Encouraging start for Urbana's police review board ??

Posted December 23rd, 2007 at 07:46 PM by mjerryfuerst

One of today's NG editorials had the above name.   The editorial noted   that the city of San Jose CA with a population of 1M, hears only 25 compaints annually.   Thus Urbana should likely get 0-2 annually.   It seems wasteful and expensive to establish a board for such little activity.     The City Council should serve in that capacity instead.    We must also remember that a citizen can file a complaint with the board only if the s/he is unhappy with the action taken by the police chief to resolve a dispute with a police officer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On December 23rd, 2007 at 07:51 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

0-2 (complaints) annually. in Urbana thats wishful thinking.

RexBradfield's picture
On December 24th, 2007 at 12:16 PM, RexBradfield said:

Thanks Michael,

We can only hope the figures don't lie, but.............. I have my doubts.

Run

LOL.... that might be an understatement....LOL..

This is still a terrible idea.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Arvid's picture
On December 24th, 2007 at 12:48 PM, Arvid said:

This is still a terrible idea.

So it's a terrible idea to give citizens an impartial avenue to have their concerns of impropriety heard and given an honest look?

On December 24th, 2007 at 01:03 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

I like some of the people they put on the board. I question if they had a problem with the police why they could not have just gone to the City Council of course they probably are not impartial group leaning toward a distrust of the police, I guess it's much easier to have cover when you have a police review board to blame. So maybe your right.

mjerryfuerst's picture
On December 24th, 2007 at 05:18 PM, mjerryfuerst said:

Providing an impartial review is a good idea if there is a problem, which I doubt we have, given an  expected number of complaints of between 0-2.     The City Council and/or mayor should serve as the review board.   If such an arrangement proves ineffective, then maybe in the future a board and its associated bureaucracy could be tried

 

Michael Fuerst

On December 24th, 2007 at 11:04 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

You could try replacing the city council if there is a problem because if there is a problem with this review board you sure won't be able to replace it.

RexBradfield's picture
On December 25th, 2007 at 05:29 PM, RexBradfield said:

Can Board members phone in to the meeting too?

I would love that, they subpoena me and then question me by phone.

And if the answer is no because it is too important,

then the Council meetings are not that important?

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

RexBradfield's picture
On December 26th, 2007 at 03:41 PM, RexBradfield said:

I find it interesting that the Mitchell Report was prepared and he did not have power of subpoena, but Urbana gives this board that power.

Go figure.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

mjerryfuerst's picture
On December 27th, 2007 at 08:33 PM, mjerryfuerst said:

Rex:   Can I use these thoughts about telephone attendance in a NG letter to the editor?

Michael Fuerst                   

(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper