“Oversight bill passes committee”
St. Louis American
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_a432320e-b0bb-11e4-9098-533d110fd129.html
The St. Louis Aldermanic committee passed a bill last Monday (February 9th) that focused on creating a board that would be responsible for investigating and overseeing police misconduct within our community (oversight board of police). The board would also have the ability to review citizens complaints and communicate with internal affairs about investigations (that includes sending investigations back and adding new evidence or questions to cases).
During the hearing a number of parties expressed their concern and opinions about the bill. Both police union and the city counselor’s office disagreed with the board having the power to subpoena while others like Alderman Antonio French push to give the board this power.
This article highlights the opinions of some alderman members and their agreeance or disagreeance to support the bill and the possible argument at hand, which is whether the board should have the subpoena power and in general the type and amount of powers granted to the board.
“The bill gives the board access to all documents and allows for some monitoring of Internal Affairs investigations.” The power to subpoena was not originally documented in the bill but individuals such as Alderman Antonio French is fighting to add it to the bill.
This power is said to cause issues in the future by getting held up on courts and individuals deem it the that adding the power is a risky strategy.Along with subpoena power their have been debates or disputes about how the board members will be selected.
The bill goes to the board of Aldermen and on April 20th the results will be determined. The decision to send the bill back to the committee for revisions , or to pass or deny the bill.
There are some powerful forces aligned to stop the review board, as well as any subpoena power it may gain. The St. Louis police Officer's Union is adamantly opposed to any civilian review or oversight of it's members activities, and it's spokesman Jeff Roorda is on record as also being against police body and dash cams. He seems to believe that the word of police officers should be taken at face value and never questioned. Mr Roorda has since been relieved of his spokesperson duties on the topic of civilian review boards and is the subject of a complaint by a woman who claims Rooda assaulted her at a meeting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.inquisitr.com/1811859/st-louis-police-spokesman-jeff-roorda-faces-assault-charges-woman-says-he-knocked-her-glasses-off-injured-her/
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/02/16/jeff-roorda-no-longer-to-speak-on-civilian-review-board-matters/
Thanks, Arriana, for sharing that article. It was helpful for me to get a better understanding of the debates and discussions surrounding this bill. One thing that the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the surrounding events, has taught me is the importance of police transparency. There needs to be laws in place that promote transparency and eliminate police brutality.
ReplyDeleteSadly, Kerry is right - there are some powerful groups that are trying to stop the review board. While Jeff Roorda will no longer speak on the matter, many others hold his same view point. I cannot understand why anyone would oppose police body and dash cameras - wouldn't greater transparency help both the officers and offenders? I would love the opportunity to sit down with an officer and talk about this...I would be very interested to know their viewpoint, not the viewpoint of those speaking from the safety of their offices.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds as though the politicians do not want to allow police or city actions and practices to become available to citizen review boards. Some of the police who now have body cams neglect to turn them on, some using the excuse that they do not want to be recorded using the restroom. Below is a link to an article where it is noted that police have code words or slang letting each other know that cameras are rolling, such as statements like “we’re red,” to alert each other so that they can either turn their body cams off or regulate their actions accordingly. It appears that transparency to the citizen oversight board is not wanted and in my personal opinion it is because the citizens would be disgusted and outraged by what they would find.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-dash-cam-shows-part-of-contested-arrest-until-st/article_f4c65142-f3be-57f1-a957-9f256fb02459.html
I am not surprised that organizations and police departments are against the passing of this bill. Personally, if they do not have anything to hide then why is this bill such an issue? With the events that have been happening across the nation involving the police and citizens, their word is questionable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with chatonia complete, only people who have something to hide become defensive and accuse others of wrong doings, when the reality is they are the ones who are really in the wrong.
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy is always the more checks and balances there are, the better. When powerful entities go unchecked and certain departments are free to do whatever they want with no one watching but each other, the power can easily be taken too far. Monitoring of all activities will only better the performance of all involved.
ReplyDelete