Following is an excerpted, edited transcript of the Springfield Finance Control Board‘s last meeting, on Monday, November 27, 2006, provided by resident Sheila McElwaine. The full transcript is also available hosted by the Forest Park Civic Association.
FCB Executive Director Philip Puccia: City Council President Jose Tosado had asked to have a briefing on the civilian review board, but at the same time, since Commissioner Flynn is here, he’d like to give the board an overview of the reorganization of the command staff at the police department that has recently been undertaken.
Springfield Police Commissioner Edward Flynn: You have in front of you the order that put into effect the reorganization of the police department, along the lines that I’ve been espousing for some time, which is an absolute focus on our core mission of dealing with crime, fear and disorder here in Springfield. By doing so, we are going to build from the neighborhoods up.
It’s been clear for some time that our crime, disorder and fear issues in Springfield are neighborhood-specific. The order and the priorities in which those various issues are held vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. It’s important for the police department to recognize that fact and be responsive to it. What you see is a narrative that discusses the strategy, and that’s followed by the structural reorganization of the police department, and I believe the last page gives you an updated reorganization chart.
As you see, my focus here is to make sure that people responsible for policing services delivered to the neighborhoods report directly to me. I have a combination of both a geographic reorganization of the police department, as well as some functional responsibilities, and those are retained in the administration and finance division headed by Director Cole. But, as you also see, I’ve got three very specific divisions headed by deputy chiefs that are responsible for areas of Springfield. These areas are designated as North, Central and South, and they are made up of currently existing police sectors that were developed years ago, during the community policing grant era, in which these various neighborhood sectors are organized around coherent neighborhood boundaries.
I have four deputy chiefs now. One is responsible for what we call operational support, which is where the investigations, vice control and tactical services are located—those are city-wide functions. The other three: each of them will be responsible for a geographic subdivision. I feel that this is really going to give us an opportunity to develop policing services that are responsive to neighborhood concerns, as well as flexible and adaptable to the changing crime conditions in Springfield, as they change by season, and time of day, and area of the city.
The North Division is made up of the current geographical sectors known as A, B, C, D and G. The Central District is made up of current sectors E and F, while the South District is made up of the H area and the I area. These are fairly coherent neighborhoods that have similar issues and share boundaries with each other. The population, according to the 2000 census, for the North District is 56,000 people, and that district generated 45,000 calls for service so far this year. The Central District has a daytime population of 38,000, but, as you know, that also encompasses the downtown central business district, which has a substantial commuter population as well; they generated 54,000 calls for service so far this year. And the South District, although it has the largest population, which is 58,000 people, has so far generated 32,000 calls for service.
The areas are somewhat different. The population sizes are fairly consistent. It’s fair to say we have two Chicopees and a Holyoke here, but they’re significant command areas, which I think will warrant the attention of a deputy chief who’ll have a full-time compliment of officers, sergeants and lieutenants assigned to him. That person will be responsible for this area 24 hours a day, so that the people that live in that neighborhood know who’s responsible for the issues and challenges that face them.
FCB Chairman Alan LeBovidge: You gave us the population and the calls. The number of staff in each section, are they the same, or it depends on the—which section—?
EF: No, they’re going to be different. We have a tentative proposal right now, before the deputy chiefs, and they’re reviewing it. I gave it to them today. They would allocate the patrol personnel to the districts based on a combination of population and calls for service data. Probably the smallest district will have 60 officers, and I suspect that the busiest one will have probably closer to 80. But all of those districts will be supplemented by tactical services and support personnel when needed.
One of the core parts of our strategy is having the same people in the same neighborhoods every day, but also retaining a capacity to move a tactical grouping of officers from hot spot to hot spot to supplement the efforts of the officers that are assigned to the neighborhoods every day.
This is something new for Springfield, and not many police departments have done it this way, but I sincerely believe that having senior-level commanders, responsible for geography, embeds in the consciousness of the organization just how important the neighborhood is. And as we continue to focus our efforts on quality-of-life issues as well as crime issues, there’s no way to make the importance of that clearer than to invest that responsibility in the senior leadership of the department.
AL: So that means 24/7, that individual is responsible for that sector, and not by shift, or hours of the day, is that right?
