HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Relations Commission - Minutes - 01/12/1978MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 20, 1978
TO: Hunan Relations Commission
FROM: Mary Ann Kennaugh, Administrative Aide
RE: Minutes of the January 12, 1978 Regular Meeting
I. Call to Order
Called to order by Chairman Napheys at 7:40 p.m., City Council chambers,
300 W. LaPorte Avenue.
II. Role Call
Members Present: Staff:
Ben Napheys John McGraw, Henan Resources Director
Kelsey Smith Rosita Bachmann, Human Rights Officer
Pam Sysmm[ Mary Ann Kennaugh. Administrative Aide
Paul Salas
Guests:
Members Absent:
Jay Davis, Investigation Division, Police Dept.
Dorm Shoemaker, excused Sgt. Bud Reed, Police Department
Don Lambert, excused Lucia Liley, Asst. City Attorney
Bob Zimdahl, excused Susan Sanfilippo, Asst. to the City Manager
Steve Smith Dennis Sanfilippo
New member Paul Salas was introduced and welcomed.
With no quorum present, those members present acted on the following items as
a sub -committee of the whole.
III. Consider Approval of the December 8, 1977 Regular Meeting Minutes
Item deferred until the next regular meeting.
100% Recycled Bond
Human Relations Commission 0
Minutes of the January 12, 1978 Regular Meeting
Page Two _
IV. Receive Resignation of Ken Drieth and Consider Recommendation to City Council
a
chairman Napheys indicated he had received a copy of Commission Member Drieth's
resignation letter, effective January 9, 1978. Copies of active applications
on file for membership were reviewed by the members. Commission Member Salas
suggested soliciting more women and Spanish -surnamed persons to apply for mem-
bership. It was the consensus of the members that the vacancy on the Commission
be publicized again, and that the Human Relations Commission make a recommenda-
tion to City Council for nimbership at their next regular meeting.
V. Receive Report from Chairman Napheys on the December 14, 1977 Police
- Napheys: Those present at the December 14, 1977 meeting included myself,
Paul Salas, Assistant City Attorney Liley, City Manager Arnold, Police
Chief Smith, Lieutenant Jay Davis, Division Chief Jerry Wallace and
Sgt. Bud Reed of the Police Department, and Rosita Bachmann, Human Rights
officer.
All members indicated receipt of a copy of Lucia Liley's nKa=andumm dated
January 10, 1978 summarizing the changes to the proposed amendments as
suggested at the December 14, 1977 meeting. (See Attachment "A")
Lucia Liley indicated that, after the Human Relations Cc mission makes _a
recommendation regarding the procedure, the proposed procedure will go to City
Council to be reviewed at a work session, (The next scheduled worksessions are
January 24th and January 31st, 1978.)
Amendment #1
- Sysumm: Proposed amencl<ment #1 (reference to Lucia Liley's memo of January
10, 1978) assumes that the Complainant can read and understand English.
(Liley: Complaint forms will be available in both English and Spanish.)
- McGraw: (Addressing Jay Davis) In your investigations of complaints against
police officers, don't you request the complainants to relay their under-
standing of the investigation to you? (Davis: It has not been standard
procedure.)
- Napheys: The point of the compromise resulting in amendment #1 (as stated
in the January 10, 1978 mamas), was to not over -emphasize the possible
negative consequences of filing a false complaint.
0 •
Human Relations commission
Minutes of the January 12, 1978 Regular Meeting
Page Three
- McGraw: The statement regarding possible consequences makes negative
inferences,. i.e., that the sworn statement is false and that the
complainant knows it, and that the Complainant is disregarding the
seriousness of filing a complaint. (Salas: There is a 'chilling"
effect of emphasizing this.)
- Sysum: I want to be sure that all involved are fully aware of what is
going on.
- Salas: We are dealing with vague terms -- the Complainant will be notified
of the consequences (by having the statement printed on the bottan of
the form), but the consequences will not be over -emphasized.
- Liley: City staff feels comfortable with having the statement printed at
the bottom of the form -- it is adequate without going overboard.
- Sysum: Would it be possible to ask the complainants if they understand the
form they are signing? (Davis and Liley: Yes.)
It was noted that the complaints will be notarized only if they are mailed in.
Otherwise, they are signed in the presence of the Investigating Officer. (Liley
noted that state statutes do not require notarization).
Acting as a subcommittee of the whole:
Commission Member Salas moved approval of the recommended language in amend-
ment #1, as a result of the meeting held on December 14, 1978. Ccnnission Member
Kelsey Smith seconded. Discussion -followed:
Sysum: I still feel you need to ask the Complainants if they understand
what is being read in the complaint form. (Davis: I talk about the
complaint with the complainant first. Many times I find that the Com-
plainant does not understand Police Department policies and procedures,
and I try to explain them as I understand then. All conversations with
the Complainant regarding the complaint are taped, and the complainant
knows this. I feel that in most cases the Complainant does understand
the investigation and the procedures involved in filing a complaint.
