Mayor-Elect Justin Bibb has a lot on his plate between now and January when he takes office. Added to the traditional task of appointing cabinet members and staff, Bibb must also fill the positions created by the newly enacted charter amendment — Issue 24.
The amendment, which passed by a margin of 59% to 41% and was supported by candidate Bibb, calls for complete civilian control of the police department. In achieving this aim, it creates two boards: The nine-member Civilian Review Board and the 13-member Community Policing Commission. In addition, there will be the appointment of an officer administrator for the Review Board and an executive director for the Commission plus staff — a total of 25-30 people.
The new administration must also allocate office space and resources to operate these new bodies, not to mention the allocation of finances which is another subject. Not an easy task.
In their zeal in drafting the amendment, the framers failed to provide for a specific residency requirement. Other than saying that the persons shall represent Cleveland’s diversity, nowhere in the amendment is there a requirement that board and commission members to be residents or electors of the City of Cleveland. I consider this a major flaw.
In mandating that the new boards be racially, ethnically and culturally diverse, the framers of Issue 24 put in several caveats and requirements. This was a well-intentioned effort to bring people to the table who have traditionally been underrepresented, including bilingual, LBGTQ+, formerly incarcerated persons, and victims of crime and police abuse, just to name a few. But the requirements that members all reside in different police districts may make appointments difficult in that some groups tend to live in the same area of the city. And then there is the additional question of whether these persons must be residents of the city.
There is a bar that prevents the appointment of any person who has ever been employed by the Department of Safety or in law enforcement. This makes sense on the surface. But a former police officer who is now an attorney or some other profession may be an asset to the Police Review Board or the Community Policing Commission and bring a unique perspective. The amendment bars participation even if the service was decades ago, which would seemingly prevent the service of a veteran who served as an MP in the military — even it were years ago.
The requirement that there be representatives of certain police organizations such as the Black Shield Club and the requirement that there be representation of civil rights organizations such as the NAACP or the ACLU also raises the questions of a residency requirement.
There is a requirement that each committee have, in one case two and in the other one, attorney who has experience in representing victims of police abuse or have prosecuted police officers That’s admirable and will clearly be of benefit in considering the legal rights of victims. But once again, are there three such persons who live in the city? And if there is such a person or persons, if they all live in the same police district, all but one will be barred.
As to the attorneys there is an additional problem. Once an attorney becomes a member of either the Police Review Board or the Community Policing Board, there is a serious ethical question as to whether he or she can continue to represent individuals in these types of cases. It would be a conflict of interest to represent a person with a claim against the police or represent a defendant in a criminal case and serve in judgment of the police on either body.
There is a provision that seeks the reform of the arbitration process where in, as the amendment states “…unelected arbitrators who do not reflect the values, concerns, or diversity of the community and who themselves do not live in the community and therefore do not personally bear the burden of any problematic police practices routinely undermine police accountability by reducing or reversing disciplinary decisions.” This is a good thing, but if the existing police contract between the police force and the city provide for arbitration, until that contract is renegotiated it’s my opinion that the arbitration process will continue. Future disputes between the police and the city on issues of discipline, I assume, will be litigated in courts of competent jurisdiction by elected judges but this will have to be included in the next labor contract with the police union.
Framers and supporters of Issue 24 were enthusiastic in support of their cause. It is now time for them to work with the entire community to fill these positions with able persons with the necessary and diverse backgrounds who are willing to commit the time and effort to make the reform process a success.
Questions of the legality of several sections of Issue 24 are likely to end up in court. Litigation could hold up the implementation of Issue 24 for an extended period. And it may be that voters will have to fine-tune it to make it workable.
The devil will be in the details and there are a lot of details that will have to be sorted out before the aim of Issue 24 for complete civilian control of the police department can be implemented.
C. Ellen Connally is a retired judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court. From 2010 to 2014 she served as the President of the Cuyahoga County Council. An avid reader and student of American history, she serves on the Board of the Ohio History Connection, is currently vice president of the Cuyahoga County Soldiers and Sailors Monument Commission and president of the Cleveland Civil War Round Table. She holds degrees from BGSU, CSU and is all but dissertation for a PhD from the University of Akron.