EF: That’s correct. The classic police organization around temporal organization means that at the end of eight hours, everybody is done. And so, if there’s an issue that crosses shifts—which many of them do—no one’s responsible for that issue 24 hours a day besides the police commissioner. I think it’s important that, given the nature of the challenges that face us, that more people have “more skin in the game,” so to speak, and that our entire chain of command be invested in those neighborhoods, so that the problems of a given neighborhood are the problems that are identifiable [to] officer, lieutenant, captain and deputy chief.
I have with me, in the back of the room, the people in whom we’re investing this confidence and this responsibility. I ask them to stand as I introduce them, and they’ll make themselves recognizable to all of you, and you’ll get to know them very well in the upcoming months.
Deputy Chief William Fitchet [above, right] is the commander of the South Division. Acting Deputy Chief William Cochran [below, left] is the acting deputy chief in command of the Central Division. Acting Deputy Chief William Noonan [above, left] is the commander of the North District. Acting Deputy Chief Mark Anthony [below, right] will be the commander of the Operational Support Division. These people are going to be very recognizable in this community. Obviously, Deputy Fitchet is well-known to you, but the other acting deputy chiefs are clearly going to be better known as time goes by.
As you will notice, I took the precaution of making sure that all of my division commanders have the name of “Bill,” so under every circumstance, I know that when I call, they will come, so I thank them for their willingness to assume these responsibilities, and I look forward to working with them in the future.
I do know we have much on our agenda today, including the presentation of [consultants] Jack McDevitt and Amy Farrell, but if you have any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them at this time. Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Charles Ryan: Commissioner, I’d like to say how pleased I am with your initiative here. I think this is a thoughtful and responsible way of bringing back the positive attributes of community policing. You’re doing it in a totally different way, but I’ve got to believe that this way the police get to know the big neighborhood, the good guys and the bad guys, and vice-versa. I think this is salutary. I also would like to say that the men you have chosen—the three new men and, of course, Deputy Fitchet—in my opinion, and I think and in the opinion of everybody in this city who knows them, they’re excellent men with outstanding records, and I think you’ve chosen well.
EF: Thank you, sir. You’re right to pick up on that. We’ve certainly gone beyond the notion that a special unit can be responsible for community-based policing services. We recognize that some of our officers have better problem-solving skills or better communication skills than others, and some of them are better at recognizing felonious activity, from only a few clues, than others. But the point is all of those tools are essential tools in providing safety and security. We’ve got to make sure that all of those tools are seen as part of every police officer’s job, so that certainly the notion is to be community-based, with an absolute focus on neighborhoods. Problem-solving has to be one of the skills we bring to bear here, as well as good, old-fashioned, assertive police work.
City Council President Jose Tosado: Commissioner, I’d like to echo the mayor’s sentiments. I’ve had the opportunity to know all the deputy chiefs. I have known them to be good officers, and you’ve chosen well in terms of the talent pool you’ve elevated to these levels of responsibility. I know it’s something you’ve been talking about since you got here, in terms of taking a look at the city, and giving people whole responsibility, accountability, and authority for certain sections within the city. Hopefully, that will have a positive impact in terms of the reduction of crime, so I wish [to] congratulate all the new deputy chiefs and Deputy Chief Fitchet.
Just one quick question that I have, however, as I’m looking here and I see a court lieutenant in the operational support division. Knowing that one of the biggest budget-busters for the police department has been court time—it’s just been a real drain in terms of the resources of the police department—is that taken into account here at all? Is there some strategy to try and do some cost-containment on that particular budget item?
EF: Well, it’s good of you to focus on that, President Tosado. The point is we have spent an awful lot of money on court time, and one of the things that the Buracker report (PDF) recognized is that there was no unitary command over the expenditure of court time. There were six different officers reporting to four different superior officers responsible for court time. Before we could adjust it, we knew we needed to adjust the entire organization to centralize that responsibility. This order does that. One person will be responsible for the court time. They’ll have people reporting to them, and that single person will report to a very specific member of the organization, so it’s absolutely an attempt to gain some control over that.
Civilian Advisory Board to Police Department
Northeastern University Associate Dean Jack McDevitt: Thank you very much for allowing us to give you a progress report on where we are with the analysis of civilian participation in law enforcement, and also where we’re going next. We wanted to make a brief presentation, to update you on the progress to date and the next steps.
I’m the associate dean at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, and Amy is the associate director of the Institute on Race and Justice at Northeastern. We’ve been involved in numerous studies like this across the country, the most recent of which is one you may have heard of in Boston, where we took a look at the best model for increasing civilian oversight in the Boston Police Department. I made a recommendation to the police department that was ultimately adopted by the mayor, and they’re in the process of putting that model in place. We’ve also done work for the [community oriented police] office in Washington, which has taken us around the country to different-sized cities.
