Speakers Testify on City Police Reform Legislation

Experts from law enforcement, academia and the legal arena spoke out in support of proposed police reform legislation at Pittsburgh Council Thursday. The post-agenda meeting centered on an ordinance drafted by Councilman Ricky Burgess that would require routine data collection by officers and law enforcement administrators. That data would include everything from routine traffic stops to incidents involving the use of force. The information would be published in an annual public report that would specify the make-up of the police force; any legal action against police officers; average response times; arrests by charge, race and gender by zone and specialized units; conviction rates and traffic stops as well as recruitment and retention. Vic Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania says in the 1990's Pittsburgh police were forced to abide by a consent decree that help bring the department in line. But he says he's sure the police union will come out against the legislation as hamstringing their operations, "that is demonstrably false because other police departments around the country do it, and the city of Pittsburgh police department has done it--they were forced to do it under the consent decree--and crime went down." Walczak says there's a perception in the black community that it is under siege, "and until and unless the city measures what their officers are doing and publicizes it, they can't credibly come out and say there's no problem." Wayne Babish, a former police officer and adjunct professor at the University of Pittsburgh supports the legislation and says over time, police officers will recognize its benefits, "a police chief would welcome and view this proposed legislation as an opportunity to communicate and collaborate with elected officials." Burgess' legislation was sparked by the alleged beating of Jordan Miles, a black high-school student, by white, plain-clothed police officers in Homewood in January 2010. An investigation into that incident is still pending.

Judge Rules Against CPRB

An Allegheny County judge has rejected a request by the Citizens Police Review Board to get information on police actions during the G20 Summit a year ago in Pittsburgh. Common Pleas Judge Stanton Wettick ruled that Pennsylvania law forbids Pittsburgh Police from turning over complete arrest reports to the review board.
The CPRB wants the documents to investigate allegations of police misconduct during the G20. Police officials had provided heavily redacted files to the review board but the board said that so much information was blacked out that it rendered the records useless.
Judge Wettick agreed with city attorneys who argued that Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act prohibited the full disclosure of certain records, except to other law enforcement agencies.

City Finds New Way to Delay CPRB Request

Despite saying that it would turn over all the requested documents, the City of Pittsburgh has once again argued that it cannot give the Citizen Police Review Board what it wants. The board has asked for arrest reports and other documents related to police staffing and assignments during the G20 Summit in September of 2009. The board says it needs the documents to do its job. The city has argued alternately in the past that the data would put national security at risk, that it would jeopardize its efforts to defend itself against litigation, and that the board is not entitled to the documents without a specific citizen complaint being filed. It turned over heavily redacted documents in May and last month said all documents would be forthcoming. Yesterday, the city went before Judge R. Stanton Wettick and argued that it could not hand over the documents due to state laws prohibiting the CPRB from seeing the information. CPRB attorney Hugh McGough says the city does not fall under the Criminal History Record Information Act because it operates under a home rule charter. In fact, he notes that the city’s solicitor under Mayor Tom Murphy specifically laid out tight privacy rules and procedures that should be used in freely handing over the documents. In past investigations the city has made the non-redacted document available to the CPRB without question. Judge Wettick has not set a time line for making a ruling on the city’s latest argument, but McGough points out that the judge took ten days to rule in the last instance.

CPRB Names Held By Council

After hours of debate (including a recess to call a member of the city law department) over Roberts Rules of Order and Council rules and customs, the Pittsburgh City Council put a three-week hold on the nominations of five Citizen’s Police Review Board members. The debate and vote comes at a time when the board, which has often been neglected in the past, has come under a microscope.

For years the CPRB has been complaining that it either did not have enough members to do its job or its members were all serving under expired terms. When the mayor submitted a list of names to the city council for review on the same day that the CPRB was arguing in court with the city solicitor the issue took on more importance. Not long after those nominations were announced a few members of Pittsburgh City Council noticed that the ordinance creating the board was so poorly written that it did not even fully outline how members should be appointed.

A long list of speakers spoke before council this morning asking members to halt the nomination process and preserve the power of the CPRB and the independence of the Council. The business portion of the meeting began with President Darlene Harris announcing that she was “holding” the bills naming five members of the board. Those members had been intervened by council last week but no vote was taken at that time. The meeting quickly devolved into name calling as members argued over the proper way to delay a vote on the nominations. Harris felt it was her prerogative to hold the nominations but others including Bill Peduto and Doug Shields argued that she did not have that power. They argued that only a majority vote of the council could delay the vote. Harris eventually allowed the names to be introduced and Councilman Daniel Lavelle moved to “postpone” a vote on the nominees until no later than July 27th. That will give the council time to deal with two amendments to the CPRB code.

CPRB Executive Director Elizabeth Pittinger says the board will continue to operate in the public’s best interest with or without the new members, but she says the actions of the mayor sent a clear message of his intent. Of the two names submitted by the mayor, two are current members and the rest would be new to the board. Of the five individuals interviewed by City Council, two are up for reappointment and the other three are nominated for appointment the first time. Members serve for a defined number of years but can serve any number of terms. Members who are not replaced or reappointed can continue to serve on the board.

Shields Wants to Table Mayor's Choices for CPRB

Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields says it's not a political battle between Council and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl "it's an obligation of council to amend the city code and offer a clear, consistent way to have appointees come before council and to replace members as they cycle off the board."
Shields is referring to the dispute between council and the mayor over the 7 nominations Ravenstahl made to the Citizen Police Review Board (CPRB) on June 18--the same day the administration was in court fighting efforts by the board to get access to police records regarding the G20 Summit. The mayor has denied allegations he was trying to thwart the board but said the 60 day timetable for acting on suggested nominations by council was nearing an end.
Ravenstahl nominated 5 new members and re-appointed 2 current ones. But Shields is asking council to table those nominations because the process of appointing members "is as clear as mud." Shields wants council to clarify the language in the city code before they act on any nominations to the CPRB. Shields says the code specified how the original board was to be constructed and the process to fill a vacancy when a member resigns, but he says there is no specific language on how to appoint successors to members whose terms expire. Currently, they remain until they are replaced, even a year or two later.
Shields says the problem is the mayor treated the appointments as if there were 7 vacancies and there was officially only one.
Shields says he doesn't want the CPRB's integrity challenged "so it can do its work and not worry about if a member was legitimately appointed or not."
Shields plans to introduce his bill Tuesday to clear up the nominating process. He says if council passes it, the mayor would be free to nominate the same 7 people as he did June 18.