The Civilian Review Authority in Minneapolis was established in response
to an almost massive mobilization in the African American, Native
American, and progressive activist community in the late 1980s, in
response to an out-of-control police department. The "straw that broke
the camel's back" was the police shooting in the back Tycel Nelson, a 17
years old and unarmed. The perpetrator, Dan May, was of course not
prosectued or disciplined. In fact, he was awarded a medal. I
participated in the Coalition's committee that drafted a proposal for a
civilian review board. Even though we modified our final proposal to
some degree to be "realistic," it was still very different from the city
council's greatly watered-down proposal. Although i did not save copies
of the proposal, it would be interesting to compare what community
activists though would be acceptable, to what actually occurred.
I will list some of the weaknesses of the Minneapolis Civilian
Authority, but it is more important to realize that even a serious
civilian review board is not by any means a sufficient solution to the
structural problems that are behind the police oppression of certain
communities.
Weaknesses of the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority:
] - [the often-mentioned] lack of subpoena power. Witnesses to
incidents cannot be required to testify, which is a basic tool available
in most court or administrative proceedings. Therefore, witnesses
without a connection to the vicitm in the case or who might even be
partial toward the police, are unlikely to voluntarily testify against
the police.
- the Civilian Review Authority (CRA) cannot discipline police
officers. It can only recommed to the police chief that an officer
should be disciplined. If the CRA does find a violation warranting
discipline, the CRA does not even recommend the level of discipline.
The chief is free to disregard the CRA's findings. Even if the chief
does discipline the officer, he has complete discretion over what kind
of discipline to impose, ranging from a reprimand to termination. Since
the CRA does not even recommend the actual discipline, there is no
record if the type of discipline is at variance with how serious the CRA
viewed the violation.
- The Civilian Review Authority board members who hear the cases and
hire the executive director and staff, are appointed by the city
council. Since the Minneapolis city council has been mostly partial
toward the police point of view, they are more likely to appoint people
favorable to the police. They are very unlikely to appoint anyone who
has a real critical perspective about the police. The solutions include
electing a different city council, or having the voters elect the CRA
commissioners.
- The CRA investigators are usually former police officers. If the
investigators are partial to the police, it is less likely that a case
will even be brought before the board for a hearing (most are not), or
vigorously prosecuted.
- There is a lack of funding to conduct adequate investigations.
Adequate funding has usually been an issue for the CRA. Since a
thorough investigation of police misconduct usually requires a lot of
time and effort in trying to sort out the differing versions, a small
staff with a heavy caseload will be unable to do enough investigation to
find the "truth." For example, doing more detailed and follow up
interviews, searching for witnesses, testing physical evidence, etc. are
unlikely to occur.
- Complainants are not entitled to a hearing. Most complainants never
get a hearing, or their "day in court." The executive director has the
discretion to determine whether their is "probable cause" to pursue any
action. The investigators and executive director can decide on their
own that they believe the police officer or do not believe the
complainant, and summarily dismiss the case. Although such a decision
can be appealed to the board, the only information available to the
board without a hearing is what is provided by the staff who decided not
to pursue the case.
- The CRA does have any role in making the police department rules and
policies and pratices, but is confined to deciding whether a specific
case has any violation of existing policies. Therefore, even if a
police officer's action is wrong, nothing can be done unless it violates
a police department policy. The CRA cannot do anything to add or change
policies. It is not empowered to conduct any research or investigation
into underlying police practices, or how they could be improved.
Although a stronger CRA might have bring justice to some more
individual cases, and broader powers to review police department policie
could lead to broader reforms, the CRA cannot solve the following
problems:
- The imbalance of skills and power prevents police misconduct from
being proven. The police officers are professional witnesses who are
trained on how to report and justify their actions. Most complainants
are not experienced in such matters. Since most incidents involve the
police officers' word against the complainant's and possibly their
friends or relatives, it is unlikely that any CRA will usually find
enough evidence to establish police misconduct in most cases.
- A CRA cannot address the police role in society which, to paraphrase
former police chief Tony Bouza, consists of keeping the oppressed
classes down. Given the role that police are assigned, it is inevitable
that people will be abused discrminatorily.
Jordan Kushner
Ward 8
Many Crows wrote:
>
> Maybe somebody out there, maybe Jordan or others knowledgeable about the
>
> civilian review board could give us all an overview of their
> powers...strengths, weakness, and any suggestions to a new city
> council.....
> It seems to me they do not have much power or authority.
> thanks in advance,
>
> Robert Yorga
> new3
>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
