The Republican majority on a Council committee voted down a Democratic proposal to strengthen the police review board proposal that had been derided for being advisory-only, appointed entirely by the mayor and lacking authority to effectively investigate alleged police misconduct.
The City Council’s Consolidated Committee, on party-lines, 4 to 3, voted down an amendment proposed by Council Democrats to change the civilian police review board proposal that was made in August. The Democrats’ proposal would have increased the powers of the board and made it appointed on a bi-partisan basis by the Council, rather than all by the mayor.
All Republicans voted against the proposal at the meeting on October 1, 2020, while all of the Democrats voted for it.
By the end of the meeting, the entire proposed ordinance was voted down, when Republicans opposed it, and Democrats also voted against it, saying that it would not do enough.
Democrats harshly criticized Republican Council members after the Democratic amendment was voted down. Ald. Francisco Santiago (D-5) said, without the amendment Democrats had offered that, in the proposed ordinance, “not one word, here, represented what the residents had called and asked for.”
Ald. Colin Osborn (D-2) called the police review board proposal made in August a, “set up,” which he said was to, “to jump on the band wagon,” after widely protested police shootings, suggesting that the August proposal was, “just to quiet people down.”
In voting down the Democrats’ amendment, Ald. Osborn said that the Republican majority was saying that, “our citizens to not matter.”
Calls for the establishment of a community review board for the city’s Police were made as massive protests occurred nationwide, including in New Britain, in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. The killing of Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks and other African Americans have sparked vigorous protests against ongoing racism in the nation.
A proposal to create a Police Civilian Review Board was introduced in the City Council in August. But that proposal has come under criticism from community advocates, who want a new community police review board chosen by the community and given subpoena investigatory powers in the city ordinances. The ordinance proposed in August would have done neither. The police civilian review board, as proposed in August, would also be advisory-only.
In the Council’s Consolidated Committee, earlier in September, the Democrats offered an amended version of the resolution that would haved addressed many, but not all, of the things that community advocates criticized in original Council proposal.
Ald. Chris Anderson (D-AL) posted online before the October 1st meeting, saying that the Democrats’ amendment, unlike the Republican’s proposal, would include subpoena power for the review board, the “ability to conduct investigations,” “independence from [the] mayor who appoints the chief,” “independence from [the] police,” and funding.
After their amendment was voted down, Democrats emotionally pointed out that the initially proposed police review board would do nothing that members of the community who had asked for the board to be created wanted. Democrats pointed out that the elements of a police review board that had been agreed upon in bi-partisan discussions in the earlier “ad-hoc” committee had not been represented in the version initially proposed in the Council in August.
The Democrats’ Council leader, Ald. Manny Sanchez (D-AL) and other Democrats, repeatedly asked the representative of the city Corporation Counsel’s office in attendance at the meeting who wrote the ordinance that was proposed in the Council in August. The Corporation Counsel’s representative said it was written after discussions with Ald. Kristian Rosado (R-2), the Council’s Republican President Pro-Tempore.
The Corporation Counsel’s office is headed by the city Corporation Counsel, who is Sen. Gennaro Bizzarro (R-6).
In July, the New Britain Racial Justice Coalition and the Black Ministerial Alliance of New Britain, with the support of the NAACP New Britain Branch, the People’s Coalition of Central Connecticut and others called for a “People’s Agenda” in New Britain. One of the key items the People’s Agenda was a call for,
The creation of a Civilian Review Board with subpoena powers whose membership is selected by the community.
The call for the police review board to be appointed by the community appears reinforced the new state police accountability law, which says that local legislative bodies, which the City Council is in New Britain, are empowered by the state law to choose how civilian police review boards are appointed. The state law provides that the review board can be, “elected or appointed,” as the City Council chooses, saying that,
The legislative body of a town may, by ordinance, establish a civilian police review board. The ordinance shall, at a minimum, prescribe: (1) The scope of authority of the civilian police review board; (2) the number of members of the civilian police review board; (3) the process for the selection of board members, whether elected or appointed; (4) the term of office for board members; and (5) the procedure for filling any vacancy in the membership of the civilian police review board.
The state law appears to override New Britain’s City Charter, which says that all commission appointments are made by the mayor.
But, in the proposal made in the City Council in August, all five voting members of the police civilian review board (PCRB), plus two alternates would have been appointed by the mayor. The Police Chief would also have appointed one non-voting member.
