City Council – Police Civilian Review Board Joint Work Session April 27, 2021 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM Register at: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Resolution: CARES Funding Allocation for Emergency Assistance Program (Pathways Fund) - $150,000 (1 reading) III. Welcome IV. PCRB Overview of Proposed Changes to Governing Policies V. Public Comment (Speakers – 3 Minutes each) VI. Questions from Council i. CRB Response to the City Manager’s review of proposed policies VII. Discussion (City Council/PCRB) VIII. Public Comment (Speakers – 3 Minutes each) IX. Discussion (City Council/PCRB) X. Next Steps Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 27, 2021 Action Required: Approve Resolution Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director of Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director of Human Services Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance Title: CARES Funding Allocation for Emergency Assistance Program (Pathways Fund) - $150,000 Background: The City received approximately $8.2 million from the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the Coronavirus Relief Funds (C.R.F.) to local governments made available through the CARES Act. The City received these funds in two, equal tranches of $4.1 million in June and August of 2020. The Commonwealth distributed these funds to local governments based on population. Expenses related to the City’s direct response to the pandemic were eligible for CARES funding. Additionally, “second order” effects of the pandemic are eligible, including business disruption funding and other economic support to those impacted economically. Discussion: Approximately $7.3 million in CARES funding was anticipated to be incurred by the original deadline of December 30, 2020. The projected balance of unspent funds and accrued interest totaled approximately $921,500. At the December 21, 2020 City Council meeting staff recommended the usage of these unspent CARES funds to reimburse the General Fund for previously incurred public safety payroll expenses in order to expend all of the CARES Funds prior to the deadline of December 30, 2020. Subsequent to the December 21, 2020 City Council meeting, the deadline was extended allowing for the usage of these funds for this purpose. Due to the pandemic crisis, requests for financial assistance through the Pathways/Community Resource Hotline have increased dramatically, resulting in the full distribution of previously appropriated funds from City Council. Department of Human Services is seeking an appropriation of $150,000 from unspent CARES funds to provide emergency finance assistance to community members through the Pathways/Community Resource Hotline. This hotline is maintained by the Department of Human Services in order to provide immediate financial relief to community members experiencing a financial crisis. Staff’s review of this request finds that it is eligible to receive funds under the CARES Act and is appropriate and needed as our community continues to deal with the impacts of COVID-19. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This resolution aligns with Goal 1 of the Strategic Plan to be an inclusive community of self- sufficient residents; and it aligns with Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan, to be a well-managed and responsive organization. Community Engagement: The Department of Human Services is in regular contact with community members in need, community partners addressing financial needs, and partners in Albemarle County to ensure that we are able to be responsive and comprehensive, particularly during this health and economic crisis. Hotline operators have engaged with over 4,000 community members in need as part of the partnership with the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation and United Way of Greater Charlottesville. Budgetary Impact: The CARES funds that are proposed to be reallocated are unspent, previously appropriated dollars, so no new additional funding is required to be appropriated. The funds which were to be used to reimburse the General Fund for previously incurred public safety payroll expenses, will be reduced to approximately $771,500. This is reducing the additional budgetary capacity previously created in the General Fund in the current fiscal year. However should additional funding be necessary to close any budget shortfalls at the end of the fiscal year, these funds would be backfilled using American Rescue Plan (A.R.P.) funds. Recommendation: Staff recommend that Council approve the attached resolution. Alternatives: Identify an alternative funding source (such as Council Strategic Initiatives Funds) and amend the Resolution, or not approve the resolution and add provide no additional funding to the Emergency Assistance Program. Attachments: 1. Resolution RESOLUTION Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Act (CARES) Funds for Emergency Assistance Program (Pathways Fund) $150,000 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council allocated $921,500 of unspent Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Act (CARES) funds to reimburse the General Fund for previously incurred public safety payroll expenses; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council has requested those funds be used to provide emergency finance assistance to community members through the Pathways/Community Resource Hotline; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $150,000 of the previously unspent CARES Funds be allocated in the following manner: Transfer From: $150,000 Fund: 208 Internal Order: 1900386 GL Code: 599999 Transfer To: $150,000 Fund: 208 