I: Civilian Complaint Review Board

The New Rochelle City Council will hold two important public hearings and its usual monthly Citizens To Be Heard session on Tuesday, September 10^th, beginning at 7 pm at City Hall. 

The first public hearing will address the long-awaited proposal for a Civilian Complaint Review Board to review or investigate cases of alleged police misconduct.  The second hearing will address the proposed change in the name of Radisson Plaza to “Hannahs Way,” which would both reference and obscure an important piece of New Rochelle’s African-American history. 

And the Citizens To Be Heard session, at which New Rochelle residents may address any topic of their choosing, will provide an opportunity to discuss the current investigation of NRPD Lieutenant Sean Kane, whose body camera recorded him handling a baggie with white powder in his patrol car shortly before he “discovered” a similar bag under the car of Black New Rochelle native Ivin Harper and had him arrested.

New RoAR News has covered all these important topics in recent months, and we will review each of them this week to help encourage and prepare concerned New Rochelle residents to discuss them with their elected leaders on September 10^th.

Part II: The Saga of Hannah Pugsley

Part III: Citizens To Be Heard – An Opportunity to Address Corruption in the NRPD

We begin with a detailed review of the shortcomings of the proposed CCRB by former Westchester County Legislator and New Rochelle resident Damon Maher.

We the People: Specific Requirements for Police Accountability

by Damon Maher

Damon Maher is a former three term Westchester County Legislator representing parts of New Rochelle, Eastchester and Tuckahoe.   He  was on the Standing Committee for Public Safety and the County Police Reform and Reimagining Task Force.

One year in the early 2000s, when one of our kids was graduating from Albert Leonard Middle School, then-Superintendent Linda Kelly Fauci kicked off the ceremony with this couplet consisting of 10 two-letter words:

If it is to be,

It is up to me!

In that spirit, it appears to be up to us, the community of concerned New Rochelle residents, to assert accountability over those we employ to serve and protect.

On the federal level, the proposed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act has languished in committee since 2021. One of its most passionate co-sponsors, Congressman Jamaal Bowman, has been voted out of office by Democratic primary voters in favor of County Executive Latimer, who is unlikely to make this a priority as a candidate in the general election. (More about his inertia on regional  approach to police accountability while he plays out the string on his day job as County Executive is noted below.)   Likewise, Vice President Harris, who had been a supporter of the federal bill, is unlikely to even mention it in her “run to the center” in the Presidential election campaign, in which she has been more intent thus far on emphasizing her prosecutorial background.

On the state level, Attorney General Letitia James has dragged her feet for over a year now on the investigation of the New Rochelle police killing of Jarrell Garris. And Governor Hochul shows herself to be a “law and order” reactionary, with little to no interest in police reform.  Our state legislators acquiesce in that position.

At the county level, a large and diverse blue ribbon committee recommended an independent police accountability board three years ago. Good legislation was drafted.

The two most important things to know about the proposed COUNTY body are that it would: (a) have strong investigative authority as an independent citizens’ board empowered to hire experienced, highly-qualified investigators who are not police themselves; and (b) be offered as a shared, opt-in service to all our municipalities throughout the County — it’s not just about our County Department of Public Safety — which would provide the economies of scale not available to New Rochelle, much less the smaller cities, towns and villages.

But  the enacting legislation was never even brought up for formal discussion at the County Board of Legislators.  When asked, the executive and legislative branches of county government pin the blame on each other for the lack of action.  Realistically, a quick phone call from County Executive Latimer (or his deputy and heir-apparent Ken Jenkins) to Democrat leadership of the Board of Legislators would give cautious Members the political cover they feel they need, but  that appears unlikely in view of the run-to-the-center election year mentality mentioned above.

A public hearing on the proposed NEW ROCHELLE Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) is scheduled for September 10th. The proposal is weak.