C mmission Member Salas called for the question. Notion was approved 4-0.
Ayes: Comidssion Members Salas, Napheys, Sysum, and Kelsey Smith. Nays: None.
Amendment #2
No objections were raised regarding proposed amendment #2, as this is what the
Human Relations Commission previously approved.
Human Relations Cam -Liss •
Minutes of the January 0 1978 Regular Meeting
Page Four
Amendment #3
- Napheys: We are talking about a point which is very unlikely to cane up
(requiring a polygraph exam.) It is important to get the procedure
passed without getting hung up on this point. (Salas: I take issue
with your point that it will be an unusual situation.)
It was noted that the polygraph would be used only as a last resort in a
situation where there were dramatically opposed viewpoints involving one
or two officers against an individual.
Lucia Liley indicated that on Page 3 of her mam dated January 10, 1978,
Item X.2 was typed incorrectly. The last sentence should read: "Failure
to take a polygraph when so ordered shall (not ice) be grounds for dis-
missal from the Police Department. "
- Sgt. Reed: We felt it was only fair to the police officers to retain the
word "shall" in Item X.1. It has always been the policy of the Police
Department to dismiss the police officer if he refuses to take the
polygraph-
- Salas: The order of taking the polygraph is important. (Liley: The Can-
plainanr and the police officer take the polygraph simultaneously.)
Further points of discussion were:
- The polygraph does not absolutely determine -truth or falsehood; the
results are not "black and white".
- The Investigating Officer is the person who determines whether or not
a polygraph will be required.
- Perhaps the wording in both X.1 and X.2 could be changed to incorporate
the word "may" instead of "shall".
- Other avenues are open to the Complainant if the cmplaint is dismissed.
- Liley: City administration requires City employees to take a polygraph when
asked to do so. Perhaps the Hunan Relations Commission could make a
recommendation to City Council to investigate this policy.
Salas: Whether the Complainant takes the polygraph or not, the police officer
should independently agree or refuse to take the polygraph. Both parties
should be asked simultaneously to take the polygraph.
Commission Member Sysun moved acceptance of amendment #3 as written, using the
word "shall" for both the Coplainant and the police officer. Commission Manber
Napheys seconded. Motion passed 3-1. Ayes: Commission Members Napheys, Sysun,
and Kelsey Smith. Nays: Commission Member Salas. (Commission Member Napheys:
Human Relations Ca miS
Minutes of the Januarw 1978 Regular Meeting •
Page Five
My vote of "Aye" was a practical matter. The percentage of times the polygraph
may be used is small, and I feel a fair determination will be made. I feel it
is very important that a procedure be recommended to the City Council.)
Commission Member Salas recommended follow-up on previous suggestion by Lucia
L,iley that the City administration reconsider its requirements regarding City
employees taking the polygraph. Bath Commission Member .apheys and Kelsey
Smith expressed support for this recommendation.
Commission Member Salas moved approval of passage of the procedure irregardless
of the results of amex2ment #3. Commission Member Kelsey Smith seconded and
motion passed 4-0. Ayes: Commission Members SAlas, Napheys, Sysum, and Kelsey
Smith. Nays: None.
It was decided by consensus that Chairperson Napheys send a letter to those
members absent requestu g a vote of Aye or Nay on the above actions. It was
noted that this information must be submitted to the City -Manager's office by
January 25, 1978 in order to be or. the January 31, 1978 work session agenda.
VI. Receive Chairman's Announcement of Member Amointments to the
Deferred to next meeting.
VII. Receive Report on Community Relations
No report due to the absence of Don Shoemaker.
VIII. Preplanning of Future Meetings
Chairman Napheys requested that Kelsey Smith, as Chairperson of the City Council
Advisory Committee, begin working on the March agenda (reminder that one point
to be considered is community representation on boards and commissions as dis-
cussed at the December 8, 1977 Human Relations Commission meeting).
IX. Other Business
None.
X. Adjournment
Commission Member Sys= moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commission Member
Salas seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ayes: ccaudssion Members Salas, Napheys,
Sysum, and Kelsey Smith. Nays: None. Chairman Napheys thanked all members
present for corm.
... _......_._.... _ ��
C TY OF FORT COLLI S EXHIS1r A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 10, 1978
TO: John Arnold, City Manager
John McGraw, Director of Human Resources
Ben Napheys, Chairman of the Human Relations Commission
Ralph Smith, Chief of Police
FROM: Lucia Liley, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Police Department Rules and Regulations
Regarding Handling of Citizen Complaints Against Officers
On November 10, 1977, the Human Relations Commission discussed four
proposed amendments to the citizen complaint procedure, three of which were
unacceptable to most -members of the Human Relations Commission.
