CRB (Citizens Review Board) Reform
will be the subject of a Charlotte City Council discussion Monday, Nov. 11,
2013 at the regular meeting. Prior to
that, City Manager Ron Carlee at 5 p.m. in room 267 of the Government Center,
open to the public.
Citizens are encouraged to attend this presentation and demonstrate your desire for a fair process and better police/citizen relations. Even if all requested changes pass, there will be need for additional reform. To date, much of the information presented by the CRB has been deemed useless, and much has been incorrect.
Citizens brought up some relevant
points at the October 28thCouncil Meeting:
Corinne Mack asked: 1) Who appoints
members? 2) What is the criteria to be on board? and 3) Does the Board
membership reflect membership of the City and County?
She likened a weak reform to a guard
dog with no bite and called for including access to the IA files, and
presenting Officers to the board.
Dick Hester, President of the
Charlotte Chapter of the ACLU spoke on behalf of himself and the ACLU
Board. He acknowledged that police have
a difficult and dangerous task, working under stressful and dangerous
conditions. He called for the CRB
raising the level of trust between police and citizens. He also called for CRB to be an INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATIVE board, allowing fairness dealing with grievances.
Rodney Sadler expressed concerns about
the proposed changes: 1) They appear very modest and even if they get through
Council, would there even be real change?
2) He wants the CRB to have influence over the internal police policy
changes, and for that influence/those changes be binding, 3) that the CRB include
members who are “most often victims” of police misconduct, and 4) that CRB
receive full un-redacted, unedited versions of the IA files in order to have
actual oversight.
Sadler asked for actual power to
adjudicate, not just appellate power.
If you watch the video, at just before 24 minutes in, Councilman
John Autry asked City Attorney Hagemann: “Does the Citizen’s Review Board not see the Internal Affairs
file?”
City Attorney Robert Hagemann
answered, “Yes, it does.”
Autry replied, “It does (repeating
Hagemann’s answer)? Already?”
Hagemann said, “Yes. That will be more
explicit in the recommendations I will be making to you.” (Is that what you say to cover that your “yes”
answer is false?)
Autry continued: “So, is there some
difference between the Internal Affairs file and the Case File?”
Hagemann said, “I think there’s a misunderstanding.”
Kinsey then moved the meeting forward, avoiding clarification of “the misunderstanding.” This “misunderstanding” is
that Hagemann’s direct answer to Autry’s direct question was not true.
Outgoing Council Member Warren Cooksey
interjected about updates that had come to the Council Manager Relations
Committee he is on which has dealt with the Reform Proposals, then said “… We
did meet. We approved recommendations to
council today. What you should be
expecting to see on your future schedules is a dinner briefing on November 11th
and a request for Council action on November 25th.”
That didn’t answer the
question, either. Cooksey and Hagemann
know the fact that the full IA file is NOT provided to the CRB. For the City Attorney to seemingly misrepresent the facts about the law or legal process to the public, and for Mayor Kinsey, Cooksey, and others on the committee to
encourage and allow this, is wrong.
Various City of Charlotte staff and
Council/Mayor committee members have also tried to state that making changes to
the CRB would require action from the State Legislature. This does not appear to be true since the CRB is formed by City Ordinance (Ordinance Book 48, page 104, has Ordinance849 establishing the entire functioning of the CRB) . City Council has the full power to
change City Ordinance. True, there
is a state statute which
addresses only the personnel records involved in the Board decisions. There is no need for legislative action to
cause a 2-year delay in action.
The original establishment of CRB, in
Ordinance 849, begins:
ORDINANCE
NO. 849
AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE CODE
OF
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE BY THE ADDITION OF A
NEW
ORDINANCE CREATING A CITIZENS REMEW BOARD.
WHEREAS,
City Council finds that the citizens of the City of Charlotte
have
an interest in ensuring the thoroughness and fairness of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department disciplinary process; and
WHEREAS,
City Council
finds that the City has broad authority to
adopt
such
an ordinance and that a Citizens Review Board Ordinance is consistent with the broad
authority that the City has to execute the powers, duties, and privileges conferred upon
it by Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes and confirmed by the
Supreme Court of North Carolina in Homebuilders Association of Charlotte v.
