Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
News :: Crime & Police |
St. Louis Activists Ready To Go The Distance For Police Oversight |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jon R. Pike Email: profpike (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) |
26 Jan 2003
|
St. Louis Police Board Activists Ready To Start Over Next Legislative Session If Need Be |
Though a February seventh deadline for amendments to a Civillian Police Ovesight Bill is drawing near, the activists who introduced the legislation two years ago are ready to start over again if they have to, to get a good bill.
That's according to a member of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression (CAPCAR), John Chasnoff, whose organization first brought the bill to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and has been building support for such a bill.
Chasnoff says that one of the big problems in the current process is that the entire Board of Aldermen has delegated the repsonsibility for shaping the bill to a negotiating committee. Chasnoff says that CAPCAR has only been allowed to participate in this committee once, and that's not good enough according to Chasnoff. "We feel it's very important for something that's directly involved with police-community relations, the the community be at the table for these negotiations and be represented by our organization." One of the unfortunate by products of the negotiating committee, says Chasnoff, is that apparently a member of the negotiating committee violated a confidentiality agreement and told local news media that the activists would be happy with a board that merely reviewed Internal Affairs Investigations. This "Misinformation" as Chasnoff calls it was repeated in the Post-Dispatch.
Such a model is NOT acceptable to CAPCAR says Chasnoff. Chasnoff says that CAPCAR reviewed many models from many different cities for ideas of what would work. Chasnoff says that in order for such a board to work it has to have the following components:
1.) The power to compel testimony through subpoenas.
2.) Strict Timelines.
3.) Audits.
4.) Feedback from police and community members.
5.) An elected board.
Though CAPCAR has been working hard to get such a bill through this legisaltive session, Chasnoff says CAPCAR is willing to start over again next legislative session, to get a bill with the components they view as necessary.
Here Was A Press Release By CAPCAR:
For Immediate Release January 8, 2003
"City officials are making it difficult for us to move toward the
passage of
a bill that will work for this community" stated Jamala Rogers,
co-chair of
the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression (CAPCR). Rogers was
responding to an article in the Sunday St. Louis Post Dispatch that
cited
problems with the civilian review board in Minneapolis. The Coalition
wants
St. Louis to avoid the structural mistakes made in Minneapolis. "We are
not
trying to have a board that is a rubber stamp of the internal affairs
department as was inferred in the article. If we donât create a board
and
process that citizens trust and get some justice, then we might as well
keep
what we haveâand that âs nothing."
The Post was incorrect in reporting that we would accept a Board which
simpply reviews internal affairs investigations, nor is that what
negotiators have proposed. CAPCR has been working for the last few
years to
fine-tune Board Bill #16, which recently passed out of the Legislative
Committee of the Board of Alderpersons. The bill is the result of years
of
research on police oversight boards, many of which came out of
community
struggles in the late 1960âs and early 70âs. Most were appointed by
police
chiefs or mayors with no budget or teeth to be effective. Police
brutality
and community distrust of police have continued unabated. The Coalition
has
members who have worked on the issue of police abuse for decades both
locally and nationally. This is the closest that St. Louis has ever
come to
seeing such a board materialize. Past efforts have been hampered by the
Stateâs governance over urban police departments in Kansas City and St.
Louis. This may be the reason for the apparent national interest in St.
Louisâ situation, which includes a mediator from the U.S. Justice
Department.
The current model is the result of months of seeking community
involvement
and tapping into the expertise of community activists in other cities
as
well as other experts such as author Sam Walker and the Human Rights
Watch.
CAPCR has canvassed neighborhoods all over the city, held town hall
meetings
and been on radio, cable and TV shows to talk about the issue of police
abuse. The Coalition has received over 100 endorsements of the bill
from a
broad spectrum of individuals and groups. It announced a boycott of the
City
of St. Louis at the annual National Day against Police Brutality last
October 22 if the intended bill is not passed this session.
Zaki Baruti, the other CAPCR co-chair, said the group is outraged that
they
have been locked out of the current deliberations on the bill. "As the
originators of Board Bill #16, we have a right to be at the table
throughout
the negotiations, not just making "guest appearances". We have put a
lot of
blood, sweat and tears into this bill. But weâre ready to put that same
energy into working against it if is doesnât contain what we know will
make
it effective". He says those components include subpoena power,
independent
investigations and an elected review board. Baruti went on to say that
he
was appalled as a St.Louis County resident that officials had rejected
the
idea of a civilian review board. "Black people are being brutalized and
murdered in the metro area. The failure to recognize and deal with this
problem is not just insensitive; it is irresponsible. Police brutality
is
real and so accountability of the police must also become a reality."
-30-
A Minneapolis Mother Wrote This Letter To The Post-Dispatch on the demise of Police Oversight in that city:
January 8, 2003
Letter to the Editor
In the Sunday Post Dispatch, an article detailed the demise of the
Minneapolis civilian review board. The Minneapolis Civilian Police
Review
Authority had been a model board for the nation. I am the mother of a
child
who was viciously shot eight times by members of the St. Louis Police
Department. Jerome miraculously survived, but was victimized again with
arrest and bogus charges that attempted to hide police misconduct and
brutality. He was acquitted of all charges this past summer as his
physical
and psychological scars continue. I have a vested interested in making
sure
other families donât have to endure the pain and suffering that my
family
has. It is the reason that I am committed to the passage of an
effective
civilian review board locally.
There were several weaknesses of the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review
Authority. They include the lack of subpoena power to fully access
parties
and documents associated with cases; an appointed board as opposed to
an
elected board or combination of both; no input in the development of
policies that could reduce incidents of police misconduct or brutality;
and
having a burden of proof that was too high to sustain citizenâs
complaints.
