Press Release: Police Accountability Board Alliance Urges City Council to Make Changes to PAB Legislation Public and Opposes Any Changes to Allow Police or Former Police on the PAB (May 2, 2019)
Primary tabs
On May 2, 2019, shortly before a 24 hour vigil was scheduled holding those impacted by police violence in Rochester, NY and calling on City Council to release their amendments to the legislation released in January, the Police Accountability Board Alliance held a press conference to make their demands heard.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Police Accountability Board Alliance Urges City Council to Make Changes to PAB Legislation Public and Opposes Any Changes to Allow Police or Former Police on the PAB
When: Thursday May 2, 2019, 5:00pm
Where: Steps of Main Entrance at City Hall, 30 Church St.
What: The Police Accountability Board Alliance (PABA) will have a press conference and then hold a 24-hour vigil outside of City Hall to honor those affected by police brutality and to oppose City Council allowing police or former police on the PAB.
The PABA requested City Council to publicly release the language for any amendments pertaining to the PAB legislation by Thursday, May 2, by 5:00pm, because the Alliance and the community needs time to consider any changes to the legislation well in advance of the the next City Council Committee Meeting on May 16th.
This week, City Council members revealed that they are considering changing the PAB legislation so that people with law enforcement experience would be allowed to serve on the PAB. One of the purposes of the PAB is to give oversight of police misconduct to the community because the police cannot police themselves. To allow former law enforcement on the board, whether former Rochester Police Department (RPD) or from other departments, would undermine the function, legitimacy, and independence of the PAB.
City Council also revealed that civilian employees of RPD will not be subject to review by the PAB. This further undermines the work of the PAB because civilian employees of RPD have significant powers and should be subject to the same process of review as sworn officers.
The community demands PAB legislation with a board composed of civilian, non-law enforcement members. This is an essential requirement for a truly independent board. However, this does not mean that the board would be isolated from communication with the RPD.
In at least five ways, the PAB would get direct input from members of the RPD on all police misconduct cases.
-
Board members will be trained in patterns, practices, policies, and procedures of the RPD along with relevant local, state, and federal law.
-
The RPD’s Professional Standards Section will conduct their own investigation and send reports on all cases of misconduct to the PAB.
-
RPD officers accused of misconduct will be able to offer their own interpretation of RPD policy and training to the PAB.
-
The Police Chief has a right to give input on all misconduct cases heard by the PAB.
-
The PAB will be able to request even more information from RPD officials to better understand RPD policy and training if a question arises, just as a jury can consider expert testimony.
These stipulations in the legislation allow the PAB to consider law enforcement’s perspective in the review process. Therefore, there is no need to have former law enforcement employees on the board. Further, allowing current or former officers on the PAB creates a substantial risk of conflicts of interest and it erodes community trust.
While the Locust Club bemoans the fact that formerly incarcerated people can sit on the board, this is a requirement under New York State Law (Article 23-a of New York State Correction Law) and applies to any board. Their talking points emphasizing this point is an example of dog-whistle racism and further stigmatizes those who have such convictions and continues to punish them after they have served their time. Having a current or former police officer on the board is likely to discourage community members from bringing complaints and creates an atmosphere of mistrust, insofar as current or former police officers cannot be trusted to police themselves.
Overall, the PAB should be viewed as a jury. Just as we trust civilian jurors to consider expert evidence and make legal decisions, so too can a civilian PAB consider law enforcement’s perspective and make decisions while also maintaining independence.
While the Locust Club claims that the PAB legislation is anti-police, this is just rhetoric. The PAB is not anti-police, it’s anti-police misconduct. The PAB prioritizes justice, transparency, and community trust. This legislation is about sharing power with the community and providing real accountability when the constitutional and civil rights of people, predominantly of color, are violated.
###
Some photos from the vigil (photographer unknown) are in the gallery.