City of Charlotte, 336 NC 37 (1994); and
WHEREAS,
City Council finds that under the authority of N.C.G.S. 160A- 168(c)(7), the
City Manager may, with the concurrence of City Council, release information
concerning the employment or nonemployment, promotion, demotion, suspension or
other disciplinary action, reinstatement, transfer, or termination of a city
employee and the reasons for that personnel action provided that before releasing
the information, the City Manager or Council shall determine in writing that
the release is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration
of city services or to maintaining the level and quality of city services;
Note
the reference to N.C.G.S. 160A- 168(c)(7) which does not only apply to CRB issues.
Another misleading item from the CRB Committee’s
last presentation to the Council-Manager Relations committee—and to the
public—was the statement the CRB would “Promote the
availability of advocates who would assist citizens through the Internal
Affairs investigative process and the CRB appeal process, including legal
representation, if requested, from organizations such as the Mecklenburg County
Bar Volunteer Lawyer Program” which was placed in an article
from the October 27th Charlotte Observer article “Committee to vote on Citizens Review Board.”
In reality, there’s currently no such Volunteer
Lawyer Program in existence, and it was never available for direct citizen
help. While it would be nice, putting
out such misinformation as another pipe dream concerning citizens’ rights in
this situation is irresponsible at best.
Citizens should have guaranteed access to legal counsel, provided by the
City, in order to be a fair process.
CRB Board Members are not required to
have any legal background or assured understanding of the law. Even if they did, they should act as fair and
impartial so the police officers would also receive fair hearings. Police have taxpayer-funded free legal help
from the City Attorneys, and from outside counsel hired at the discretion of
city staff when they feel it’s necessary.
Citizens should have no less.
When speaker Henry Gunn brought the
topic back to CRB, he asked for “transparency and fairness for everybody,
including the police officer and the citizen.”
He stated that he had been advocating for the open release of the
Internal Affairs files—which is not currently happening—to the CRB Board. See the detailed explanation contained within
a proposed letter CRB Reform Now has supplied to send to council members, shown
below.
Another big issue not covered by
speakers on October 28th is why Charlotte’s CRB standard of review
is excessively high, having produced NOT ONE RULING IN FAVOR OF A CITIZEN
in its existence.
Various City of Charlotte officials
have tried to propagate the myth that it’s a very low standard, based on “preponderance
of discretion” wording within the review.
However, that’s not the difficult part:
it’s the rest of the standard which is ridiculously high, “that the
Chief of Police is guilty of an ABUSE OF DISCRETION.” This standard is means a finding not based on
the facts of the case, nor even error on the part of the Chief, but that he
must have distinctly abused his discretion—that no
reasonable chief would ever be able to come to the conclusion exonerating or
failing to find any wrongdoing on the part of the officer—in order to move
forward. That fact, combined with the truth
that the CRB may only ask for IA files, and have stated they are not allowed to
see the whole investigative file, make the current Board completely
ineffectual.
See the CRB Reform Now site excellent explanation
of the standard of review:
No other review board has a standard as high as Charlotte’s Citizens
Review Board. Our Board must ask: “whether, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the chief of police abused his discretion.” This “abuse of
discretion” language forces the Board to go well beyond a simple “preponderance
of the evidence” inquiry and requires them to practically accuse the Chief of
Police of misconduct before finding in favor of a citizen. Our Board’s
“abuse of discretion” standard of review is unprecedented in any other
similarly situated review board ordinance across the country. In fact, no other
city, within the top 20 most populous cities in the United States, has a review
board ordinance even containing the term "abuse of discretion.”