We take a look at the community role in all of these issues. The community, as well as the police, have a stake in the fair treatment of law enforcement officers who engage in misconduct. We want to be able to balance the needs of the community for information, trust, and confidence in the police, and the police for fair process. We were also involved in the initial resolution of the pastor council’s complaint with the police department, as just a person that had some expertise and was able to participate in that process.
The first step we’re going to talk to you about today [is] what we’ve found, and the second step is where we’re going next: what are other agencies around the country doing? What are they finding useful? What kind of oversight models work in different kinds of communities?
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all model here. There isn’t a model that you can just take from Washington D.C., or Columbus, Ohio or Providence, and superimpose in Springfield. Every community has their own history. You guys have a unique history of dealing with police, and so whatever model’s going to work has to fit with the structures in the police department: the personalities involved, the unions involved, the community needs, and the history and culture of that community. We’re going to lay out some broad models, and then see which elements of those models fit the community of Springfield.
If you look across the country, there appear to be four models that you can pick from—elements that are really different, in terms of how civilians participate in the oversight of police departments.
One is the fully external model—and we have copies of this [PowerPoint] presentation if you’d like them, and a little fact sheet that can give you some information on this. [In] a fully external model, external to the police department, they do investigations externally. Washington, D.C. is an example; Cambridge is an example. They have a standing board appointed; they take complaints; they investigate complaints; they make findings. There are strengths and weaknesses with each of these models, so we can go through that if you’d like.
The second kind of model is internal investigation done by the local police department, much along the model you have here. There’s an internal affairs department that does its initial investigation, but those investigations are reviewed by an external board. The board would have civilians on it; it might have police on it. San Diego is an example of this. Those reviews could take place when a citizen appeals, when there’s a serious allegation of misconduct, or randomly, to make sure the process is working well throughout the whole deal.
The third model, becoming popular around the country, is a single individual monitor, ombudsman or auditor. It’s a professional who reviews the investigations [and] passes as to whether they’re done well. In both the external model and this one, you look at the review; if somebody wasn’t interviewed or somebody was; they can send it back to the police department for additional review. This is an external board that takes a look at the findings and says, "You didn’t get the right witnesses. Go back and interview the witnesses," and the internal department has to do that.
AL: You’re saying that’s a professional doing that, not citizens.
JM: There’s one model where it’s citizens, and one model where it’s a professional, so it can be either one. The final one is a hybrid model, where you take pieces of each of these and you put them together. That’s probably what we would be doing here: seeing what would work best with the history, culture, and needs of Springfield.
FCB member Thomas Gloster: Sir, what is the system that the police department in Springfield currently has? Do you have any view as to how it’s been working, what the issues and problems are, and what they’re trying to address with this new approach?
JM: It’s relatively new, as you know, and has been taken internally into the police department, and I don’t want to claim to know a lot of detail. That’s one of the things we’re going to do next: sit down with the people in charge of that, and talk to them about how it’s working, what kind of complaints they’re getting, what kinds of problems they have. We know that there are some unique administrative/legal contractual obligations on the timing of investigations here that may put some constraints on the time period involved for this kind of review process. There are some contractual obligations to resolve complaints within a specified period of time. In order to do that, you have to fit within contractual models. That’s exactly where we want to go next.
CR: Under our old system, with the civil service chief, and a lay police commission, the lay police commission played a significant part, did it not, in these kind of review matters?
JM: Right. Yes.
CR: They are no longer here, so we’ve got to go to some other combination.
JM: A lot of people in this business have started to understand [that] the best model is where everyone in the community feels the police department is doing a good job policing themselves. They have information on which to believe that—they have people who work with the police department to do that, or they have transparent reports, that make them convinced that the police department is doing the disciplining of their own. It’s when the community can’t believe that, that you need to move to more external boards.
AL: But isn’t the other side that the police department should feel they’re being treated fairly, and they also feel like they’re not getting railroaded?
JM: Right. The balance of a fair process [is one] that’s fair to the officers, that allows for complaints that are frivolous or unfounded to be unfounded, and [for] an officer to be exonerated. But also in those cases where there was a complaint that was legitimate, that there’s a process where the community sees that they’re being taken seriously. We have six principles that Amy’s going to talk about that guide what we think of as a good model. Dr. Farrell?
