October 21st 2021
The Staff Report was given by Executive Director Reynolds. He introduced Thomas Kim and Nina Malik who are consultants working on a framework for investigatory policies and procedures. The framework was presented for Board consideration. Two considerations influence framework development. The framework in the PAB Charter is high-level and gives the Board the power to complete the framework and create rules and procedures. The original Charter calls for (1) Intake and investigation; (2) A Board vote on whether or not to hold a hearing; (3) A three-member panel holding a hearing and determining formal findings; (4) The panel using a matrix guideline to define disciplinary measures. However, the lawsuit brought by the Locust Club against the City suspended the Board’s ability to do steps 2 - 4. In that case after the intake and investigation, a report would go to the public and Chief of Police. The Chief decides if a hearing will be held and the hearing would be run according to state law and the police union contract. A hearing officer would identify the findings and the Chief would assess the findings and impose any discipline. The question then is what role does the Board play within this system aside from step 1? PAB’s position is that they still have the obligation to create a complete framework including a disciplinary matrix. The proposed framework reflects this position.The proposed framework has 4 parts: (1) the intake of tips, referrals, complaints and a case filing by staff; (2) investigations and reports issued, including potential wrongdoings, systemic issues, details, and referrals where needed; (3) review of reports by a 3-member PAB panel which selects consequences using guidelines; (4) release of reports to the public and the police force and tracking of subsequent responses. When completing the proposed framework, PAB will need to determine the consequences for types of wrongdoing. For example, the New York City Police Department uses a 2-tier guideline. Tier 1 addresses significant wrongdoing with a range of consequences. Tier 2 is for lower-level wrongdoing and determines consequences based on a matrix without going to the Board each time. This procedure addresses the low-level cases without overwhelming the Board. Under the proposed framework, there is a 4-part role for the Board to: create and update guidelines; review investigatory reports; meet as panels to discuss findings and determine consequences; still meet as a Board and/or Committees to guide and oversee PAB’s broader work.
Alternative frameworks were discussed briefly. After the framework is accepted, tasks for the next six months for the Board and consultants include: drafting rules, policies and procedures in conjunction with the City Law Division; meeting with the Locust Club and the Rochester Police Department; training staff; obtaining community input; drafting the final plans; and getting public input. Investigations could then begin. Following a discussion of the proposal, the Board tabled further discussion until the next meeting so that they could receive more information, including a written proposal, and have time to consider the plan and path forward prior to making a decision.
Chairperson Wilson reported that the consultants and the Board met with City Council to make a presentation on the framework which was well received. There were no Committee reports.
Chair Wilson discussed unfinished business including a meeting calendar proposed by Lead Peak Performance LLC for training. Dr. Harrison suggested that a demographic analysis of new hires should be given to the Board on a regular basis. It is thought that the city already tracks that and a motion to request such an analysis after each 10 hires did not carry. An alternative motion was proposed to obtain demographic data from the city after the second wave of hires. That motion carried with 4 votes for and 3 abstentions.
OBSERVED BY DEBORAH RICE GORDON