See the coalition group’s call to
action posted here www.CRBreform.com :
Contact your Representatives
by E-mail and Mail as
instructed below
Patsy Kinsey-
pkinsey@charlottenc.gov
Patrick Cannon- mayorprotemcannon@gmail.com
David Howard- info@davidhowardclt.com
Claire Fallon- cfallon@charlottenc.gov
Beth Pickering- bpickering@charlottenc.gov
LaWana Mayfield- lmayfield@charlottenc.gov
Michael Barnes- barnesdistrict4@aol.com
Billy Maddalon- bmaddalon@charlottenc.gov
James Mitchell- jamesdistrict2@aol.com
John Autry- jautry@charlottenc.gov
Andy Dulin- adulin1@carolina.rr.com
Warren Cooksey- warren@warrencooksey.com
Patrick Cannon- mayorprotemcannon@gmail.com
David Howard- info@davidhowardclt.com
Claire Fallon- cfallon@charlottenc.gov
Beth Pickering- bpickering@charlottenc.gov
LaWana Mayfield- lmayfield@charlottenc.gov
Michael Barnes- barnesdistrict4@aol.com
Billy Maddalon- bmaddalon@charlottenc.gov
James Mitchell- jamesdistrict2@aol.com
John Autry- jautry@charlottenc.gov
Andy Dulin- adulin1@carolina.rr.com
Warren Cooksey- warren@warrencooksey.com
Dear Council Person:
Please ensure that any new Citizens Review Board law require that
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department give the Citizens Review Board a
copy of the applicable internal affairs file, in its entirety, at the very
beginning of each new case the CRB reviews. I have been following the
progress of the Citizens Review Board issue and feel that this is the only way
to currently guarantee that the CRB has all the facts before making a decision.
I understand that the Citizens Review Board presently has “access”
to the internal affairs file and may therefore obtain internal affairs
information upon request. However, I believe that this is not
enough. Only allowing “access” perpetuates the risks that:
1)
The Citizens Review Board will
not request relevant information because it is unaware of the information’s
existence;
2) Confusion will occur
due to imperfect or misunderstood requests;
3) The Citizens Review
Board will run out of time to make a decision before obtaining relevant
information;
4) Internal affairs file
information will not be distributed uniformly among different administrations
of City Officials and Councils; and
5) The Citizens Review
Board will not have all the facts to make a fully educated and fully informed
decision.
On the other hand, giving the Citizens Review Board the entire
internal affairs file from the beginning will be a simple fix that promises to
make the CRB process run more efficiently, by eliminating the time and expenses
associated with retrievals of requested information.
Citizens Review Board members undergo Citizens Academy training
and sign confidentiality agreements before becoming members. I trust
their ability to manage confidential information and their judgment in making
sound decisions, so long as they have all the facts. Please ensure that
they do have all the facts by requiring that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department give them the applicable internal affairs file, in its entirety, at
the beginning of each new case they review.
Sincerely,
Full text of the CharlotteMunicipal Code involving the CRB
(source: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=19970 ):
Charlotte, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 16 - POLICE >> ARTICLE II. - DEPARTMENT >> DIVISION 2. CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD >>
Sec. 16-56. Creation; composition; terms;
compensation; appointments; vacancies; quorum; removal.
(a) There is hereby established a citizens review board to be composed of 11 members:
five members to be appointed by the city council, three members to be appointed
by the mayor and three to be appointed by the city manager. The appointing
authorities shall ensure that the members of the board are representative of the
community.
(b) Members must be continually domiciled within the county and must
be registered to vote within the county.
(c) Board members shall attend and successfully complete the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department's Citizens'
Academy and receive training on relevant legal and policy issues as required by
the city manager. This training must be completed prior to any board appointee
serving as a member of the board.
(d) Individuals with a felony conviction or a class A1 misdemeanor
conviction shall not be eligible to serve on theboard. In addition, individuals with a
class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor conviction within three years of their
nomination for appointment shall be ineligible to serve. Further, conviction of
or a plea of nolo contendere to a felony, a class A1 misdemeanor, a class 1
misdemeanor, or a class 2 misdemeanor during the term of office shall
automatically terminate membership on the board, irrespective of any appeals. Board members
charged with a felony, a class A1 misdemeanor, a class 1 misdemeanor, or a
class 2 misdemeanor during a term of office shall be automatically suspended
until disposition of the charge, and a quorum shall be established from the
remaining membership.
