More Pretend Accountability from Charlotte City Council

Charlotte’s City Council is on the same train: pretend to do something that will improve police conduct and accountability, spend a ton of our money to do it, call it ‘mission accomplished’ and pat themselves on the back for a harmonious, diverse city.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Sound familiar?  Well, there’s a reason for that.  At tonight’s City Council Meeting, they will vote to approve $380K to pay the POLICE FOUNDATION to consult and review “the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s policies, procedures, and its relationship with the community.”

Doesn’t that sound nice?  What is your confidence level any real change or accountability will happen?  Wait—before you answer that question, did you know who the Police Foundation has acquired as their latest part of a “highly qualified team with extensive expertise and experience in police-community relations; critical incident review, best practice in policing and law enforcement operations, use of force, implicit bias, and specialized police responses to people with mental illness; problem-oriented policing and internal investigations?”

RODNEY MONROE!

That’s right, our own former Police Chief Rodney Monroe, who lied about having the required degree in Criminal Justice to get his job, lied about knowing about misconduct by Marcus Jackson (the former CMPD officer who drove around in uniform pulling over and sexually assaulting women) until Monroe’s signature on documents was leaked… then lied again until a second signature by Monroe was leaked…

Monroe, who exclaimed a man was “viciously knocking” on a door at 2:30 a.m., then changed course and charged Officer Kerrick within hours, then fled town like a coward before the trial…

Monroe, who has a terrible history of treating officers and citizens with zero accountability…

Monroe is the Police Foundations latest shining example of a “highly qualified team” that City Council will claim is bringing an OUTSIDE, IMPARTIAL VIEW to CMPD.

Great.  Surely, this will be money well spent.

City Council Agenda Item for tonight, 11/14/2016

28. Police Foundation Consulting Services

Action:

A.     Approve a contract in the amount of $379,504 with the Police Foundation for consulting services focused on reviewing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s policies, procedures, and its relationship with the community, and

B.     Authorize the City Manager to approve price adjustments and amend the contract consistent with the City’s business needs and the purpose for which the contract was awarded.

Staff Resource(s):

Chief Kerr Putney, Police

Ann Wall, City Manager’s Office

Explanation

§ The Police Foundation is an independent, non-governmental, research organization based in

Washington, D.C.

- Incorporated in 1970, the Police Foundation is the oldest nationally known, non-profit, non-partisan, and non-membership driven organization dedicated to improving policing in America.

- Their mission is to advance policing through innovation and science.

- The Police Foundation has extensive experience in the assessment and evaluation of law enforcement response to critical incidents:

§ U.S. Department of Justice Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of St.

Louis County Police Department by Cooperative Agreement by the Office of

Community Oriented Policing, U.S. Department of Justice,

§ U.S. Department of Justice Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of the

North Charleston Police Department by Cooperative Agreement by the Office of

Community Oriented Policing, U.S. Department of Justice,

§ Critical incident review and after action assessment of law enforcement response to  the San Bernardino Terrorist Shooting, and

§ Critical incident review and after action assessment of the law enforcement response to the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting.

- The Police Foundation has assembled a highly qualified team with extensive expertise and experience in police-community relations; critical incident review, best practice in policing and law enforcement operations, use of force, implicit bias, and specialized police responses to people with mental illness; problem-oriented policing and internal investigations.

§ The Police Foundation will conduct an independent assessment of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s (CMPD) policies, procedures, relationship with the community, and CMPD’s work following the September 20, 2016 officer-involved shooting incident.

§ The assessment will include input from a diverse group of community members and will result in recommendations.

§ The Police Foundation will work closely with the community, as well as share all deliverables to the community such as compiled reports, recommendations, and communication strategies.

§ The scope of work will include three phases:

- Phase 1 - Development of the Community Advisory Board and Project Strategy: The Police

Foundation will develop a Community Advisory Board of key Charlotte stakeholders to include government, business, and community leaders.

- Phase 2 - Community Dialogue and Input: The Police Foundation will organize structured listening sessions with members and leaders of the community in conjunction with CMPD, city leaders, and Advisory Board members.

- Phase 3 - Critical Incident Review of CMPD’s Response to Protests and Demonstration: The Police Foundation will use its proven model of critical incident review and technical  assistance to review CMPD’s response to protests and demonstrations with a focus on rebuilding relationships between the community and the police.

§ CMPD will strategically implement both short and long term recommendations and demands in response to The Police Foundation, The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and

Community Activist Groups.

§ Contract expenditures are $379,504.

Fiscal Note

Funding: General Capital Reserves

From PoliceFoundation.Org :

Executive Fellows at the Police Foundation are current or retired executive-level members of criminal justice organizations whose knowledge, experience and skills help advance the Foundation’s mission. They serve as members of the President’s Practitioner Advisory Board to help ensure the Foundation is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the practical needs of law enforcement organizations. In addition, executive fellows serve as the Foundation’s regional representatives in national and international settings. Executive Fellows work on specific projects, represent the Foundation in meetings and conferences, and develop substantive thought pieces about the pressing issues facing policing. They serve for terms determined by the Foundation’s president.

Executive-level individuals interested in becoming an Executive Fellow should e-mail a brief statement of interest outlining their experience and skills at advancing policing and a copy of their resume directly to the Foundation President.   

See an embellished resume here:

Chief Rodney Monroe(Ret.)

IRRESPONSIBLE "COMMENTARY" FROM THE UPOR

This "commentary" headline is featured today in the local newspaper. It may be a strong example of why the value of the Charlotte Observer and publisher have tanked.  And check out the "highlights" list, too.

For the newspaper to allow this race-baiting, pandering column of biased accusations to run is entirely irresponsible, in the opinion of Citynewswatch editorial staff.  

ERIC FRAZIER

 

AUGUST 6, 2015

Commentary: Jonathan Ferrell faced three officers; only the white one used deadly force

Video in Jonathan Ferrell case is inconclusive

Two black officers joined Wes Kerrick on scene

No coincidence the white officer was one to use deadly force

Please read that 'highlight' again:
"No coincidence the white officer was one to use deadly force"

Frazier goes on to explain how white people will view a video of a tragic night and how black people will view it.  Frazier quotes about a "big bad black man," but isn't quoting anyone.  

Frazier continues:

I have always suspected that Kerrick’s biggest hurdle at trial wouldn’t necessarily be the video, but the actions of the two police officers who joined him that night.

The standard at issue in this trial is whether a reasonable officer, confronted with the same circumstances, would take the same action Kerrick did.

Usually, that other “reasonable officer” is a hypothetical. Here, there are two other real officers.

And they are both African-American.

One, Officer Adam Neal, didn’t pull any weapon. He testified that he expected a violent confrontation, but figured on subduing Ferrell by fighting him.

Beginning with "I have always suspected hat Kerrick's biggest hurdle at trial wouldn't necessarily be the video..." Frazier exposes he already decided what happened and he makes no logical argument or explanation for arriving there.  He believes the video is a problem for the officer and not for the prosecution.

  One valid point

The only point worth examining here is that Officer Adam Neal testified (and who knows if this is an accurate description of his thoughts at the time?) that he "figured on subduing Ferrell by fighting him."  

It seems too many officers, whether out of fear or malice or lack of experience or training, are too quick to pull deadly weapons instead of learning to avoid many situations or to use their bodies and voices to control some situations, when the option exists.  SOMETIMES it's possible to hang back and talk with someone you are responding to, rather than immediately deciding to use force and try to force compliance.  Some situations would turn deadly fast for officers if they don't have weapons out and ready.  Please don't bother to write to say you worry for officers being killed in the line of duty, with other weapons or their own.  That concern is a fact.  The issue is that for other situations, there's possibly lack of training, poor training, poor preparation to gain experience on the street and in other venues before being released onto patrol, or other causes.  And there are times officers would die if they didn't react fast enough.

But not a valid reaction

If a "journalist" decides that the police department is full of racists who will choose to shoot black men, or decides the police department is hiring people not suited for police work, then investigate and report on that.

Frazier says there were two other officers who acted differently in the same position.  But they were NOT in the same position as Kerrick, who had a man suddenly jump in his direction running at him, for whatever reasons are currently unknown to the general public and may be unknown to anyone but Ferrell.  

Frazier race-baiting

And there is no evidence that Kerrick had any animosity toward black people or wanted to harm Ferrell, despite the terrible outcome.  Why does this newspaper continue to try to cause feelings of racial hate and blame in a case when that is not remotely apparent as causation?  Why not look at police training, training the public on what to do when confronted by police (ie, not charge at them) and work on community relations in the first place?  The only attention paid by many in local media is to stir up racial issues because there is no other story they bother to pursue. It's lazy. It's dangerous. It's inexcusable.  