On December 14, 1977, a meeting was held in the City Manager's office
concerning the procedure and those in attendance included the City Manager
John Arnold; four members of the Police Department Police Chief Ralph Smith,
Jay Davis of Internal Investigation, Division Chief Jerry Wallace and
Sgt. Bud Reed); Human Relations Commission Chairman Ben Napheys, Paul Salas,
and myself.
At that meeting, the following changes in the three proposed amendments
were suggested:
1. Section IV K. The proposed amendment which went to the Human Relations
Commission on November 10 read as follows:
"K. Similarly, the Investigator, at the beginning of the invest-
igation, shall advise the Complainant that signing a sworn
statement which contains a materially false statement which
the Complainant does not believe to be true, could subject
the Complainant to prosecution under applicable state laws.
Further, the Investigator shall inform the Complainant that
failure to cooperate fully in the investigation could lead
to the dismissal of the complaint."
The suggestion which came out of the December meeting was to eliminate the
first sentence from the written procedure, and instead have the statement
printed at the bottom of the complaint forms. In so doing, the same possibilities
for abuse by the officer receiving the complaint would hopefully not exist
(i.e. orally over -emphasizing and thus possibly intimidating complainants).
The latter sentence would be incorporated into IV J to read as follows:
"J. Th vestigator, at the beginnin* the investigation,
shag advise the officer under investigation that failure
to cooperate in the investigation could make him subject to
dismissal and shall likewise advise the Complainant that
failure on his part to cooperate in the investi ation could
ea to—Tismissal of the comp aint.
2. Section IV 0. The proposed amendment to Section IV 0 read as follows:
"P. A committee comprised of three (3) members of the Human Relations
Commission shall, on written request of the Complainant; review
the final report submitted by the Investigator, and officially
convene to consider charges by the Complainant regarding the
sufficiency or accuracy of the report. The committee may
request the presence of the Investigator at such meeting to
address concerns raised by the Complainant. The committee shall
not have subpoena powers but it shall be allowed to review
Physical and/or testimonial evidence relating to the particular
incident giving rise to the complaint. The committee shall
have a period of fifteen (15) days after receipt of the report
to make any recommendations concerning the report to the Chief
of Police."
The representatives of the Police Department present at the December
meeting indicated, after considerable thought and discussion, that if the
Human Relations Commission felt it necessary to have the entire Commission
involved, the Department was willing to try the procedure with the involvement
of the entire Human Relations Commission. Section IV 0 would then read
as originally proposed, i.e.:
"0. The Human Relations Commission, on written request of the
Complainant, shall review the final report submitted by the
Investigator, and officially convene to consider charges by the
Complainant regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the report.
The Human Relations Commission may request the presence of the
Investigator at such meeting to address concerns raised by the
Complainant. The Human Relations Commission shall not have
subpoena powers but it shall be allowed to review physical and/or
testimonial evidence relating to the particular incident
giving rise to the complaint. The Human Relations Commission
shall have a period of fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
report to make any recommendations concerning the report to
the Chief of Police."
3.. Section IV W 1. Section IV W 1 in the originally proposed procedure
read as follows:
"W. 1. If a question of fact is involved and a factual determination
cannot be established by other available evidence, a
Complainant may be required to take a polygraph. If a
Complainant is so requested and refuses to take a polygraph,
the investigation may be terminated at that point."
-2-
"W. 2. floa Complainant is required to ke a polygraph examination,
the officer shall also be required to take a polygraph.
Failure to take a polygraph when so ordered may be grounds
for dismissal from the Police Department."
The proposed amendment submitted to the Human Relations Commission in
November was as follows:
"X. 1. If a question of fact is involved and a factual determination
cannot be established by other available evidence, a
Complainant may be required to take a polygraph. If a
Complainant is so requested and refuses to take a polygraph,
the investigation shall be terminated at that point."
"X. 2. If a Complainant is required to take a polygraph examination,
the officer shall also be required to take a polygraph.
Failure to take a polygraph when so ordered ma be grounds
for dismissal from the Police Department.'; 11SMAG
There was not complete agreement on this item among all the persons
attending the December meeting. There was, however, a considerable amount
of valuable discussion on the issue. One amendment that I believe had
unanimous support was to change X 2 to make disciplinary action mandatory
if the officer was requested to take.a polygraph and refused to do so. This
is the current practice within the Police Department and it was felt the
procedure should accurately reflect this fact.
It was again stressed, with regard to paragraph number 1, that a
polygraph would be considered only if a question of fact was involved and
a determination could not be established. Given that situation, a polygraph
could be required of the Complainant and Officer (in the discretion of the
Investigator). If a polygraph were required, paragraph 1 (as proposed) would
then make it mandatory that the investigation be terminated. It would not
necessarily require a dismissal of the complaint, but merely that the
Investigator arrive at a decision regarding the complaint (i.e. unfounded,
sustained, etc.) and notify all parties.
-3-