These are common and persistent weaknesses of police oversight boards
across
the country. Another is lack of sufficient funding for operations. If
these
are not addressed at the front end, the success of any civilian review
board
is doomed from the beginning.
The Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression has presented the
City of
St. Louis with a model that addresses the main problems listed above.
Their
research and discussion with a network of community activists over a
period
of years has produced the best model that we can work with given the
unique
status of the police department in St. Louis. I donât believe Mayor
Frances
Slay and Police Chief Mokwa have taken up the issue of police crimes in
a
serious and genuine way. Iâd like to see the same gusto from Mayor Slay
that
he has around raising funds for the Cardinals Stadium. Iâd like to see
Chief
Mokwa talking about police accountability in TV ads like he did with
Fun
Without Guns this past New Year. Thatâs when St. Louis citizens will
truly
believe that they are doing more than giving lip service to such an
important matter.
Rena Johnson
Here's A Press Release On Not Being Allowed To Ngotiate This Bill With The Board OF Aldermen:
An Invitation to Negotiations
The process toward a Civilian Oversight Board is heading into its final
stages. According to Mr Connagan and the Board of Aldermansâ clerk, we
have
only till February 7 to offer final amendments to Board Bill 16 if we
are to
pass it this session. All of us have put much time and effort into this
issue since the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression
inaugurated
the effort over two years ago.
The process of mediation overseen by Mr. Whitcomb has been fruitful.
The
level of progress has been encouraging, but it will take the full
commitment
and cooperation of all parties to reach the finish line together.
We are writing this letter in the hope that it will help us finish this
work
successfully. It is still very possible that we could end up with no
agreement or, even worse, one which furthers divides our community. It
would
be disaster to have the St. Louis authorities enacting provisions while
community activists denounce it and the average citizen feels
reconfirmed in
his cynicism and hopelessness. For this reason we want to invite you to
embrace the idea that our Coalition needs to be included in all
negotiations
from here on out.
We trust that you will agree when you see our proposed amendments to
the
current agreement that we have a constructive role to play. While you
may
not agree with every point, we think you will see that we have
incorporated
the vision of give and take expressed at our last meeting, and have
done
much to clear up definitions and clarify the structural relationships
between the entities involved. More important than these more technical
contributions, however, is the fact that we have been empassioned
enough to
push the issue to this point and represent that faction of the
community
which also feels passionate about Civilian Oversight and has driven all
of
us to act.
Without the consistent input from this passionate community, you risk
missing an opportunity to meet its needs. There is a fine line between
a
consensus agreement and one which appears to be a sham imposed by
authorities from above to cover up for continuing inaction. The
Coalition
can help you find that line and fall on the correct side of it.
We cannot sing the praises of Alderman Kennedy enough, nor express
greater
confidence in his perspectives. We donât think you realize that his
participation is simply not enough. More flexibility will be needed to
reach
a happy conclusion. All of us need a process of trust building through
personal interaction before we are capable of that flexibility.
Furthermore,
this agreement will need to be explained and justified to a skeptical
community when it is finalized. You will be better able to sell any
agreement to your constiuents if you have gained some greater trust in
us
and our motives. On our side. Alderman Kennedyâs lone credible voice
wonât
be adequate in convincing people to give it a chance. If the Coalition
is on
board, however, we can do much to smooth out its acceptance.
Your present reluctance to treat us as equal partners betrays an
attitude of
âWe know what is best for you.â That kind of paternalism is sure to be
unappreciated. To be frank, your exclusion of us will be clear evidence
that
you have insufficient regard for our aggrieved constiuents.. Any
agreement
must be based on a belief that it will be justly implemented by people
with
sincere motives; without this basic trust no paper agreement will be
trusted.
We realize that our inclusion complicates the negotiating process. We
would
therefore propose a stepped up schedule of meetings at least once a
week to
meet the February deadline. We are preparing copies of our proposed
changes
so that you can review them before discussions at a subsequent meeting.
--------------------------
This Letter Appeared in The Post-Disptach:
January 1, 2003
County Inaction on Civilian Oversight
Recent statements by County officials who discount the need for a
Civilian
Oversight Board leave the impression they underwent a decision-making
process in reaching their conclusions. Unfortunately they did not. No
County
entity has held informational hearings which conducted an in-depth
study of
various oversight models or their responsibilities.
This lack of information shows in County Executive Westfallâs remarks
that
oversight board functions are fulfilled by three current entities. His
assertions are easily refuted. The Police Board, which does have the
power
to hear appeals by citizens concerning complaints, has not heard one
single
case in the past several years. It simply is not fulfilling this role.
Grand
juries do look at instances when police may be criminally liable, but
this
function is far too narrow to include the cases where police may have
violated department policies.
Finally, Mr. Westfall cites the Police Practices Review Committee
(PPRC).
This committee did not study the issue of civilian oversight before
dismissing it. The few recommendations they did offer were based on
ignorance of the facts, since they failed to interview any witnesses
directly involved in the cases entrusted to their âoversightâ. They are
now
failing to vigorously defend these few recommendations in the light of
their
rejection by the Police Board.
The PPRC example is a strong argument that appointed boards will only
reach
the foregone conclusions wanted by those who appoint them; their
weaknesses
illustrate the need for some elected members accountable directly to
the
citizenry.
With the exception of Kurt Odenwaldâs consistent support for a
permanent
oversight board, foregone conclusions are all that the County is
currently
offering. Their arguments are reminiscent of the City officialsâ
viewpoint
when this issue was first brought to them. Fortunately, all of City
government now supports the concept of Civilian Oversight. Chief Mokwa
is
showing some leadership where Chief Batelle is not. Though we shall see
if
City leaders are serious about implementing effective reform, their
willingness to educate themselves and evolve should serve as an
example.
John Chasnoff
University City
|