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/eric-frazier/article30247107.html#storylink=cpy

Peace
We can hope the full truth about this incident comes out by the end of the trial, but to make up an accusation of racism on the part of one officer and pump it out for headlines that will attract a bunch of people to "comment"-fight is a pathetic way to operate, personally or professionally.

Please stop taking the lowest, easiest road possible and do some journalism.

City of Charlotte Won't Release Records about CMPD Officer Arrests, Internal Affairs, Policies

Citynewswatch decided to publish a response from City of Charlotte Attorney Robert Hagemann received after asking City Manager Ron Carlee to give correct information about arrests of CMPD officers and Internal Affairs complaints about CMPD officers.

While Citynewswatch sent a request for comment and additional information only earlier today to Carlee, Hagemann answered in his stead and made it clear he had no intention of providing the public records or requisite legal reasons for denial.  He simply expressed a personal “satisfaction” that others have been “appropriately responsive” to requests.

The only appropriate response to a Public Records request is to provide the records or a correct reason to deny or provide redacted records. 

Redacted Internal Affairs complaints have been denied completely without explanation.

After plenty of time to respond, the list of police officers who have been arrested was stated as complete by CMPD Public Information Officer, but proven incorrect.  This causes concern over how many other arrests may be yet undiscovered, as well as how much of the disciplinary action list provided may be true or may be missing.   Hagemann has ignored requests for policies and other regular records.  He wants an attorney to call and have a chat with our city's attorney.  A conversation isn't documentation.  It doesn't meet the public record requirement, either.  The request submitted does not need clarification.  It needs to be met.

How much longer will the City Council allow the City Manager to run the staff in this manner over issues as serious as crimes alleged or committed by police officers?  Please see the full list of information requested, including policies designed to promote transparency and fairness within the ranks of the police department. 

Citynewswatch will post responses – or lack of responses – as they develop.

citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>

From:  Citynewswatch.blogspot.com

To: City of Charlotte Manager Ron Carlee

Date:  November 10, 2014

CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

Dear City Manager Carlee,

Our Editorial Staff has received information that CMPD Information Officer Brian Cunningham gave information responsive to a Public Records Request which was either intentionally false, missing obvious information, or which may contain numerous false or missing pieces of information about criminal charges against Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Officers during 2013 and 2014 and disciplinary action taken related to those arrests and other disciplinary action. Specifically, multiple arrests of officers are known to be missing from the list provided as "complete" so all the information provided is suspect.

Also, requests for redacted copies of Internal Affairs complaints and redacted copies of disposition of those complaints have been denied by Brian Cunningham and CMPD Attorney Judy Emken.  City of Charlotte Attorney Robert Hagemann was contacted October 23, 2014 on these issues and it appears you have been copied prior to this as well, but records have not been forthcoming.

1.      Initially,  please provide immediate comment on:

a.      Why Senior Attorney Robert Hagemann has not even responded to requests for Public Records, and

b.      Why the Public Information Officer for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department is giving out incorrect information about which police officers have been arrested, and

c.      Whether all CMPD officers arrested are processed in the same manner as other citizens, with fingerprinting and photographing, posted to the Sheriff’s public web site, and

d.      Whether the list of disciplinary action provided is accurate and truthful, or also must be corrected.

2.      Following soon, please give a projected completion date and provide these PUBLIC RECORD ITEMS:

a.      Provide a complete and accurate list of all CMPD officers arrested during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

b.      Provide a copy of disposition of those criminal charges

c.      Provide a complete and accurate copy of all termination letters for each CMPD officer terminated/separated during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

d.      Provide an appropriately redacted copy of all CMPD Internal Affairs complaints submitted and their associated dispositions for 2012, 2013 and 2014.

e.      Provide a copy of any and all policies relating to criminal charges against a City of Charlotte employee (CMPD or otherwise), including but not limited to CMPD employees and especially  concerning:

 i.     Criteria and who makes the determination for paid or unpaid leave or suspension,

ii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay  for a criminal defense if necessary,

iii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay for a  civil attorney if necessary,

iv.     Criteria and who makes the determination of when and what to notify the DA’s office of cases involving an arrested officer,

v.     What criteria and timing determine if an officer is relieved of their gun when arrested and when they may be reissued their service gun or permitted to have other weapons,

vi.     Whether any convicted criminals are permitted to be CMPD officers,

vii.     Any policies related to hiring of officers with arrest records (ie, may an officer with record of arrest be hired? And if so, under what circumstances?),

viii.     Any other policies related to arrested officers

Please explain why no action is being taken to provide these records and give any comment you wish.

