.
The most recent BoA action was on April 5, 2017, almost 20 years to the day after the Malik Jones killing. The Joint Legislation-Public Safety committee conducted a public hearing on the latest CRB ordinance proposal (attached). It was drafted by local attorney Norman Pattis, whom the BoA hired for the project.
The Pattis ordinance is an incremental improvement over the old Civilian Review Board. The new CRB would not, however, have the ability to subpoena police and witnesses, or impose punishments for officers deemed guilty of wrongdoing.
The Pattis ordinance would enable the CRB to order the police chief to reopen an internal-affairs investigation. Though adequately funded, the CRB apparently would not have independent investigators or counsel. It would be housed in the city Corporation Counsel’s office (perhaps a conflict since city lawyers defend police sued for misconduct). The new CRB would also review the Yale police department.
The 2017 hearing was similar to many past BOA hearings on the CRB issue – lengthy, contentious, and inconclusive. Activists decried the new ordinance as ​“toothless.” The meeting was replete with shocking anecdotes of police brutality, and angry exhortations for Alders to ​“do your job” and enact an effective CRB.
Once again, the Alders were boxed in between residents, who continue to demand subpoena power and input into punishment, and the state laws, which make fulfilling those conditions difficult, if not impossible. The matter was tabled, remaining in a state of perpetual impasse.

How We Got Here

After the Malik Jones killing, then-Alder Anthony Dawson (now a New Haven police commissioner) and the slain youth’s mother Emma Jones advanced a couple of unsuccessful legislative proposals to enact a CRB.
The second version of the so-called ​“Malik-Dawson” legislation was drafted with law student Petisia Adger (who went on to become an assistant police chief here). This proposal received serious consideration, but stalled over the issues of subpoena power and punishment for officers deemed guilty of brutality or other offenses.
Over the years, New Haven officials have lobbied the state and proposed at least one formal amendment to the statutes to allow subpoena power for civilian review boards. These efforts never gained much momentum.
Michael Lawlor, then a state representative and member of the general assembly’s Judiciary Committee, visited the BoA about 10 years ago. He discussed the possibility of subpoena power for a CRB. He said the state legislature was unlikely to grant this power to a civilian panel. (Lawlor is currently a state OPM undersecretary for criminal justice).
He told the Alders: ​“You already have a civilian review board with subpoena power – the Board of Police Commissioners. If you don’t like how it operates or who is on it, that is within your power to change.”
While that may be true, residents and activists have shown little confidence that the Police Commission could ever be impartial — because of its traditional role as being sort of a personnel department and big buddy for the police department.
A February 2015 legal opinion by New Haven Corporation Counsel concluded that the Board of Alders’ own rarely used subpoena power could be delegated to a CRB (How that would work in practice has not been thoroughly explored, however).

The DeStefano CRB

In the midst of BoA civilian-review hearings in March 2001, then-Mayor John DeStefano issued an Executive Order creating his own version of a civilian review board. This bombshell was not well-received by some Alders. It was seen as interfering with or co-opting an ongoing legislative process. As the mayor went about implementing the CRB, he did not have full or enthusiastic support from all members of the BoA.
Activist Emma Jones denounced the mayor’s CRB as a ​“paper tiger.” Some months later, she was able to rally a handful of Alders around a proposal to legislatively override the executive order, disband the mayor’s CRB, and enact the Malik-Dawson proposal. Though far-fetched, this idea (which a mayoral aide called ​“going nuclear”) may have been within the BoA’s authority. Regardless, after a committee meeting or two it became clear that the override lacked sufficient BoA support.
Ms. Jones testified that she wouldn’t object if the Malik-Dawson proposal was given leave-to-withdraw because of the BoA’s failure to enact it after years of meetings. The Alders, also weary of the issue, responded by dismissing her legislation.
Meanwhile, Mayor DeStefano invested significant funding and support into his CRB. It had a full-time professional staffer in the beginning, which eventually dwindled to part-time, and then contractual.
It was located in and primarily a creature of the Chief Administrator’s Office – the same department with supervisory authority over the police. Critics have insisted that the CRB needs to have offices located in a more neutral location, perhaps not even in city hall.
The DeStefano CRB was literally a ​“review” panel — with no authority beyond issuing reports or recommendations for the police chief and commission who had little or no obligation to heed them. It reviewed disciplinary decisions that had already been made.
A 2004 BoA probe of the DeStefano CRB concluded that the police department failed to comply with many aspects of the executive order. The report said the police department didn’t revise its General Orders; didn’t make complaint forms available in public places; didn’t create a bilingual hot-line; and didn’t fully cooperate with the CRB.
As a result, some improvements were made, such as training for CRB members at the Citizen Police Academy; expanding Management Team participation; and better communication between the CRB and police.
The volunteers, including Alders, who served on the CRB made an honest effort, but many agreed that the panel had insufficient authority to make much of a difference. And Mayor DeStefano kept cutting its staff support.
There was never a conscious decision to discontinue the DeStefano CRB, but after the Charter Revision of 2013, it was put on hiatus while the new one was being created. As a commenter noted in the newspaper recently: ​“The city went from having an ineffective civilian review board to none at all.”