(e) Prior to serving, each board member must sign a
confidentiality agreement that is satisfactory to the city and which shall
require that members maintain as confidential any information classified as
confidential by state law or otherwise classified as confidential by the city.
(f) The members shall serve staggered terms of office for three years,
with no member serving more than two consecutive terms.
(h) When a vacancy occurs, the original appointing authority shall
appoint a person to serve for the unexpired term of the vacant position.
(i) Six members shall constitute a quorum in order to hold business
meetings and hearings. Members are required to attend all business meetings and
hearings in accordance with the attendance policies promulgated by the city
council. Vacancies resulting from a member's failure to attend the required
number of meetings shall be filled as provided in this section.
(j) All members shall serve without compensation.
(k) Members of the board shall be subject to removal from office by a
two-thirds vote of the city council.
(Code 1985, § 16-34)
Sec. 16-57. Meetings.
(a) The citizens review board shall
hold regular meetings as scheduled by resolution of the board. The affirmative vote of a
majority, a quorum being present, shall be required before any recommendation
is made on any matter considered. A majority vote shall be required for any
decision made by the board.
(b) Special meetings may be called by the chairperson to carry out any
duties described in section 16-58 by giving each member
notice in writing, by providing personal notice, or by leaving notice at the
member's residence not less than 72 hours prior to the time set for the
meeting.
(Code 1985, § 16-35; Ord. No. 2344, § 1,
7-28-2003)
Sec. 16-58. Duties and responsibilities.
(2) Review appeals by the citizens who filed complaints of
disciplinary dispositions imposed by the chief of police or his designee relating
to allegations of misconduct against a sworn police officer. The board may
hear appeals of complaints regarding alleged violations of the following rules:
use of force, unbecoming conduct, and arrest, search and seizure. In addition,
the disposition of the review of
any discharge of a firearm by an officer which results in the death or injury
of a person may be appealed to this board by the person injured or the
next of kin if death occurs. When a death results and there is no next of kin,
any member of the city council or the chairperson of the community relations
committee may file an appeal pursuant to section 16-59. The disciplinary actions
that may be reviewed shall
include the findings of the chief of police that an allegation has been
categorized as: sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. The
dispositions that may be reviewed for the discharge of firearms shall include:
justified, not justified, or accidental. The board may review only appeals of citizen complaints
arising from incidents that occur after the effective date of the ordinance
from which this section derives. The board may not reviewappeals of decisions of the city
manager or the civil service board.
(3) Determine whether to hold an appeal hearing. The board may
hold an appeal hearing only when it appears, based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, that the disposition of the disciplinary charges entered by the chief
of police constituted an abuse of discretion by the chief of police.
(4) Conduct appeal hearings, which include receiving and evaluating
testimony and issuing findings of fact and recommendations to the chief of
police and the city manager. The duty and power of the board is to conduct an appeal
hearing and to determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the chief
of police abused his discretion by:
a. Finding in a disciplinary action that allegations were sustained,
not sustained, exonerated or unfounded; or
b. Finding in connection with the discharge of a firearm that the
officer's action was justified, not justified, or accidental.
(5) As required by state law, maintain as confidential all personnel
information to which the members gain access as a member of the board. In
addition, board members
shall be required to execute and adhere to a confidentiality agreement that is
satisfactory to the city.
(b) The citizens review board shall
promulgate rules and regulations to effect its exercise of authority under this
division and shall keep such rules and regulations on file with the city clerk.
(Code 1985, § 16-36)
Sec. 16-59. Appeal procedure.
(a) Under this division, all complaints will be investigated by the
police department. Upon completion of an investigation, the chief of police
shall, consistent with state law, notify the complainant by certified letter of
the disposition of the complaint. The complainant also shall be informed of his
right to appeal the decision of the department to the citizens review board.
(b) All appeals to the citizens review board must be filed in writing with
the city clerk's office. The request must state the reason for the appeal and
the nature of the incident. The citizen may seek the assistance of
the community relations committee in drafting and filing his appeal. The citizen must
file this appeal within seven calendar days of receiving written notice of the
disposition of the complaint. The citizen must provide a valid current
address for the purpose of all notifications required to be made pursuant to
this division.
(c) Upon receiving a request for an appeal hearing, the chairperson of
the board shall
direct the chief of police to prepare a summary of the case and forward the
summary to the chairperson of the board. A meeting of the boardwill be held
to discuss the request for appeal.
(Code 1985, § 16-37)
Sec. 16-60. Necessity for hearing.
(a) Upon receiving a request for an appeals hearing, a meeting of
the board will
be held within 30 calendar days of the request.
(b) In a public session, the chairperson shall indicate whether
the board has
decided to hold a hearing and, if so, shall announce the date, time and place
of the hearing. The chairperson shall notify the complainant and other involved
parties in writing of the decision and, if a hearing is to be held, also shall
advise all parties in writing of the reasons for the decision to hold a
hearing.
(Code 1985, § 16-38; Ord. No. 1779, § 1,
3-26-2001)
Sec. 16-61. Hearing procedures.
(a) If the citizens review board decides
to conduct a hearing, it shall be concluded within 30 calendar days of the date
of the decision to hold an appeal hearing. Should the complainant or the
department desire a hearing date other than that set by the board, the complainant or the department
shall submit a written request for a change of the hearing date, stating the
reason for the request. The chairperson shall approve or disapprove such
request, provided that such request is received by the board at least seven calendar days
prior to the date of the hearing. For good cause, the chairperson may continue
the hearing from time to time, but all appeals must be concluded within 30
calendar days from the date of the decision to hold an appeal hearing. The
hearing shall be conducted in a closed session, with at least six members of
the board present.
(b) All witnesses must testify under oath.
(d) All parties involved shall have the right to be represented by
counsel or any other person of their choice.
(e) The complainant shall offer evidence first in support of his
appeal. The department and officer shall have the right to cross examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, the department and officer shall
have the right to offer evidence, and the complainant shall have the right to
cross examine the department's and officer's witnesses. At the conclusion of
all the evidence, the complainant or his representative, followed by the
department and officer, may make a closing statement.
(f) Members of the board may question witnesses or request additional
information or further investigation at any point in the process.
(g) Members who, in a particular case, have a conflict of interest
shall not attend or participate in the hearing and decision-making process.
(h) Within ten calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing,
the board shall
issue its written findings of fact to the chief of police and the city manager
along with a recommendation. The findings of fact must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence and approved by a majority of the board who
were present at the hearing.
(Code 1985, § 16-39)
Sec. 16-62. Action by chief of police and
city manager.
(a) The chief of police shall review the findings of fact of
the citizens review board and
any other information at his disposal. The chief of police shall take such
action as he deems appropriate, consistent with state law and city policy. The
chief of police will then, within seven calendar days of the receipt of
the board's
recommendations, report his decision to the city manager.
(b) The city manager shall review the decision of the chief of
police and, within seven calendar days of the receipt of the decision of the
chief of police, take such action as he deems appropriate, consistent with
state law, and shall advise the chief of police of any intended action.
(c) The city manager shall notify all parties, including the citizens review board, of the
decision of the city manager consistent with state law and city policy. The
city manager also shall advise the city council of the outcome of the appeal.
Notifications made under this subsection must be made within seven calendar
days of the date that the decision of the city manager was initially
communicated to the chief of police.
(Code 1985, § 16-40)
Sec. 16-63. City clerk's duties; meeting
places; staff.
(a) Under this division the city clerk shall:
(2) Keep the minutes of its meetings;
(b) The city council shall provide sufficient and reasonable rooms and
use of public buildings for meetings and hearings of the board as may be necessary.
(Code 1985, § 16-41)
Sec. 16-64. Reports.