The City of Albany, which has a diverse population of 100,000, has a better plan that it enacted in 2021.  There are important provisions in that plan that New Rochelle  — a city of 81,500 and growing — should adopt, outlined here with citations from the pertinent sections of the Albany City Code: 

1. Sec. 42-334(F):  Guaranteed annual budget equal to at least 1% of police department budget.
   
   2.  Sec. 42-334(G):  Board’s access to Corporation Counsel and outside counsel.
   
   3.  Sec. 42-335: Removal of Board Member for cause by two-thirds vote of Council (i.e., 5 votes) rather than simple majority per Sec. 9-115 of proposed NR ordinance; or alternatively Mayor plus at least 3 other council members. Also, proposed Sec. 9-116 should make it clear that a majority of the CCRB (i.e., 4 ) is required for a meeting quorum and that number is also required to pass or approve any of its motions or other actions (other than to adjourn).
   
   4.  Sec. 42-339:  Not just training by NRPD, but rather broader training on civilian oversight for CCRB members (e.g., National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement).
   
   5.  Sec 42-340(A):  CCRB power to make suggestions to City Council regarding police policies and procedures, including additional police training.  Such suggestions need not be based on a specific complaint, but rather CCRB may investigate on its own motion; and that it may investigate incidents occurring before establishment of the CCRB for such policy suggestions, although not for discipline purposes with regard to such pre-establishment incidents or facts   (e.g., coercive interrogation procedures, especially regarding unrepresented youthful detainees, and dangerous foot pursuit in non-emergency situations)
   .
   6.  Secs.42-342 to 42-345:  CCRB power to investigate and report before the Commissioner’s determination of discipline, if any; and not, per proposed legislation, the other way around. In any event, the Commissioner should have 60 days to explain his/her determination in writing. There should be user-friendly complaint systems, subpoena power, accessibility to records and no per se delays due to other criminal or civil proceedings relating to a complaint — rather place such suspensions of investigations within the discretion of the CCRB (see Sec. 42-348).
   
   7.  Albany Code sec. 42-346:  Mediation (and restorative justice) encouraged.

Additionally, there other potential features to consider beyond those in the Albany Code, such as:

1.  Increase the proposed size of the Board from 7 to  9 to share the workload of this all-volunteer group, maybe with two more at-large members with a view toward increasing representation for communities historically impacted by interaction with the police. And, like the “district” designees, maybe the Mayor’s at-large designee(s) should be subject to a full Council vote.

2.  Include strong whistleblower provisions protecting complainants and witnesses, with authority to investigate and sanction retaliation (in addition to parties’ other remedies in court).

3.  Include a statement of intent that the power to discipline resides with the Commissioner and ultimately the Council itself and, to the extent possible, oppose the diminution of that power in any collective bargaining agreement,

4. Permit the City to bargain with increased inducements for implementation of this enforcement regime. This could include significant inducements for police officers to reside in New Rochelle, with further inducements for residing in the 10801  and 10805 ZIP codes. (The above-mentioned Linda Kelly has lived in New Rochelle during and long since her time as School Superintendent.)

5.  Further to that “buy-in” point and the further professionalization of policing, advocate for statewide licensing for police officers as recently instituted in New Jersey.

6. Advocate for termination of judge-made qualified immunity defense and for personal liability insurance requirement.

7.  Provide sufficient resources to create strong community awareness of existence of CCRB, its jurisdiction and its mechanisms and to offer it as a model to other communities.

8.  Require the Council to diligently seek enabling legislation at other levels of government (e.g., “home rule,” Taylor Law amendment) necessary to implement the CCRB and grant funding from such other levels of government.

9.  Continue the Community Police Partnership Board (“CPPB), with police and citizen membership, as an ongoing source of dialogue and a means of exchanging recommendations with the CCRB. 

10. Put stronger emphasis on reporting and rewarding positive police interactions with the community.

11. Have complaints and disciplinary action given greater weight in promotion decisions, possibly even to the extent of the CCRB reviewing proposed promotions.  This latest case with the allegation of a Lieutenant allegedly planting evidence in a drugs case is alarming in the speed with which the officer vaulted so quickly to this high rank despite a poor disciplinary file.

12. Give CCRB direct access to complainants and witnesses.  Having previously studied the issue of police accountability for six years as a County Legislator and now as a concerned resident of the part of New Rochelle where most police activity occurs, I believe that we need a strong framework for civilian oversight incorporating the features outlined above. 

Finally, there are many good police officers. Why shouldn’t we support them and make their jobs safer by insisting that all their colleagues strive for the same high standards of decency and professionalism?