Internal Order: 1900384 GL Code: 599999 Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board Presentation to the City Council APRIL 27, 2021 Overview of Presentation A little history Oversight Model Development Process Main Elements of Oversight Model Resource Considerations Current Status and Next Steps Questions History of Police Oversight in Charlottesville Civilian Review in the 1990s August 2017 and Dissolution of the CRB December 2017 City Council Resolution Activities of the Initial Civilian Review Board 2019 Ordinance and Bylaws Current CRB Charlottesville did not Adopt the Oversight Model Proposed by the Initial Board Recommendation by initial Board was for an oversight model involving complaint review, audits, limited independent investigation, and advisory functions 2019 ordinance and bylaws were very different: ◦ Model limited almost exclusively to review and advisory functions ◦ Reduced paid staff from two (Director, Auditor) to one (Executive Director) ◦ Greatly limited public input into staff hiring, Board member selection ◦ Reduced diversity requirements for Board membership ◦ Eliminated Board stipend ◦ Board members could be removed without cause ◦ Includes “opt‐out” provision so that Board will not see all complaints ◦ Board can take no action on complaints until after IA investigation is complete ◦ Board not allowed to independently investigate complaints or incidents ◦ Board explicitly denied input into disciplinary decisions ◦ Audit function removed Bottom Line on Existing Model Complaint investigation process remains opaque Board is incapable of acting on most complaints, cannot act independently even in response to serious incidents Board cannot initiate independent investigations of complaints Board cannot address disciplinary or corrective action matters Executive Director is the only individual allowed to interact with CPD during complaint review Board can consult outside counsel only on limited range of issues Board has limited power to access information Oversight Model Development Process House Bill 2055 (signed by Governor Northam Oct. 28, 2020) allows municipalities to grant expanded powers CRB forms Ordinance Work Group (12/20) Asked for community input on needs and objectives Background research on oversight models and organizations ◦ Initial CRB recommendations ◦ Insights from NACOLE and other organizations ◦ Review of oversight structures across the U.S. Design an oversight model that is consistent with HB 5055, addressing shortcomings of 2019 Ordinance and Bylaws Major Provisions of House Bill 5055 Municipalities may establish oversight organizations (§9.1‐601(B)) and can grant them powers: ◦ …To receive, investigate, and issue findings on complaints from civilians regarding conduct of law‐enforcement officers… ◦ …To investigate and issue findings on incidents, including the use of force by a law‐enforcement officer, death or serious injury to any person held in custody, serious abuse of authority or misconduct, allegedly discriminatory stops… ◦ …after consultation with [an]officer's or employee's direct supervisor or commander, to make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of departmental and professional standards, as defined by the locality. Powers enabled by HB 5055 (continued) ◦ …To investigate policies, practices, and procedures of law‐enforcement agencies… and to make recommendations regarding changes to such policies, practices, and procedures… ◦ …To review all investigations conducted internally by law‐enforcement agencies ◦ …To request reports of the annual expenditures of the law‐enforcement agencies…and to make budgetary recommendations ◦ …To make public reports on the activities of the civilian oversight body, including investigations, hearings, findings, recommendations, determinations, and oversight activities ◦ …To undertake any other duties as reasonably necessary for the civilian oversight body to effectuate its lawful purpose as provided for in this section to effectively oversee the law‐enforcement agencies Major Elements of the Proposed Oversight Model Model includes Review, Investigative, Audit, and Advisory functions ◦ Receive and process complaints ◦ Initiate independent investigations of complaints of serious misconduct or incidents involving use of force, etc. ◦ Review IA investigations that are not categorized as “serious” ◦ Hold hearings in support of complaint review, investigations, or disciplinary matters, in support of which the board may exercise subpoena power ◦ Conduct periodic audits of Charlottesville Police Department’s policies, practices, and outcomes, evaluate impacts on disproportionately policed groups ◦ Provide reports of audits and investigations of CPD policies, practices, and outcomes ◦ Conduct public engagement activities to hear community concerns, facilitate communications with the CPD Receive Complaints Current structure allows plaintiffs to opt‐out This means that the Board cannot get a clear picture of the totality of the complaints received by the CPD Board also needs to identify serious complaints and incidents for independent investigation Proposed Ordinance calls for working cooperatively with the CPD to develop a method for receiving complaints and maintaining confidentiality Independent Investigations Board would have authority to initiate independent investigations of serious incidents and complaints of serious misconduct An Investigations Committee of the Board will be appointed, and criteria for initiating investigations will be defined in the Board’s Operating Procedures When the Investigations Committed decides the Board should conduct its own investigation, Internal Affairs will cease investigating and provide all