Committee Report CR-1
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on November 18, 2004 beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board Ordinance. (A
Present at the meeting were Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Committee, Brian Murphy, and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were City Manager Robert W. Healy, Attorney Nancy Glowa, Deputy City Solicitor, Attorney Arthur Goldberg, First Deputy City Solicitor, Vali Buland, Legal Council, City Solicitor’s Office.
Councillor Toomey convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He invited the City Manager to present the proposed amendments.
Mr. Healy said that several years of experience with a Police Review and Advisory Board have persuaded him that a full time executive secretary is not necessary. He reported this to the City Council at budget time, when he proposed funding the position at a part-time level, and the City Council adopted his recommendation. He appointed the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission to be the Executive Secretary of PRAB. He said that his experience and that of former Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) members as reported to him led him to conclude that changes in the ordinance could make PRAB more effective and efficient. Mr. Healy also noted that the internal investigation procedures and oversight in the Police Department have changed to the point that ordinance amendments could bring about elimination of duplicative procedures while still maintaining an open and independent review of police procedure and performance.
Councillor Toomey asked if the proposed amendment is the first substantive change proposed in 20 years of the existence of PRAB. Mr. Healy replied in the affirmative; the only other change in the ordinance removed the requirement for geographical distribution of residences of board members.
Councillor Murphy requested that Mr. Healy briefly summarize the most significant changes, and he did so. Under the new procedures, complaints by members of the public could be filed with the Police Department or PRAB. Complaints filed with PRAB would be referred to the Police Department for investigation. The Police Department would investigate all complaints and report it’s finding after investigation to the complainant. A complainant may appeal the Police Departments finding to PRAB. Upon receipt of an appeal, the executive secretary of PRAB would conduct a preliminary investigation including review of the Police Department’s investigative file and report his or her finding to the Police Review and Advisory Board. The Board may accept the findings of the executive secretary or choose to designate one or two board members to perform a further review of the Police Department investigative file. If the Board does not agree with the Police Department’s finding, the Board must notify the Police Commissioner and attempt to resolve the disagreement with the Commission. If resolution were not achieved, the Board would then hold a hearing.
Mr. Healy said that the procedures set forth in the proposed amendment are similar to a model used by Rochester, New York, and Portland, Oregon. He said that he believes that the amendments would improve the operation of the Police Review and Advisory Board.
Several of the other changes are necessary for the ordinance to conform to the City Charter, which requires that the City Manager hire city employees.
Councillor Murphy asked if the provisions for investigative staff have been eliminated. Mr. Healy said that the Human Rights Commission investigator would work for both the Human Rights Commission and the PRAB. He does not believe that there will be any loss of service for PRAB. Councillor Murphy asked the City Manager whether in his opinion the amendment would allow the City Manager to decide to appoint a full-time investigator for PRAB, and Mr. Healy answered in the affirmative.
Lawrence Adkins, Hayes Street, stated that he has attended the last two PRAB meetings. There are no minutes of the meetings. There is a member of the PRAB who is no longer a resident. Tuesday he filed his own complaint with PRAB, and he will be waiting to see how it is treated. The current executive secretary may be very knowledgeable about human rights but that does not mean he knows about police procedures.
Kathy Podgers, Pearl Street, stated that she has great respect for the police. However, she tried to file a complaint against the police after her false arrest and was told by the police that she could only file a complaint if the officer was rude. She was not allowed to file a complaint about slander, libel, or discrimination against her disabilities. In 1981, a Cambridge police officer and his brother illegally entered her home. She had to call the FBI to get help and was not allowed to file a complaint.
Heather Hoffman, Cambridge, stated that her husband complained to the PRAB on August 2, 2004 and has yet to hear anything form the board. The proposed amendments have removed all the anti-nepotism provisions in the ordinance. The biggest problem is that the City Manager does not want the citizens looking at anything that is going on in the City.
He said that he believes that the City Manager should not be allowed to appoint the head of the PRAB. In this country, the police belong to the citizens; the citizens do not belong to the police. The PRAB can help provide balance, and they should be allowed to pick the head of their board.
Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, stated that on October 26, 2000 he attended a public meeting at the Morse School on City Council goals and objectives. Two weeks later he was at a very large meeting of PRAB, a public hearing to deal with racial profiling. That meeting was the start of his involvement with City government. He became involved not because of a complaint but because he was invited to participate in a hearing on a very important issue, an advisory hearing. He has attended two meetings of the PRAB. The City Manager’s contempt for the PRAB has been going on for a very long time. The City Manager’s contempt is the real problem. He asked at the City Manager’s office for the resumes for the board member and was told employee files are not public.
Richard Clarey, 15 Brookford Street, cited a 1982 chronicle article in which Robert W. Healy went on a record opposing the PRAB. The current ordinance gives a great deal of independence to the current board. The proposed changes would emasculate the board. Under the proposal, the board would meet only four times per year; it now meets monthly. The board would no longer participate in policymaking as it does now. It would take four members to call a Special Meeting. The 30-day limit to report back is removed. The present executive secretary does not treat the board well. The City Manager is so clear about his hostility to civilian review, that power should not be transferred to him.
Stash Horowitz, 12 Florence Street, stated that he is vice president of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, and stated that there was no PRAB for quite a while, no executive secretary and no board members, which accounts for the low number of cases. He would like to know what the current board members think about these changes. He believes that this board, unlike any other in the city, needs to have full and total independence from the City. The board itself should appoint the chair. He noted significant changes in the duties of the board. Subpoena powers are removed. Part D is good. The PRAB should have review power over the discipline of police officers. It is intimidating for a citizen who has a complaint against the police to have that complaint investigated by the police. He also discussed the discrepancy with Section B ii.
Councillor Toomey moved that the proposed amendment be referred to the full City Council without recommendation. The motion passed without objection.
Councillor Toomey thanked those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at six o’clock and thirty minutes P.M.