With public pressure and frustration mounting, last week Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno said he would take steps to improve communication between residents and the city’s Community Police Hearing Board. The board provides a crucial forum in which people from the community are supposed to hear complaints about police officers, take stock of the available evidence and make recommendations to the police commissioner.
First up, kudos to Mayor Sarno for pledging to improve communications from the board. Under its original charge, the CPHB was supposed to produce an annual report of its actions — which include information about instances of police discipline, number of cases heard, outcomes, and more. But it’s been falling badly short of that goal.
Now, Sarno wants to see quarterly reports from the oversight body. I’m glad Sarno sees the need to put meaningful, though meager, funding behind the board. I’m a little disappointed it took a year’s worth of questions from staff writer Amanda Drane, a couple of Masslive stories, a public statement by City Council President Michael Fenton, pressure from longtime city activist Talbert Swan III and more concerned citizens than I have room to name for him to notice something wasn’t quite right.
The Community Police Hearing Board provides a way for citizens to challenge officers on anything from rudeness to assault and have their grievances heard by a board of their peers. The board then makes a recommendation as to an officer’s guilt and issues a recommendation on sanctions, or lack thereof, to the police commissioner, who has the option of accepting the results. Commissioner John Barbieri has accepted nearly all decisions since he’s helmed the department.
The board has reviewed roughly 100 citizen complaints against police officers every year since its inception in 2010. That’s a lot of complaints — but it reflects a divide between officers and the communities they serve.
This board is too important to the stability of the city to ignore and let crumble.
Nationwide, the relationship between citizens and police is strained in the wake of the deaths of Freddie Gray, Eric Gardner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and others at the hands of police. While Springfield hasn’t had incidents that severe, there have been other ones that increased tension and mistrust. The level of face-to-face communication the hearing board could foster between citizens and officers can heal the community.
But the board has problems. First and foremost, not many people in Springfield know it exists. For last week’s cover story “Watchdog or Lapdog: The obscure record of Springfield’s police review board,” Drane spoke with people on the streets and in the community centers. She found that even highly involved community members knew precious little about the board, how it functions and who is on it.
She also learned some other unsettling things about the board:
It’s unclear whether all citizen complaints are coming before the review board. While city officials say all complaints submitted to the police department are sent to the internal investigations unit and then onto the review board, some in the community say they’re aware of cases that were filed but went unheard.
All board members are appointed by the mayor. If the mayor has the sole say in who is on this board, then it’s not a community watchdog.
Sometimes a single board member is the only one present at a meeting to decide whether a citizen complaint will go to the commissioner with a recommendation for action, go before the full board for a hearing or get passed over immediately. A solitary person deciding whether a complaint has merit makes a mockery of the term “community” board.
In addition to the increased frequency of reports, Sarno will call on board members to undergo more training and receive an update on how to operate in compliance with the state’s Open Meeting Laws.
But let’s go farther with these changes, really bring the community into the board. How about these for some changes?
• At least four members should be elected to the board by the community — the reviews are too important to be left up to the political sensibilities of a mayor. If that didn’t work, the four members could be named by the full City Council.
• Make the complaint process easier. Paper complaint forms are available in three or four places across the city, and one of those places is the police department. More paper complaints should be available at all community centers and libraries and there should be an online form or email address for people to submit complaints.
• Complaints should go directly to the board, which would then pass them on to the police for investigation. By having the review board receive complaints, people would likely feel more empowered to take action. Going into a police station with a complaint against the police can be intimidating.
Creating governing principles should be a community effort involving the mayor, City Council, police department, and members of the community. Everyone working together to create a way for the community to feel more secure and united — it’s what the board is all about.•
Contact Kristin Palpini at editor@valleyadvcoate.com.