The citizens review board shall make a semiannual and an
annual report of its actions for each preceding year. These reports shall be
kept in the files of the board and a copy delivered to the chief of police,
city manager, city council and the community relations committee.
(Code 1985, § 16-42)
Here
is the complete text of the law allowing the CRB to review full personnel
files:
1997 SESSION
S.L. 1997-305
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. The
first six sentences of Section 4.61 of the Charter of the City of Charlotte,
being Chapter 713 of the 1965 Session Laws, as rewritten by Chapter 623 of the
1995 Session Laws, reads as rewritten:
"Sec. 4.61. There
is hereby continued a Civil Service Board for the City of Charlotte , to consist of five members, members and
two alternates; three members and one alternate to be appointed by
the City Council and two members and one alternate to be appointed by the
Mayor. Each member shall serve for a term of three (3) years. In case of a vacancy on the Board, the City
Council or the Mayor, as the case may be, shall fill such vacancy for the
unexpired term of said member. For the
purposes of establishing a quorum of the Board, any combination of Board
members and alternates totaling three shall constitute a quorum. All board
members and alternates shall attend regular meetings for the purposes of
meeting attendance policy and familiarity with Board business and
procedures. Alternates shall attend
hearings when needed due to scheduling conflicts of regular Board members and
shall vote only when serving in the absence of a regular Board member.
Attendance at meetings and continued service on the Board shall be governed by
the attendance policies established by the City Council. Vacancies resulting
from a member's failure to attend the required number of meetings or hearings
shall be filled as provided herein."
Section 2. Section
4.61(7)c. of the Charter of the City of Charlotte, being Chapter 713 of the
1965 Session Laws, as enacted by Chapter 449 of the 1979 Session Laws, reads as
rewritten:
"c. Appeal
hearings. Upon receipt of a citation for
termination from either Chief or upon receipt of notice of appeal for a
suspension from any Civil Service covered police officer or employee
of the Fire or Police Department, or firefighter, the
Board shall hold a hearing not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days from the
date the notice of appeal, or the citation, is received by the Board, and shall
promptly notify the officer of the hearing date. Termination hearings shall be
held with a panel of five made up of any combination of available members or
alternates, and suspension hearings shall be held with a panel of three made up
of any combination of available members or alternates. In the event an officer desires
a hearing at a date other than that set by the Board within the period set
forth above, such officer may file a written request for a change of hearing
date setting forth the reasons for such request, and the Chairman of the Board
is empowered to approve or disapprove such request; provided, that such request
must be received by the Board at least seven days prior to the date set for the
hearing. For good cause, the Chairman of
the Board may set a hearing date other than within the period set forth above,
or may continue the hearing from time to time."
Section 3. G.S.
160A-168(c) reads as rewritten:
"(c) All
information contained in a city employee's personnel file, other than the
information made public by subsection (b) of this section, is confidential and
shall be open to inspection only in the following instances:
(1) The employee or
his duly authorized agent may examine all portions of his personnel file except
(i) letters of reference solicited prior to employment, and (ii) information
concerning a medical disability, mental or physical, that a prudent physician
would not divulge to his patient.
(2) A licensed physician
designated in writing by the employee may examine the employee's medical
record.
(3) A city employee
having supervisory authority over the employee may examine all material in the
employee's personnel file.
(4) By order of a
court of competent jurisdiction, any person may examine such portion of an
employee's personnel file as may be ordered by the court.
(5) An official of
an agency of the State or federal government, or any political subdivision of
the State, may inspect any portion of a personnel file when such inspection is
deemed by the official having custody of such records to be inspected to be
necessary and essential to the pursuance of a proper function of the inspecting
agency, but no information shall be divulged for the purpose of assisting in a
criminal prosecution (of the employee), or for the purpose of assisting in an
investigation of (the employee's) tax liability. However, the official having custody of such
records may release the name, address, and telephone number from a personnel
file for the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation.
