Police Community Relations & Review Commission Minutes

November 16, 2017

Page 1 of 4

POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS & REVIEW COMMISSION

COMMUNITY MEETING

ITEM 1.

Call to order.

The Oxford Police Community Relations & Review Commission meeting of November 16, 2017 was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Pat Meade. Members present were:Deirdre DeLong, Aimin Wang, Amber Franklin, and Shana Rosenberg.

Doug Elliott, City Manager; John Jones, Police Chief; John Buchholz, Assistant to the Chief – Community Outreach; and Amy Gabbard, Office Manager, were in attendance for the City.

ITEM 2.

Approval of Agenda.

Aimin Wang moved to approve the agenda; Amber Franklin seconded. The motion passed 5-0-0.

ITEM 3.

Approval of Minutes of the August 17, 2017 Meeting.

Shana Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes; Deirdre DeLongseconded. The motion passed 5-0-0.

ITEM 4.

Discussion.

  1. Police Complaint Process

Before the discussion about the complaint process began, Linda Kimball, an audience member, advised she thought it was notable that the Cleveland Police Department allegedly will be involved in a study to combat bias.

Pat Meade reminded everyone that Chief Jones provided the commission with a copy of the completed investigation into a complaint against a police officer for their review. Since it was their first review into a complaint, they took this opportunity to ask questions about the process. Shana Rosenberg stated that she thought the investigation was thorough, but after reviewing the video of the incident in question, recommended that the city provide better lighting in the alley next to the police department. Chief Jones said new security cameras will be installed when the police department is renovated, which should help with the quality of the video. Also in the renovation plans is the addition of a sally port, which will allow for a secured entryway into the PD when police officers transport arrested subjects to the PD for processing.

Pat Meade asked Geoff Robinson, an audience member and the lieutenant who conducted the internal investigation, to explain the Garrity Warning. Lt. Robinson explained that the Garrity Warning is an advisement of rights to government employees who are compelled to answer questions when suspected of a policy or procedural violation. The employee’s responses to the questions cannot be used against them in criminal proceedings. If the employee refuses to answer questions, they can be terminated.

The question was raised of what was sent to the complainant at the completion of the investigation, to which Chief Jones stated a summary of the investigative report along with a letter from him is given to the complainant.

Amber Franklin indicated that the investigation appeared to point out discrepancies between witness/victim statements but not between statements made by officers. She specifically referred to a statement made by one officer who described “escorting” the subject to a police cruiser versus a statement made by another officer who said that the subject did not need help walking to the cruiser. Chief Jones explained that one of the statements was written as part of the initial police report associated with the subject’s arrest and was describing the fact that the subject was taken into custody and escorted to the police cruiser, not because he was having difficulty walking but because he was in custody and not free to leave; thus, he was being “escorted” to the police cruiser. The other statement was made during the internal investigation by a witnessing officer and was not in the same context as the arresting officer’s statement.

Shana Rosenberg was trying to understand why the police would transport prisoners who were having a mental health crisis or were experiencing a medical issue to the jail instead of Fort Hamilton, to which Chief Jones explained that there are medics available at the jail to provide care if it is needed. It is also safer to continue straight to the jail where there is a sallyport and other law enforcement personnel to assist if needed.

The question was raised during discussion about what records were available to the complainant, to which Chief Jones explained that records are available to complainant if they would ask for them and that the complainant could have the records ahead of time just like officers do.

  1. Training for Dealing with Individuals with Special Needs

Lisa Ciampa and Erin PaterniteEakin, members of Oxford OH Families of Children with Exceptionalities, a Facebook group created for families of children with special needs, wanted to,but were unavailable to attend tonight’s meeting. Susan Kauffman volunteered to attend on the group’s behalf. She shared with everyone what she has done as an advocate for her son so that her son recognizes police officers and understands how to act when approached by a police officer, and vice versa.After working together to come up with ways to educate first responders about her son, it was determined that his name and address could be flagged in the CAD. An audience member said he liked the idea of flagging his daughter in CAD. His daughter has cerebral palsy and is nonverbal and non-ambulatory and would want someone to know she was in the house should there be a fire.

Linda Kimball said that Kathy McMahon-Klosterman provides special education training. Chief Jonesshared with everyone that officers have received training and will continue to receive training on dealing with people with special needs.

  1. Policing Around Second Violation of Good Neighbor Policy - According to Miami University’s website, the Good Neighbor Policy “is an initiative that developed out of the work of the Alcohol Coordinating Committee, and aims at reducing the negative impact of highly visible house parties in Oxford.”Glenn Ellerbe, City Councilor and Miami University staff member, explained that the policy applies school consequences to real world consequences. He said when a student receives a citation for a noise, litter, or nuisance party violation, a letter is sent to all students residing at the address of the vio1ation. Upon a second violation at the same address, all of the residents are required to attend a meeting to discuss the citations.A third violation results in a referral to the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution (OESCR), which goes on the student’s transcript.

It was during a meeting for a second violation of the Good Neighbor Policy that allegations were made that officers entered a house without permission or a warrant. Chief Jones advised that if an individual believes this happened they should be encouraged to come forward to meet with him or the PCRRC. The issue was discussed in a supervisor staff meeting and sergeants were advised to ensure that officers were following proper procedure.

  1. Set Dates for 2018 Quarterly Meetings –

February 15th – data meeting

April 19th

August 16th

November 15th – public meeting

  1. How Could thePCRRC Be Of Service toOPDin Strengthening and Maintaining Strong Police Community Relations Here In Oxford?

Chief Jones described the police department’s recent outreach efforts and asked members of the commission to reach out to minority groups. Pat Meade asked to be included in an email when members of the police department meet with minority groups.

Chief Jones also noted that the police department hired a new police officer who is starting on 11/27.

ITEM 5.

Adjourn.

Amber Franklin moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.; Shana Rosenberg seconded. The motion passed 5-0-0.