Thank you,

Citynewswatch Editorial Staff

Citynewswatch.blogspot.com

Citynewswatch@gmail.com

CC:  dclodfelter@charlottenc.gov,

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov,

jemken@cmpd.org,

bcunningham@cmpd.org,

rmonroe@cmpd.org

sharrison@charlotteobserver.com,

rthames@charlotteobserver.com

received from:

Hagemann, Robert

to Ron, Daniel, me, Judy, Brian, Rodney, sharrison, Rick

To Whom it May Concern:

Following is the substance of an email that I just sent <name withheld>, the “individual” who I am confident made the requests you are referring to.  I refer you to that by way of explanation.

----------------------------------

<name withheld>

I have discussed this matter with Ms. Emken and Cpt. Cunningham and am satisfied that they have been appropriately responsive to your public records requests.   Cpt. Cunningham will supplement the documents previously provided for 2013 and 2014 to include 2012 now that you have made that request.

Cpt. Cunningham has asked me to pass along his phone # so you can speak directly with him regarding this matter - 704-336-4098.  Should you or your attorney wish to speak with an attorney for the City, Ms. Emken is your point of contact - 704-353-1062.

Bob

Robert E. Hagemann

CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

PH:704.336.2651

FAX: 704.632.8331

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov

www.charlottenc.gov

From: citynewswatch charlotte [mailto:citynewswatch@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:47 PM

To: Carlee, Ron

Cc: Clodfelter, Daniel; Hagemann, Robert; Emken, Judy; Cunningham, Brian; Monroe, Rodney; sharrison@charlotteobserver.com; Rick Thames

Subject: CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>

to barnesforcharl., cfallon, info, vlyles, pkinsey, aaustin, lmayfield, gaphipps, jautry, krsmith, ed, Robert, Ron, Daniel, Judy, Brian, Rodney, sharrison, Rick

Mr. Carlee, Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,

Mr. Hagemann has sent an email which does not address the fact that multiple arrests were not documented by Brian Cunningham on what was presented as complete and truthful, how that was allowed to happen, or whether there are similar inaccuracies in the disciplinary statements provided.  Also not addressed is whether CMPD officers are given special treatment when arrested. 

These questions were addressed to you, Manager Carlee, as were the questions in section 2 which requires PUBLIC RECORDS of INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINTS and DISPOSITIONS, redacted as appropriate, POLICIES, and the other items listed, along with a projected time these items will be provided.  Mr. Hagemann has again ignored the PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST for these items.  Please provide a correct legal response to each item rather than his general thoughts or perception that he thinks what seems to be avoidance of the law will be proper by the City Attorney on behalf of the City of Charlotte, the City Manager or its representatives.

Please reply to each issue addressed.

Thank You,

Editorial Staff Citynewswatch

CRB Reform Passed by City Council

Charlotte's City Council passed some of the proposed changes to the Citizens Review Board code by a vote November 25, 2013.  It contains significant changes, though not all the recommendations of either the Charlotte School of Law or of citizens seeking reform, including a coalition of groups called CRB REFORM NOW.

The changes require the police department to deliver the entire Internal Affairs file of the contested charges to the CRB.  Before, only a summary of information chosen by the police department was released to the Board.

The changes allow the CRB to ask for additional evidence.

The big request for subpoena power has not been met.



See the changes here (deletions from original shown in strikeout text, additions are underlined):


ORDINANCE NUMBER: 5259 AMENDING CHAPTER 16

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE CHARLOTTE CITY CODE 
ENTITLED “POLICE” 

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, that:

Section 1. Article II, Division 2 of Chapter 16 of the Charlotte City Code is amended as
follows:
DIVISION 2. - CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
Sec. 16-56. - Creation; composition; terms; compensation; appointments; vacancies; quorum; removal.
Sec. 16-57. - Meetings.
Sec. 16-58. - Duties and responsibilities.
Sec. 16-59. - Appeal procedureRequest for appeal hearing.
Sec. 16-60. - Necessity for hearingHearing.
Sec. 16-61. - Hearing proceduresReserved.
Sec. 16-62. - Action by chief of police and city manager.
Sec. 16-63. - City clerk's duties; meeting places; staff.
Sec. 16-64. - ReportsMiscellaneous.

