Suggestions offered for Schenectady police panel

Civilian review board’s direction dominates talks

Mandatory orientation for new members to the city’s Civilian Police Review Board, term limits, and the pros and cons of full-fledged probes by the panel into complaints were among some suggestions offered up by the group’s members during a review of the current city code.

The meeting was hosted Tuesday by members of Schenectady City Council’s Public Safety Committee and comes as the city is in the throes of state mandated police reforms and against a backdrop of longstanding complaints from critics that the nine-member volunteer board too often rubber stamps the police department findings.

The CPRB has also been plagued by a revolving door of members, who are appointed by Mayor Gary Mccarthy based on recommendations from several community groups, including the local NAACP Human Rights Commission, Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, Schenectady Municipal Housing Authority and the City Council among others.

CPRB Chairman Dick Shave explained that the way the process generally works is that two full-time members of the police department’s Office of Professional Standards probe complaints before forwarding their findings to Police Chief Eric Clifford for his review before the report makes it way to the board for their consideration.

“We don’t investigate complaints and I think the citizenry might think that we do,” Shave said during the gathering which was held virtually. “We see what you might say is a subset of allegations about police misbehavior and we review the summaries.”

Shave conceded that saw the CPRB has typically “agreed with the results of a lot of the investigations” from police internal affairs.

Other CPRB members who offered up their ideas for possible revisions to the city code on the organization were Maureen Obie, Carl Williams, Miriam Cajuste and Rose Harrell.

Williams lamented the heavy redactions in some paperwork the committee receives and how that sometimes hampers the board’s ability to get a full picture of the probe into the complaint. He said there is no need for the CPRB to investigate the probe when the police have already looked into the complaint.

“I think having two independent investigatory processes might lead to duplicating procedures and also might break down those trust barriers rather than ( building) them,” Williams said.

Shave responded that the repeal earlier this year of 50a, a law that kept police disciplinary records shielded from public view, offered some hope that the group might be able to get access to more police documents that have largely been off limits.

“We want to be able to see deeper into the police department ... so that they can earn our trust,” he said. “The issue of us investigating separately is a big issue, it’s a big issue and it’s an expensive issue, and it’s not anything I’m prepared to really dive deep into right now.”

Cajuste said the organization would be able to do and be more independent and be empowered if it had a budget.

“There is definitely value in the board having a budget and without a budget there is really no way for the board to operate independently,” Obie added.

City Councilwoman Marion Porterfield stressed that the conversation was only a start and that the governing body would need to scrutinize the suggestions as part of its review of the CPRB legislation.

Public Safety Chairman John Mootooveren echoed that sentiment.