Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #05 - First Reading OrdinanceF � � ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW OFFICE IN TUE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE POLICE CHIEF, TO BE KNOWN AS THE "OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL COMPLIANCE" (OPC); PROVID- ING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF SAID OFFICE BY THE CITY MANAGER AFTER SELECTION BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE, AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THREE INVESTIGATORS, TO BE RECOMMENDED BY A MEMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH IS ALSO EING ESTABLISHED BY THE TERMS OF THIS ORDIN NCE, AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY THE CITY MANt.GER OF ONE SECRETARY TO BE SELECTE BY SAIW DIRECTOR; PROVIDING FOR THE OPERA ON OF THE OPC AND PRESCRIBING THE FUNCTION AND DUTIES THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROV ION AND A SEVERA- BILITY CLAUSE. Joseph R. Grassie June 11, 1980 City Manager Report of Police Complaint Review Committee Police Complaint Review Committee (":embers Listed Below) The Committee established to review the City of Miami's police complaint system has concluded its task and recommen-'s the following augmentation to the current system. Establishment of an Office of Professional Compliance The Committee recommends the establishment of an Office of Professional Compliance (OPC) in the Office of the Chief of Police. This office will not be a part of any existing division in the Police Department, but will be a new function that reports directly to the Chief of Police, or in his absence, his designated representative. The OPC will be a citizen's advisory group that will observe and participate in the internal investigations of abusive treatment complaints and shooting incidents alledged against police officers. The OPC will be staffed by a Director, three investigators and one secretary and answerable solely to the Chief of Police. It should be clearly understood that the OPC staff will be unclassified civilians and not sworn personnel. They will be directly involved in all cases of abusive treatment and shooting incidents as active observers and limited participants. Their participation is limited because of the technical and legal req uirments of an investigation; however, their observation of an investigation is unlimited. These parameters are in no way designed to curb the OPC staff from being involved in investigations. Instead, it is a system designed to assure that the integrity of investiga- tions is maintained in accordance with state law, rules of evidence, prescribed police procedures and employees' rights. Joseph Grassie -2- June 11, 1980 City Manager OPC staff will be privileged to all records and evidence and shall be encouraged to provide input to any investi- gation by expressing concerns or recommendations to sworn counterparts. If at any time, an OPC investigator is of the opinion that the course of an investigation is incomplete, biased or otherwise deficient, he or she shall report his or her concern to the OPC Director who will have immediate access to the Chief of Police for problem resolution. If the concerns of the OPC are not resolved at this level, the Director of OPC shall bring the matter to the attention of an Assistant City Manager appointed by the Manager to hear such disputes. An Assistant City Manger is chosen instead of the City Manager because the City Manager will be in a position of conflict of interest if he has to make the final decision in a Civil Service hearing that may arise as a result of the incident being investigated. The OPC staff must meet some of the same standards as a candidate for police officer and shall be subject to back- ground investigations and polygraph examinations. These requirements are necessary to ensure that only high caliber personnel will be privy to information that is sensitive and possibly criminal in nature. Additionally, candidates should meet established educational and experience requirements and have high moral character and strong civic commitment. The OPC Director shall be selected by the City Manager and Chief of Police from among three candidates recommended by the OPC Committee. The composition of this committee shall consist of one representative of the Fraternal Order of Police, two representatives of the community, one represen- tative of the Chief of Police and an Assistant City Manager designated by the City Manager. The three investigators shall be representative of the ethnic composition of the City. They :hall be selected by the OPC Director and Chief of Police from among nine can- didates recommended by the OPC Committee. These nine can- didates will consist of three candidates for each of the three investigator positions. Joseph R. Crassie -3- ,June 11, 1980 City Manager If none of the candidates are acceptable, the decision - making parties must provide the OPC Committee with a written explanation of their reasons for r jection. The Committee shall then commence to provide tie decision - makers with additional candidates. JJ OPC personnel can be removed from their positions by the City Manager pursuant to the recommendation of the Chief of Police after consultation with the OPC Director and OPC Committee. To ensure that the OPC staff is functioning in compliance with its intended purposes, the OPC Committee shall desig- nate two community persons to monitor the OPC process. These monitors will be non -paid observers; however, they will be paid for normal expenses associated with their activities. Although a budget along with official job descriptions and salary ranges have not been established, it is estimated that the Director's salary would he approximately $25,000, the three investigators' salary would be approximately $20,000 each and one secretary at 510,000 for a total annual salary cost of $95,000. If the CPC concept is implemented on July 1, 1980, the estimated salary cost- for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1930 will be approximately $25,200 including FICA. The Recommended Comrlairit Procesq The key augments to the existing police complaint prccess are: 1. Citi::en input and part ici.pati.ori during the inver•t.i.1r,iti.on. 2. Ease of citizeris to complain. 3. Periodic 001P.MuniCat ior, With complainants about the st:atu-; of- th(!ir c,cmplaint7. W W Joseph R. Grassie City Manager IME June 11, 1980 As stated earlier, citizens in the form of the OPC staff will be involved in the investigation of alleged police abuse from the inception of the complaint to the conclu- sion of the findings. This citizen or civilian involvement is different from tra('.itional types of civilian review where the involvement is after the completion of the investigation. With regard to making, it easier for citizens to file com- plaints against police officers, the Police Complaint Review Committee recommends that outreach centers be designated in the six (6) police sectors. The PCRC felt that some citizens are afraid to go to the Police Department to complain about the actions of police officers and that the outreach centers would give them a comfortable environment to exercise their rights to complain. The outreach centers will not be a substitute for the complaint center located at the police facility, but rather an expansion of that center. Hopefully, the community's relationships with these centers will enhance the community's confidence in the police complaint process and the Police Department. One of the complaints from the community about the police complaint process is that they receive very little feedback about complaints ak"ainst police officers and what little feedback: they do receive is not. understandable. This complaint results in a community perception that the Police Department is tryinfT to cover-up or whitewash their investigations. In an attempt to avoid th.i:; perception, the PCRC recommends feedback at ever-1 major sta)7,e of the inve:;tirTation in language that is under:;tandablc to lay people. In urun�ary form, the f 011Cjjinr*. i s a stj1p-by-stf1D outline of the proposed police complaint. procedures that would include citi:,.en involvement: 1 . C i r. iaen f ilk, complaint pcl i u(' officer at rip c)ufrt2ach Joseph R. Grassie -5- June 11, 1980 City Manager 2. The outreach center calls the Office of Professional Compliance (OPC) and Internal Security. 