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 and cultural 
awareness 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 the board. 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.
(g) The board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from the membership.
(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.

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.
Sec. 16-58. - Duties and responsibilities.
(a) The citizens review board shall:
(1) Serve as an advisory board to the chief of police, the city manager, and the city council.
(2) ReviewHear 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 review appeals of decisions of the city manager or the civil service board. No 
hearing conducted under this division is intended to supplant civil or criminal remedies or 
proceedings, nor civil service proceedings under section 4.61 of the city charter. 
(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, in its discretion by 
the chief of police.
(4) Conduct appeal hearings, which include receiving and evaluating testimony and issuing findings 
of fact and, also may make 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 
concerning policies, procedures or unfounded; ortraining of police officers.
b. Finding in connection with the discharge of a firearm that the officer's action was justified, 
not justified, or accidental. 
(5(4) 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.

Sec. 16-59. - Appeal procedure Request for appeal hearing. 
(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 made on a form approved by the board and filed in writing with the city clerk's office. The request must state the reason for the appeal and the nature of the incident and the basis on which the complainant contends that the action taken by the chief of 
police was in error. The citizen may seek the assistance of the community relations committee in
drafting and filing his appeal. The citizen must file this appeal within seventhirty (30) 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 ofdeliver the entire internal affairs case and forward the summaryfile to the chairperson city clerk for delivery to the members of the citizens review board. A meeting of the board will be held to discuss theThe chairperson may request for appeal. additional information from the complainant if deemed necessary. 


Sec. 16-60. - Necessity for hearing. 
(a) (d) The board may elect not to hear an appeal under this division if civil, criminal or civil service 
proceedings are instituted and pending. 

Sec. 16-60. Hearing. 
(a) Upon receiving a request for an appeals hearing, a meeting of the board will be held shall hold a 
hearing within 30forty-five (45) calendar days of the request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the board may elect not to hear an appeal under this division if civil, criminal or civil service proceedings are instituted and pending. 
(b) (b) In The hearing shall be conducted in closed session to ensure compliance with all applicable 
laws, including those related to the confidentiality of criminal information or intelligence and personnel matters. The parties may be represented at the hearing by counsel or any other person of their choice. 
(c) The hearing will begin with the complainant and the department respectively, each in the absence of the other and the other’s representatives, presenting statements of facts to the board. Following 
receipt of the statements of facts, the board may, in its discretion, request additional statements, 
material, or information from the complainant and/or the department. After receiving the parties’ 
statements and any additional material or information provided, the board shall conduct deliberations 
in the absence of the complainant and the department. 
(d) Following the deliberations contemplated in subsection (c), in a public session, and consistent with section 16-58(a)(4), the chairperson shall indicate whether the board has decided to hold a hearing 
conduct additional evidentiary fact-finding and, if so, shall announce the date, time and place of the
hearing.proceedings. In order to conduct additional evidentiary fact-finding, the board must 
determine that there is substantial evidence of error regarding the disposition of the disciplinary 
charges entered by the chief of police. The chairperson shall notify the complainant and other
involved parties in writing of the decision and, if a hearing isevidentiary fact-finding proceedings are 
to be held, also shall advise all parties in writing of the reasons for the decision to hold a
hearingevidentiary fact-finding proceedings. 