(6) An employee may
sign a written release, to be placed with his personnel file, that permits the
person with custody of the file to provide, either in person, by telephone, or
by mail, information specified in the release to prospective employers,
educational institutions, or other persons specified in the release.
(7) The city
manager, with concurrence of the council, or, in cities not having a manager,
the council may inform any person of the employment or nonemployment,
promotion, demotion, suspension or other disciplinary action, reinstatement,
transfer, or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel
action. Before releasing the
information, the manager or council shall determine in writing that the release
is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of city
services or to maintaining the level and quality of city services. This written determination shall be retained
in the office of the manager or the city clerk, and is a record available for
public inspection and shall become part of the employee's personnel file.
(8) In order to
facilitate citizen review of the police disciplinary process, the city manager
or the chief of police, or their designees, may release the disposition of
disciplinary charges against a police officer and the facts relied upon in
determining the disposition to the person alleged to have been aggrieved by the
officer's actions or to that person's survivor and to members of the citizens'
review board. Board members shall
maintain as confidential all personnel information to which they gain access as
a member of the Board. Each member of
the Board shall execute and adhere to a Confidentiality Agreement that is
satisfactory to the City. For purposes
of this subdivision, the 'disposition of disciplinary charges' includes
determinations that the charges are sustained, not sustained, unfounded,
exonerated, classified as an information file, or classified as any other disciplinary
disposition category subsequently adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department. In the event that the
citizens' review board hears an appeal of a police disciplinary case, the
disposition of the case, as defined in this subdivision, as well as the facts
and circumstances of the case, may be released by the city manager or the chief
of police, or their designees, to any person whose presence is necessary to the
appeals hearing as determined by the chief of police or his designee.
(9) That portion
of a video or audio tape produced by a mobile video recorder (MVR) in a police
department vehicle which recorded an event resulting in a citizen complaint
against a police officer may be reviewed by the person alleged to have been
aggrieved by the officer's actions."
Section 4. This
act applies only to the City of Charlotte .
Section 5. This
act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this
the 17th day of July, 1997.
s/ Dennis A. Wicker
President of the
Senate
s/ Harold J. Brubaker
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Here is a link
and the text of the CRB Agenda item for tomorrow night:
2. Citizens Review Board Briefing
Committee Chair: Warren Cooksey
Resources: Ron Carlee, City Manager’s Office
Eric Campbell, City Manager’s Office
Bob Hagemann, City
Attorney’s Office
Chief Rodney Monroe,
Police
Willie Ratchford,
City Manager’s Office
Time: 45 minutes
Synopsis
On April 1, 2013, the City Council requested that the
Council-Manager Relations
Committee review the current Citizens Review Board
ordinance. As a part of that
review, a task force including members of the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community
Relations Committee and the Citizens Review Board formed to
gather feedback
from the community regarding the Citizens Review Board
process.
On September 23, 2013, the Citizens Review Board Task
Force reported its
findings and recommendations, and the Council-Manager
Relations Committee
requested the City Manager’s review. The ordinance amendment
is drawn from a
review of the task force report and the full record related
to their work. The City
Manager’ recommendation was developed in consultation with
the Attorney’s
Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Community
Relations staff, and
others.
The Council-Manager Relations Committee voted unanimously
(Cooksey, Howard,
and Mitchell) to approve the task force recommendations at
their September 23,
2013 meeting.
The recommended changes are based on the important concept
that the Citizens
Review Board appeal process is and should remain an
administrative review of
personnel decisions made by the Chief of Police; this is
consistent with a
recommendation of the task force that the Citizens Review
Board maintain its
appellate structure. Other proceedings, civil, or criminal
litigation as well as the
Civil Service Board remain available to the public and to
police officers.
In addition to the substantive proposed amendments, other
changes are set forth
in the proposed draft ordinance, which is intended to
enhance the procedural
operations of the Citizens Review Board consistent with task
force
Bonus note: City Clerk Stephanie Kelly is now only one month behind publishing the City Council Agendas. This is a big improvement over the 4 month
lag which has plagued the site. However,
it’s still not acceptable.