3. OPC and Internal Security report to the out- reach center and takes complaint from complain- ant in the presence of the outreach center representative. The complaint is written on a three-part form. A copy is given to the complain- ant, the outreach center and the original is retained by Internal Security. 4. Once the case is assigned for investigation, a registered letter establishing a time frame for the completion of the investigation is sent to the complainant and the outreach center. 5. The investigation is conducted and a report of the findings is prepared and submitted to the complainant and outreach center. It should be noted that if it is determined that the investi- gation will last longer than originally planned, the complainant and outreach center will be in- formed by registered letter and given a new time frame. NOTE: The results may fall into one of three categories: (1) Unfounded (2) Sustained (2) Not Sustained. Unfounded means an officer has been exonerated of guilt. Sustained means an officer has been found guilty. Nest sustained means an officer has not been found guilty or not guilty. 6. A registered letter is st2nt to the complainant and outreach ,enter informing*, them of the con- clusi.nn^ of th(,. invest -!.Ration. Joseph R. Grassie -6- June 11, 1980 7. If the complaint is sustained, disciplinary actions are recommended by the officer's superiors and forwarded to the officer. The complainant and outreach center are informed of this decision by registered mail. 8. The officer may request that his case be reviewed by the Departmental Disciplinary Review Board (DDRB) which reviews the case and has the option to concur with the disciplinary recommendation or substitute its recommendation. This DDRB recommendation is forwarded to the Chief of Police. The com- plainant and outreach center are informed of this decision by registered mail. 9. The Chief of Police has the option to concur with the DDRB's recommendation or impose a substitute disciplinary action. 10. The officer is informed of the Chief's decision and may choose to appeal the decision to the Civil Service Board. The complainant and outreach center are informed of this decision by registered mail. 11. Should the officer choose a Civil Service hearing, the Civil Service Board will review the case and provide a verdict to the City i;anager. The complainant and outreach center are informed of this decision by registered mail. 12. The City Manager reviews the case and makes a decision. Iic may decide to accept the recom- mendation of the Civil Service Board or impose alternate actions. The complainant and outreach center are informed of this decision by registered mail. „ Joseph R. Grassie -7- June 11, 1980 City Manager Background of Committee The Police Complaint Review Committee is comprised of two community people (Ms. Georgia Jones Ayers and Dr. Eduardo Padron), one representative of the Fraternal Order of Police (Mr. Richard Witt), a representative of the Chief of Police (Mr. Robert Warshaw) and a represen- tative of the City Manager (Mr. Howard Gary). The composition of the committee was designed to ensure input from all parties that are affected by the City of Miami's police complaint procedures. The approach taken by the Committee in fulfilling its goals was to (1) gain a knowledgeable understanding of the City's existing complaint review process (2) determine that the present complaint review process needs modifica- tion (3) review and discuss the pros and cons of alter- native complaint review processes and (4) develop a recommended complaint review process for the City of Miami that is reasonably acceptable to all. interested parties. The Committee was concerned that the existing police complaint process was perceived by the community as unsatisfactory --a system that is designed to protect police officers rather than to determine guilt or innocence based on an objective review of all the facts. This concern was based on the Committee members knowledge of the community as well as the community outcry as a result of the LaFleur and McDuffie incidents which occurred during the Committee's deliberations. A review of the existing complaint system reveals that such a perception is at times understandable. Generally, citizens are_ not aware of the workings of the review pro- cess and the time it takes to complete an investigation. Some conclude that the system is attempting to whitewash the allegations. Secondly, citizens are not informed on a periodic basis about the status of complaints, which further accerbates the negative perception. Thirdly, once a citizen receives feedback on complaints, the information is very vague and not understandable to lay people. Finally no mech- anism exists for citizens to participate during the investi- gation or after the investigation has been completed. A Joseph R. Grassie City Manager -8- ,June 11, 1980 r In its deliberations the committee reviewed the other plans recommended as a result of the efforts of the Dade County Criminal Justice Council. While each of these plans had merit, the committee endeavored to find the process that would address the specific needs and demographics of the City of Miami. It was difficult for the committee to evaluate the viability of any other plans since only one has actually been implemented and the others are limited to the conceptual under- standing of their authors. An additional alternative, the "Chicago Plan" was closely scrutinized by the committee and many of its provisions were viewed favorably. It is the opinion of' the committee that the Office of Pro- fessional Compliance is a progressive, innovative avenue that addresses the needs of the community and the concerns of the police. Though the procedures inherent in this process do not incumber many of the characteristics generally associated with traditional "civil review boards", the commitment of the City to include citizens in the actual investigatory process should be considered as a significant step on the part of the City to bridge the relationship between the police and the public. APPROVED bY: eorgia fors-i.yerr, Community Representative Eduardo Padron, Ph .1' . , Cnmmun i t.v Representat i v�, i R�> ert i•.ars 1��•�, I:r;ecut l vc� r'�:,., 1 .-t,zn r to Lt. Ric1},3r1 lift, irr_itornal Order o: Police Howard at(J