(eSec. 16-61. - Hearing procedures. 
(a) If the citizens review board decides to conduct a hearing, itevidentiary fact-finding proceedings, 
those proceedings shall be concluded within 30forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of the
decision to hold an appeal hearing.them pursuant to section 16-60. Should the complainant or the
department desire a hearingto continue the evidentiary fact-finding proceedings to a 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 of the proceedings, 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 ofset for the hearing. evidentiary fact-finding proceedings. For
good cause, the chairperson may continue the hearingproceedings from time to time, but all appeals
must be concluded within 30sixty (60) 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 
presentevidentiary fact-finding proceeding. 
(b)f) Evidentiary fact-finding proceedings shall be conducted as follows: 
(1) All witnesses must testify under oath.
(c2) All of the proceedings before the board shall be recorded.
(d3) All parties involved shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other person
of their choice.
(e) 4) The board shall receive and evaluate evidence which may include testimony of the 
complainant, officers, and other witnesses, and documentary and physical evidence. 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.
(f5) Members of the board may question witnesses or request additional information or further
investigation at any point in the process.
(g6) Members who, in a particular case, have a conflict of interest shall not attend or
participate in the hearingproceedings and decision-making process.
(h) Within ten calendar days after(g) At the conclusion of the hearingevidentiary fact-finding 
proceedings, the board shall issue its written findingsdetermine whether, by the greater weight of 
fact tothe evidence, the chief of police and the city manager alongclearly erred by:
(1) Finding in a disciplinary action that allegations were sustained, not sustained, exonerated or 

unfounded; or

(2) Finding in connection with a recommendation. The findingsthe discharge of fact must a firearm 
that the officer's action was justified, not justified, or accidental. 
(h) Upon conclusion of the appeal process, the complainant shall be supported by a preponderance of 
the evidence and approved by a majoritynotified in writing of the decision of the board who were 
present at the hearing. 
and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the reasons for the decision. 

Sec. 16-61. Reserved. 

Sec. 16-62. - Action by chief of police and city manager.
(a) The chief of police shall review the determination and 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.

Sec. 16-63. - City clerk's duties; meeting places; staff. 
(a) Under this division the city clerk shall:
(1) Act as secretary to the citizens review board;
(2) Keep the minutes of its meetings;
(3) Be custodian of all papers and records pertaining to the business of the board; and
(4) Perform such other duties as the board may require.
(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.
(c) The city manager shall assign staff to support the functions of the citizens review board.

Sec. 16-64. - Reports Miscellaneous. 
(a) 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.
(b) The board shall receive annually a report from the police chief concerning all complaints against 
department personnel and the disposition of such complaints. 
(c) The board shall recommend changes to the citizens review process to city council as deemed 

appropriate and approved by a majority of the board. 
(d) The board shall promote its visibility within the community by adopting procedures to educate citizens about the board process, and enhance citizen participation through process and procedural changes as deemed appropriate. 
(e) The board shall conduct legal, policy and cultural awareness training for its members, in addition to that provided pursuant to section 16-56(c), on a continuing basis as deemed appropriate. 

Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately and shall apply to all appeals to the Citizens
Review Board filed after the effective date.

Approved as to form: _____________________ (signed by Carolyn D. Johnson)

 City Attorney

CRB (Citizens Review Board) Reform on City Council Agenda

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 11^th and a request for Council action on November 25^th.”

 

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 28^th 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

James Mitchell

Warren Cooksey

David Howard

Patsy Kinsey

Patrick Cannon

Claire Fallon

LaWana Mayfield

Beth Pickering

Andy Dulin

John Autry

Michael Barnes

Billy Maddalon

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

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 >>

DIVISION 2. CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD

Sec. 16-56. Creation; composition; terms; compensation; appointments; vacancies; quorum; removal.

Sec. 16-57. Meetings.

Sec. 16-58. Duties and responsibilities.

Sec. 16-59. Appeal procedure.

Sec. 16-60. Necessity for hearing.

Sec. 16-61. Hearing procedures.

Sec. 16-62. Action by chief of police and city manager.

Sec. 16-63. City clerk's duties; meeting places; staff.

Sec. 16-64. Reports.

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.

(g)  The board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from the membership.

(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.

(a)  The citizens review board shall:

(1)  Serve as an advisory board to the chief of police, the city manager, and the city council.

(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.

(c)  All of the proceedings before the board shall be recorded.

(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:

(1) Act as secretary to the citizens review board;

(2) Keep the minutes of its meetings;

(3) Be custodian of all papers and records pertaining to the business of the board; and

(4) Perform such other duties as the board may require.

(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.

(c) The city manager shall assign staff to support the functions of the citizens review board.

(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:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

1997 SESSION

S.L. 1997-305

SENATE BILL 429

AN ACT CLARIFYING LANGUAGE CONCERNING ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF ALTERNATES ON THE CHARLOTTE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND ALLOWING THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE TO DISCLOSE LIMITED PERSONNEL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS.

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.