Summary

The challenges involved in creating a civilian review board have not changed over the years. The goal is to make the CRB more privy to investigative and disciplinary proceedings and hold the police more accountable – all within the difficult confines of Connecticut State Law, the city’s labor contract with its sworn officers, and the constitutional right of officers to not incriminate themselves.
The CRB ordinance which the BoA commissioned from Attorney Pattis is still pending before the Joint Legislation-Public Safety Committee and eligible for immediate hearing.
In early 2018, a coalition of local activist groups and Yale law students issued a new derivative of the Malik-Dawson ordinance. You can find it by searching Google or the Independent for ​“new haven civilian review.” Assuming it’s submitted to the BoA soon, you will have two competing CRB proposals before you.

Civilian Review Board Language (from 2013 Charter)

(1) Establishment. There shall be a Civilian Review Board.
(2) Objectives. It is in the interest of City residents and citizens generally and of the department responsible for police services (‘department”) that investigations of complaints concerning misconduct
by police officers involving members of the public be complete, thorough and impartial. These inquires shall be conducted fairly and independently, and in such a manner that the public has confidence.
(3) Membership. The Board shall consist of a number of members as shall be established by Ordinance. The Board of Alderman shall consider, at a minimum, a number of members equal to the number of police districts throughout the City (“district representatives”) as well as, at least, two (2) additional at-large appointees. The number of members shall be odd.
(4) Appointment. The Mayor shall appoint such members subject to the approval of the Board of Alders. The ordinance implementing the Commission shall require the Mayor to choose district representatives from among the names recommended by the community engagement organization or similar neighborhood based organization from each of the police districts or geographical areas of the City; subject to recognition by the Board of Alders.
(5) Term. The term of office shall be two (2) years and such terms shall be staggered.
(6) Duties. The Civilian Review Board shall have the following authority and such other and additional authority as may be set forth by ordinance:
(a) To examine complaints made by civilians pertaining to unprofessional conduct by members of the department and to review the processing of such complaints
(b) Hear appeals from complainants brought within ninety (90) days of the completion of an internal affairs report by the department;
(c) Require the internal affairs group of the department to investigate civilian complaints in the event no investigation has been commenced or to re-open and continue to investigate a complaint, if, in the opinion of the Board, the initial investigation was incomplete or unfair;
(d) Recommend that revisions to departmental; policies, processing of civilian complaints, training protocols and/or provisions of the General Orders (or a successor written directive document as may replace the said General Orders) be considered; and,
(e) Develop policies and procedures for the filing and processing of civilian complaints, for the operations of the board and for training members of the board and community-based agencies and organizations designated by the board.
(7) Operations.
(a) The Board of Alders shall, by ordinance, establish such additional authority necessary to effectuate the purposes and duties of the Board.
(b)The City shall provide for the requisite staff assistance, supplies, equipment and facilities to the department responsible for police services or such other department designated by the Board in order to facilitate the administration of board business.

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN ESTABLISHING THE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD (First Pattis version)
WHEREAS: A police officer is expected to patrol the streets and to be found at their post of duty; to care for the lives and property of citizens while they sleep; to be present to preserve peace at large gatherings, political meetings, entertainments, and such like; to be an escort for processions, for lost children, the sick, injured or disabled; to be on hand to protect the people; to look after the violation of the city ordinances; and to perform an infinite range of other work; and

WHEREAS: There is no other department of the city government from which so much is exacted and where the conduct of employees is so much scrutinized that upon the slightest mistake made by one of them the whole police force is more or less subject to criticism; and

WHEREAS: When a mistake is made by any member of the police force, the entire police department is open to criticism, and oftentimes the entire force is stigmatized on account of the acts of an individual member; and

WHEREAS: Police work is of great importance and much depends upon an officer’s sagacity and diligence in order to be successful; and

