For months now, the establishment of a citizen panel that could investigate complaints against the police department has seemed all but certain. First proposed by Ward 2 Alderman Frank McNeil more than a decade ago, the idea got new life in November 2002 in the aftermath of a scandal involving false accusations against a black police officer. In the April elections, every mayoral candidate touted the idea. It even has its own place on the city government reorganization adopted by City Council in October.
Publicly, at least, all the right people have signed on to the concept of a Police Citizen Review Commission, or PCRC — aldermen, corporation counsel, Police Chief Don Kliment, and even Officer Bob Markovic, president of the Policemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association Unit No. 5, the union that represents Springfield Police Department patrol officers and sergeants.
But as McNeil’s original ordinance sits in the Public Affairs committee, acquiring its finishing touches before being moved to full City Council, the polishing process is revealing fissures. A series of amendments introduced last week — coupled with a five-page letter from the BPBA — shows not only that McNeil has made some major concessions, but that the union wants a few more.
Among the proposed amendments:
• All members of the PCRC attend Springfield Police Department’s Citizen Police Academy. On its face, this amendment appears neutral; other citizen review boards across the country have similar requirements. However, because applicants to the citizen academy must pass a thorough background check (both local and through the National Crime Information Center), this is effectively a point for the union; McNeil had been reluctant to require background checks.
• All complaints must be sworn statements, making the complainant vulnerable to a perjury charge if the complaint is false. State law requires this measure, and McNeil says it shouldn’t scare anybody off. “We just don’t want people coming in and making a statement they know is false,” he says.
• The PCRC will investigate only new cases, no incidents that occurred before its establishment.
• Complaints can be filed either at SPD’s internal affairs office on East Allen Street, or at the office of the Director of Community Relations. A few years ago, SPD moved its internal affairs off-site specifically to make citizens feel more comfortable about filing a complaint. The Community Relations office is located inside Municipal Center East, the same building that houses SPD. But McNeil says potential complainants might feel more comfortable talking to a civilian rather than “people in the same fraternity” as the officer being complained against.
• Any complaint that SPD rules “sustained” in which the officer receives discipline will automatically become ineligible for consideration by the PCRC, even if the discipline handed out by SPD is only a written reprimand. “Discipline is only for the police department and the mayor,” McNeil says. “If we tried to get involved in discipline, that would be the basis for a lawsuit.”
• All meetings of the PCRC will be closed to the public and the media.
These amendments have only been read into the record, not publicly debated or officially adopted. They will likely be discussed at the Public Affairs committee meeting on Jan. 5
McNeil says some people might be surprised by the compromises he has made, but he is somewhat limited by the PBPA contract. “They’ve got rules,” he says. “That’s why I have to walk very softly, because the rules are on their side. We have to play within the framework of those rules. I’m not always happy with the way the rules are written, but that’s the way it is.”
The PBPA isn’t exactly thrilled either. The same day (Dec. 15) the amendments were introduced, union attorney Ron Stone sent McNeil a five-page letter memorializing their meetings and suggesting further compromises. The letter quotes McNeil as saying he gets two or three complaints about the police per year, implying that the review board may not be needed. Stone spells out the union’s objections to anyone with a criminal conviction or “community activist” tendencies serving on the PCRC, and asks McNeil to consider allowing the PBPA to appoint “some member, even if it is an ordinary citizen” to the PCRC. Finally, Stone questions the need for the PCRC to have subpoena power.
Neither McNeil nor Stone was available Monday night to answer questions about this letter, provided to Illinois Times by an alderman. However, Markovic still sounds cooperative and ready to move to the next step, despite being a bit miffed that the amendments were released publicly before the involved parties got to see them.
“We hope to continue to meet with the City to discuss this issue. We had a meeting to voice our concerns, and we have not been contacted since then about getting back together on how our concerns would or would not be addressed. We’re waiting to hear from the City,” Markovic says.
Although he voiced no complaint about the amendments, he emphasized that the PBPA hasn’t yet approved them, and thinks the lull in discussion may indicate the union is still being left out of the loop.
“The amendments are no reflection of any agreement between us and the City,”
he says. “We want to be involved, but we can’t make them involve us.”
This article appears in Dec 18-24, 2003.