IRJ Associate Director Amy Farrell: Based on a review of about 45 different civilian oversight models across the country, in a cross-section of communities representing large communities, communities more the size of Springfield, and smaller communities, we have come out with not only the four separate models or combinations of those models, but what I think is more important for today’s discussion: a series of principles we think will guide whatever form this model takes.
The first key principle is that there is a role for community voices in complaint review, use-of-force review, and oversight. This does not necessarily mean that community members or civilians are the only people that can do this type of review, but there is a role for community members in that process. Most departments across the country have some form of review that occurs in their internal affairs process, whether that’s done by an external board, or some other components of models that Jack mentioned.
The second key finding is that alternative decision-making structures that are outside of the agency itself are both costly and complex. To be done well, and to be effective, they are expensive. They take a staff, they take trained professionals to do investigations, to have subpoena power, to bring witnesses forward and to make recommendations. Unfortunately, what we’ve seen around the country is that the majority of systems [that] are alternative, or outside of the department completely, are not done well. Cities don’t have the resources to finance them, and so they become defunct, or they devolve into partisan bickering, and they don’t work the way they should.
The second problem with these models is it takes responsibility away from the department, and the department never fixes [itself]. I would use the example of Washington, D.C., where they were under a federal court order to create an office of police complaints, that took complaints and did investigations. What this resulted in, over a period of about four years, is that the District has never fixed [its] internal affairs process, because there is this alternative structure. In fact, not only do civilians want to go through that alternative structure, but officers themselves now want to take their internal complaints to that structure. You never fix the problems that underlie the system.
The third is that citizen oversight works best when it’s triggered automatically. A number of systems around the country have oversight that occurs when a citizen appeals; they don’t like the results of their complaint, and so they make an appeal. The problem with that is you get very few appeals, because citizens who don’t have trust and confidence in the department may not feel empowered to make appeals. People who may have had problems with [investigations] don’t bring their appeals forward.
We recommend that whatever model is decided upon, have something where some of the complaints might be reviewed via appeal and some of the complaints, or some subsection of those complaints, be reviewed automatically. Every type of complaint that meets, say, a certain threshold of severity [should] get reviewed. It enhances trust and confidence, and doesn’t place the burden on citizens [alone] to come forward and have that complaint appealed.
The fourth major finding is that oversight should be transparent. There should be some type of regular reporting, to the community, about what has taken place in those review or oversight processes.
If this system is going to work, whatever model it may be, it has to be a system in which the community feels confident they received enough information about that review process that they believe in [its] legitimacy. That also has to [take] into account the balancing of officers’ right to privacy, and the needs of people, that all information that occurs in the reviews [doesn’t necessarily] become a matter of public record. It’s a balance between transparency and fairness.
The fifth major principle is that citizen oversight of law enforcement have the opportunity to increase and improve communication with the public. It should be seen as an avenue in which people can understand the good work that the department is doing, as well as issues of misconduct. Going out into the community and talking about the oversight process; having some sort of group be able to talk about reviews and reports when they occur, actually enhances peoples’ points of contact in positive ways, as opposed to just negative ways, with law enforcement.
And as Jack alluded to, there is no single model. As experts, we can’t come to you and say, “You should adopt Model X, because it’s the most popular and best model in the country.” We know a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of each model. The next step here is to investigate what’s happening in terms of the local problems that need to be fixed.
So we’re going to do a number of things in the next few steps. We’re going to be looking at the problems that currently exist in the community, both real and perceived to find out if there is change that needs to occur. We don’t just need to adopt a good model because it works somewhere else, but we need to make that change actually come from the ground up to address the concerns that citizens of Springfield have with the existing complaint process.
JM: Right now, citizens from Springfield can file a complaint (PDF) online with the police department; it’s pretty easily accessible. There’s positive steps you can build off of in terms of being transparent. They also can file complaints at places that aren’t police stations, which is progressive, something that’s already being done in this community, so there’s real positive things to build off of here.
AF: As Jack mentioned, we’re going to take into account the structural environment, and past relationships of the department and community members, in deciding what local model works best. We’ve talked a little bit about that first step, the national review. Jack and I have put together a short report, which both outlines the major components of each of those four models, and then had this presentation for you. We’ll be writing up, obviously, the findings from that national review in more depth.
But I wanted to give you a little information about the next step, step two, which is the local review process. That’s what we’re getting ready to embark upon now, after finishing the national review. In the local review, we’ll be having two major components.