WHEREAS: Many important changes have taken place in the organization of the police department, all calculated to bring the force up to a high standard of efficiency, since the abolishment of the old Watch system in 1861, including, but not limited to, the adoption of a police uniform; the Gamewell system of a police telephone and signal service, the patrol wagon and the ambulance service; and

WHEREAS: Policing has adjusted, and continues to adjust, to the city’s evolution as a result of industrialization, immigration, and urbanization; and

WHEREAS: Neighborhoods have been organized into policing precincts where individual officers determine how an area shall be policed; and

WHEREAS: New Haven’s police force continues to evolve in response to changes in policing procedure and philosophy, transportation, communications technologies in order to respond to issues throughout the city; and

WHEREAS: In the mid-twentieth century, the police academy at 710 Sherman Parkway was created to centralize training officers; and

WHEREAS: Nationwide in the sixties, Supreme Court decisions led to stricter policing protocols; and

WHEREAS: In 1973, the City built the Department of Police Service building located on Union Avenue in the Church Street Redevelopment Area; and

WHEREAS: The policing strategy of the time was the traditional rapid response to emergency calls, targeted law enforcement in high crime areas, and making arrests;

WHEREAS: Roughly two decades later, a community policing philosophy was instituted in the City of New Haven, which echoed the community service roots of the night watch, constables, and the precinct-based walking beats of the initial New Haven Police Department; and
WHEREAS: The city was divided into policing districts to facilitate neighborhood patrols, get officers familiar with their beats and form block watch management teams that included officers; and
WHEREAS: Community policing included sensitivity training devoted to earning the community’s trust, and developing sources from which to effectively investigate complaints; and
WHEREAS: Different chiefs of police, mostly not from the rank and file of the New Haven Police Department, subsequently moved away from prioritizing community policing by employing other targeted activity policing methods; and
WHEREAS: The public preferred the community policing style of policing and in response the New Haven Police Department emphasized walking beats, public events, interacting with community groups, and using substations for Management Team Meetings and community events; and
WHEREAS: Despite the progress made in recent years to return community policing to the Elm City there have been complaints about police misconduct; and
WHEREAS: These complaints resulted in requests for body cameras and a civilian review board; and
WHEREAS: The vast majority of New Haven’s officers do a great job in a difficult profession; and
WHEREAS: Sometimes officers may violate regulations, statutes or laws; and
WHEREAS: In those cases, the public has the right to file a complaint, to have that complaint investigated, to review the investigation to assure that the investigation was complete and thorough; and
WHEREAS: The appropriate vehicle to do this is the Civilian Review Board; and

WHEREAS: In the 2013 Charter Revision, the public voted to institute a Civilian Review Board; and

WHEREAS: With this new addition, New Haven can continue to boast of as trustworthy and efficient corps of peace officers as are to be found anywhere; and

WHEREAS, the City of New Haven and its residents depend for their peace and security upon the services of a professional municipal police department employed by the City of New Haven, and a police department authorized to act with the powers of a municipal police department employed by Yale University; and

WHEREAS, it is the unique power and privilege of police officers acting within the scope and course of their employment in these departments to use force, even deadly force, in making arrests; and

WHEREAS, the powers and duties of local police officers to interfere with, to restrict, and to abridge the liberty of citizens, guests and visitors to the City of New Haven, by way of arrests, searches, investigative stops, interrogations, and other means, are extensive, and are securely anchored in state and federal law; and

WHEREAS, the state and federal courts have shown an increasing reluctance to review the day-to-day exercise of police powers through the development of legal doctrines such as qualified immunity, limitations on supervisory liability, and other means that effectively deprive jurors and ordinary citizens from exercising effective oversight over police officers in their communities; and

WHEREAS, public confidence in law enforcement is undermined by secret, non-transparent and unaccountable police use of force and exercise of police powers generally, and police departments generally conduct internal reviews of civilian complaints in secret proceedings:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT:

The City of New Haven hereby enacts a Civilian Complaint Review Board, for the sole and exclusive purpose of assuring public confidence in the use of police powers in the City of New Haven by means of providing a mechanism for fair, independent, complete and transparent review of civilian complaints of alleged police misconduct.

Section 1. Civilian Review Board.

The Civilian Review Board has the authority to monitor and to review civilian complaints of police misconduct by police officers empowered to act with municipal police powers in the City of New Haven.

The office and the professional staff that provides assistance to the Civilian Review Board shall be a permanent part of, and permanently located in, the Office of the Corporation Counsel.