The August proposal said that the appointments would be made, “by the Mayor in accordance with Sections 5-2(e) and 7-1(b) of the City Charter.” However, the charter explicitly says that an exception to the mayor making all appointments is when, “otherwise designated by the General Statutes,” which the new state police accountability law is.
The ordinance proposed in August also appeared to allow the Police Department to screen who may be on the civilian review board, saying that all members of the board, “must pass a police background check.”
The police civilian review board, in the proposal made in August, would have been advisory-only. The proposal also appeared to be structured such that the board would not be starting investigations on its own.
In the August proposal, the police civilian review board would have had the power to investigate, “complaints against members of the New Britain Police Department alleging excessive use of force which have initially been filed with the Chief of Police.” But, as provided in the August proposal, the board would appear to have been expected to wait in starting its own review until, “After completion of the investigation by the Internal Affairs Division,” of the New Britain Police Department.
The proposal made in August provided that the police civilian review board,
shall review the conclusions of any internal affairs investigation of a complaint prior to any disciplinary action being taken and recommend further investigation to the Chief of Police if appropriate. After receiving all necessary information required to fully review the complaint, the PCRB shall make a written report of its review and recommendation as to discipline to be taken if any. However, the PCRB shall not have authority to impose discipline. The Chief of Police shall make the decision regarding discipline.
The August proposal said that, “The Police Chief shall seriously consider the recommendations of the PCRB,” saying the Chief that must respond to their recommendations in writing.
The ordinance proposed in August would have allowed the police review board to have access to, “all police documents, reports, electronic transmission, videotape and any other transcriptions related to said civilian complaint,” but would allow the Police Chief to redact information as, “required by law.”
However, the state law says that,
Any civilian police review board established pursuant to subsection (a) of this section may be vested with the authority to: (1) Issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses before such board; and (2) require the production for examination of any books and papers that such board deems relevant to any matter under investigation or in question.
The Democrats’ proposed amendment would have empowered the review board to initiate its own investigations, and it would have expressly given the board power to issue subpoenas for evidence and compel witnesses.
The changes proposed by Democrats also would have changed the emphasis of valid reasons why people could file complaints with the review board. Complaints could have been considered alleging “misconduct” by police officers, instead of having to rise to “excessive force”, as the August Council plan proposed. The Democrats’ proposal would have also removed a “fabricated complaints” provision warning people against making complaints that might be dismissed.
The changes Democrats offered would have allowed the review board to make decisions by a majority vote, rather than unanimous, as the August proposal said. It would have also allowed the board to hire staff to assist with its work.
The Democrats’ proposal would have, however, still maintained the status of review board decisions as advisory, saying that it could, “provide recommendation(s) of appropriate discipline,” with the Police Chief making the disciplinary decisions. Online, Anderson had said that, “Neither the Republican nor the Democratic proposal includes disciplinary power because New Britain’s current police contract gives that power entirely to the Police Chief. This is something that can be changed in future contract negotiations but is not something we can change now.”
The Democrats’ proposal would have also changed the way that the review board be selected. The August proposal would have provided that the entire board be appointed by the mayor. Under the Democrats’ proposal, both Republicans and Democrats on the Council would have chosen a certain number of members of a nine-member review board. The proposed change would have appeared to mean that the majority party on the Council would choose six members of the review board and that the minority party would choose three. Republicans are currently in the majority on the Council.
The Democrats’ proposed change would have also required that review board members be residents of New Britain, and would have excluded current or former New Britain Police officers or their immediately families from being on the board. The change would also appear to have removed the requirement that review board members have a police background check, a provision of the August proposal that would have appeared to put the Police Department in the position of reviewing whether or not people would be allowed to serve on the board responsible for reviewing the police.
After their amendment was voted down, Democratic Council members had asked if the Council Republicans would be willing to compromise on the proposed ordinance. But Ald. Robert Smedley (R-4) dismissed any comprise that would include subpoena power for the review board, or other elements of the Democrats’ proposal, as a “non-starter.” Ald. Daniel Salerno (R-AL) said that he was opposed to subpoena power for the board. He also said that the the review board would be an unnecessary layer of government, with the existing police commission already in place.
The votes on the Democrats’ police civilian review board proposal were,
- No – Ald. Michael Thompson (R-4), who is Chair of the committee
- No – Ald. Wilfredo Pabon (R-1), Vice Chair of the committee
- Yes – Ald. Francisco Santiago (D-5)
- Yes – Ald. Iris Sanchez (D-3)
- No – Ald. Robert Smedley (R-4)
- No – Ald. Daniel Salerno (R-AL)
- Yes – Richard Reyes (D-AL)