The first is an internal review. That’s looking at the systems that are currently in operation in the department to see which are functional and which are not. We’re going to be looking at the goals of a variety of different stakeholders, both within the department and within other officials of city government, to see what needs to be done or what problems there are with the current system, and maybe what problems there were with previous systems: what worked well and what didn’t work well with previous systems here in Springfield.
The second part of that local review is an external process. We’ll conduct a series of focus groups and interviews with a cross-section of community members, some of whom will include members of the [pastors’] council, youth in the city, community advocates, people who may have brought complaints against the department, or officers in the department in the past, and community groups who may have working relationships with the police.
We’re going to try to identify local sentiments about trust and confidence. Where are the places where people do not feel that they have confidence in the system? Where are the places that they do feel they have confidence, that you can build upon?
We’ll issue a final report which identifies the major findings. Based on this information, we will be making a recommendation about the model we believe, both from the national perspective of best practices, and the local needs, would meet what the citizens of Springfield are looking for in terms of oversight of the police department.
AL: When will this be done? How long is it going to take you to do it? You can’t go away without telling me what the Boston model is that you’ve recommended. I’d just kind of like to know what Boston’s doing.
JM: Sure. It’s a four-month process, and we’re hoping to have it done by the end of February. What we’ve recommended [for Boston] is one of the hybrids that has a few elements: mediation for officers if the citizens and the officer agree to mediation; it has an ombudsperson. They’re taking a panel of ombudspersons. Volunteers from the community is the model they’ve chosen to use. We recommended a panel [of] citizens and police officers that would look over the cases with this ombudsperson.
TG: What are the officers in the police department going to be doing, in working with you in developing a system that they’re comfortable with? What’s their role in it?
JM: They’re going to be in this first group of people we interview, from the command staff to the people who are now in charge in the investigations, to line officers, who are the ones most likely to have complaints filed against them. We’re going to speak to all of them, and see what their concerns are. One of the things we recommended in Boston, that they’re still trying to figure out how to do, and some other cities are doing, is on these panels, when the civilians look at the forms, there might also be peer officers on that. If it’s a sergeant, there’s going to be a sergeant from the department who’s part of that panel that looks it over. They can help educate the civilians about what’s a good investigation and what’s a bad investigation.
They also could be another voice, so this process has integrity for the officers that are inside, because somebody from the department would be involved in the review. In Denver, it works really well. As a matter of fact, it works a little too well from the officers’ perspective, because their peer officers tend to be a little bit more aggressive, and they’re more negative than the civilians are.
JT: Thank you. It appears to be a pretty comprehensive process. Like anything, the devil’s in the details in terms of what kind of model is chosen, what will be the criteria for someone of getting selected to serve? As you do your internal and external reviews, some of the things I would ask: How do you identify the list of key informants in the process? You’ve mentioned someone from the pastors’ council, other groups within the community, and so on. Whoever provides the information in terms of people to talk to is important in terms of being inclusive and getting every community’s input.
As you do your internal review, I know there are certain “red flag” charges, so to speak, such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest; and they raise red flags when you see particular officers with a number of those charges. I would imagine that’s part of your review as you move forward. I would ask as well, who decides which model we’ll be implementing, once you come up with a recommendation? I guess that’s for the mayor and the commissioner to decide. But overall, it sounds like the project is in process.
I had the opportunity to serve as a police commissioner previously. It was a completely civilian review board, but there were questions even within that model, because we were ultimately appointed by the mayor, which creates some political conflict at times. In terms of selecting who the individuals to serve on this, whatever model we decide, it’s key to make sure they’re completely unbiased and strictly there to be impartial. Again, I say that having complete confidence in the Springfield Police Department, but as we all know, having external oversight supports both the police department and the community.
JM: I completely agree. We have been working with the Springfield community in some of the racial profiling work, and had community meetings, and talked to folks—the Urban League—so that any other places you would suggest—we’re going to use not just the police department as a source for information. We want to look at youth who have been, traditionally, one of the groups that gets disenfranchised in this process, and figure some other places to get voices from. We just want to have everybody feel that they at least had input, so that when the recommendations come out, they can say, "We were involved in that." As broad a cross-section as we can get—
CR: You might, at some point, indicate to us these outside groups that you intend to meet with. Certainly, Jose and I, who live here, would be able to say, "Well, gee whiz, maybe you’ve forgotten this one or that one."
JM: That would be helpful. We appreciate that.