The Office of the Civilian Review Board shall be funded permanently by annual allotments for personnel, services, equipment, supplies, and facilities in an amount no less than that of similarly sized existing departments, offices, and agencies of the city.

The Office of the Civilian Review Board may not be eliminated by any action of any part of the executive branch city government

Section 2. Objectives.

The Civilian Review Board’s function is to create a public, transparent and impartial means by which to review and monitor any complaint of police misconduct against a police officer employed by a police department empowered to act with municipal police powers in the City of New Haven.

Section 3. Membership.

The Civilian Review Board shall consist of an odd number of members and shall, at a minimum, consist of members selected as follows: one member from each of the Police Districts in the City of New Haven, and, at least, three at-large members selected by the Board of Alders.

All members of the Board shall be residents and electors of the City of New Haven.

No member of the Civilian Review Board shall be a sworn officer of any police department or law enforcement entity.

No elected official shall be a member of the Civilian Review Board

Section 4. Appointment.

The Mayor shall nominate all members of the Civilian Review Board except the at-large members, who shall be nominated by the Board of Alders.

All nominees shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the Board of Alders.

Mayoral nominees shall be selected from among the names recommended by each Community Management Team which shall make said recommendation at a mandatory biennial meeting where it elects officers. Said recommendation shall be made from among the names submitted to each Management Team by community engagement organizations and similar neighborhood-based organizations such as Neighborhood Associations and Block Watches in each respective policing district.

The Board of Alders shall maintain a list of community engagement organizations or similar neighborhood-based organizations who are interested in offering names of prospective Board members.

If there is no recommendation to the Mayor from a Management Team or a Police District within ninety (90) days of a vacancy the Board of Alders in consultation with the Mayor will nominate an eligible resident elector to fill that vacancy.

Section 5. Term.

Except for the initial term of the representatives for the odd number policing districts which shall be three (3) years the term of office for each member shall be two (2) years. The terms shall be staggered as follows: initial appointments to odd-numbered police districts shall be for a period of three years only, with all other and all subsequent appointments to be of two years duration.

Section 6. Duties.

The Civilian Review Board shall have the following authority, and such other authority as may be set forth by ordinance:

To examine civilian complaints of alleged police misconduct against any police officer acting in the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers, and to monitor and review the processing of Internal Affairs complaints by any police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers;

To receive a copy of any civilian complaint of alleged police misconduct filed against any police officer acting in the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers within 48 hours of the filing of said complaint;
To receive, in writing, a copy of any findings of fact and/or recommended disposition of a complaint at the same time it is forwarded to Internal Affairs and before it is submitted for final action to the relevant chief of police, and to interview the officer(s) preparing such proposed findings of fact and/or recommended disposition;

To hear appeals from any civilian complainant within ninety (90) days of the completion of an internal affairs investigation by any police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers;

To require any police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers to investigate civilian complaints of alleged police misconduct in the event no investigation has been commenced after an initial complaint;

To require any police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers to re-open any closed investigation and to continue an investigation if, in the judgment of the Civilian Review Board, an initial investigation was incomplete, unfair or otherwise unresolved;
To recommend revisions to policies, the manner of processing civilian complaints, training protocols, and/or provisions of general orders or departmental standards, to any police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers;

To develop policies and procedures for the filing and processing of civilian complaints to the Civilian Review Board, for the operations of said Board, and for the training of members of said Board and the community-based agencies and organizations designated by said Board;

To develop of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Yale University Police Department designed to effectuate the goal of assuring transparent civilian review of any civilian complaint of alleged police misconduct by an officer employed by a police department acting within the City of New Haven pursuant to municipal police powers.

Section 7. Staff.

The Civilian Review Board shall have the authority to hire, with the approval of the Board of Alders, such staff as is necessary to perform the duties herein described, and to perform such other tasks as the board may, in its discretion, require.

Section 8. — Applicability of other laws.
Nothing in this article shall exempt any person from applicable provisions of any other laws of the city, state, federal or other appropriate jurisdiction.

Sec. 9 — Confidentiality of records.
The provisions of this chapter are intended to preserve and enhance the security of persons and property within the city. Where public release of certain information may put someone in jeopardy it shall be the intent of the Civilian Review Board to preserve the confidentiality where permitted by law.

Section 10 — Severability.
The provisions of this chapter are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion thereof, or the invalidity of the application of any portion of this chapter to any person or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this chapter, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.

Sec. 11. — Effective date.
The ordinance from which this article derives shall become effective upon passage.