This is the third post in my series on the Whitewater Police and Fire Commission. The first post was an introduction to the series, and the second post cited the authority of our PFC under Wisconsin law. In this post, I will suggest reasonable standards for Whitewater’s PFC.
Every reasonable person can agree on a few clear principles for public meetings of legally-required boards and commissions:
1. The commission should fulfill its legislative mandate.
2. The commission’s meetings should begin at a fixed, regular, and published time, so that citizens can reliably attend.
3. The commission should produce useful and thorough minutes of its meetings.
4. The commission should offer citizens reasonable and fair opportunities to present grievances concerning the organization of
which the commission has oversight. A complaint process must be (1) easy to understand, (2) easy to use, (3) offer safeguards against fear of reprisal.
5. The nature and role of the commission should be listed in the same places as all other community information.
6. Information about the commission should be clear and easy to understand.
7. Information about the commission should be available in the principal languages spoken in the community.
These standards should apply no less to our PFC than to any other body. In fact, they should apply with greater care, as the police department over which the PFC exercises authority may lawfully investigate and use force against their fellow citizens.
Of these seven reasonable suggestions, our Commission meets only two — and fails to meet, or meets only partially, the other five.
Some of the most important roles of the PFC involve reasonable standards for handling citizen complaints. The Department of Justice offers sensible suggestions for managing citizens complaints fairly. In a paper entitled, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity” the U.S. Department of Justice sets forth good police practices. In a section of that paper entitled, “Complaints and Misconduct Investigations,” the Department of Justice offers five guidelines for good practices for handling citizen complaints.
1. Perception of Fairness. “Agencies should provide a readily accessible process in which community and agency members can have confidence that complaints against agency actions and procedures will be given prompt and fair attention.”
2. Complaint Forms. Civilians should be allowed to file complaints in-person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile transmission, or, where possible, by e-mail. A complaint form should be offered, but completion of the form should not be required to initiate a complaint. Individuals should be able to obtain and file complaint forms at places other than law enforcement agencies.
3. Officers and other employees should be prohibited from refusing to accept complaints, or attempting to dissuade a civilian from filing a complaint. Civilians should not be required to meet with or speak with a supervisory officer as a requirement for filing a complaint.
4. Complaints should be accepted from all individuals, including those who request anonymity. Complaints should be accepted from third parties to ensure that witnesses of abuse or misconduct can file complaints as well as victims of such misconduct.
5. Knowledgeable Investigator. Misconduct investigations of serious misconduct allegations, including allegations of excessive force, false arrest, improper search or seizure, or discriminatory law enforcement, should be conducted by an entity that has special responsibility for conducting misconduct investigations.
We fall short in each and every one of these standards for handling citizen complaints. In my next posts, I will show how, over the last three years, our community has not fulfilled basic standards for PFC meetings and has failed to establish a fair, reasonable, conventional complaint process.