relevant evidence, documents, and files to the investigator Conducted by licensed independent investigators, procured through the City Manager The Board may call a hearing in support of an investigation, or make findings of fact and proceed to disciplinary action solely based on the results of an investigation Independent investigations anticipated to be relatively rare Review of Internal Affairs Investigations Proposed model is much like that in the 2019 Ordinance, but “backstopped” by the Audit function Reviews will be limited to complaints not classified as “serious” or subject to independent investigation Reviews will occur after IA investigation is complete, upon receipt of review request CPD will provide complete investigation file, other relevant evidence, and the subject officer’s complaint history to the Board The Board will hold a hearing in support of each review request The Board may concur with the IA investigation, find that the result is not supported by the evidence, or that the IA investigation is incomplete or unsatisfactory Hearings The Board may hold hearings in support of complaint review, independent investigations, disciplinary actions, or other matters where information gathering is necessary to support effective police oversight Procedures (under development) will vary somewhat depending upon the purpose of the hearings; best practice models are available from a number of oversight organizations Hearings dealing with confidential matters may be closed Subpoenas of documents or witnesses may be requested after good faith efforts fail to elicit cooperation Police officers will have procedural protections Audits Audits are a key feature that was not included in the 2019 ordinance An Auditor would: ◦ Report on trends in police activities, investigations, and outcomes ◦ Monitor and maintain information access channels with the CPD ◦ Support the Executive Director in all information gathering and reporting tasks Given workload considerations, having a full‐time auditor seems advisable Public Engagement An important aspect of trust building that has been very difficult during COVID Board would hold quarterly public listening sessions to hear community concerns related to policing Facilitate communications between community and the CPD Provide periodic reports on community concerns identified at listening sessions, through other channels Resource Considerations ◦ Research by NACOLE indicates that: ◦ Budgetary allocations for oversight organization vary widely ◦ Major determinants include size of organization/municipality, workload, and type of model ◦ Advisory and Review models are least expensive ◦ Investigative and Audit models require more resources ◦ Staff compensation is generally the major cost element ◦ Resource levels for the Charlottesville Board ◦ The number of complaints anticipated to be low‐moderate compared to larger cities ◦ The Board performs other functions in addition to complaint review ◦ Participants in the volunteer Board tend to be employed and busy ◦ Effective oversight staffing requires at least a full‐time Executive Director; the draft ordinance recommends a police Auditor as well Current Status and Next Steps Currently: ◦ Draft ordinance has been completed ◦ Operating Procedures under construction ◦ Interim hearing procedures under review ◦ Ongoing Board operations under 2019 framework Next Steps ◦ Receive feedback on draft Ordinance from Council, Board, and community ◦ Present revised Ordinance to full Board for its approval at May 13 Meeting ◦ Continue work on Operating Procedures document ◦ Present to Board at June 10 meeting (?) Acknowledgements Bellamy Brown and other CRB members Sarah Burke, Katrina Turner, Gloria Beard, and other members of initial CRB Harold Folley (People’s Coalition) Kate Fraleigh Maisie Osteen (LAJC) Janice Redinger Lisa Robertson (Acting City Attorney) City Council – Police Civilian Review Board Joint Work Session Questions/Issues from The City Manager Why Does the Board need for access to all citizen complaints, not merely complaints forwarded from CPD? To do its job (of providing effective oversight) the Board needs to understand the totality of complaints regarding CPB personnel Especially, we need access to all “serious” complaints, which might qualify for independent investigation Having two lists of complaints, addressed by two separate sets of procedures, could lead to confusion and to inconsistent and inequitable results The current complaint form is a little confusing… The proposed Ordinance and Operating Procedures will include provisions to preserve confidentiality CPD is currently working on automated system for sharing complaints with the Executive Director …Need a clearly defined process that ensures the PCRB has access to all information necessary to perform its functions, particularly as it relates to investigations Agreed; much work needs to be done in defining information access provisions in the Operating Procedures Alternative Strategies ◦ Have a broad, general statement requiring maximal information access ◦ Have specific provisions identifying types of information to be made available to support investigations, hearings, audits Ordinance Work Group research suggests that best practices regarding information access for investigators are well‐established Information access for Audits is also very important Clarify that City Council can remove board members for cause only Initial Board suggested that City Council would need to supply a reason for removing Board Members Current Ordinance and Bylaws simply say the Council can remove Board members Proposed solution: ◦ Define specific causes for which Board members can be removed in the Operating Procedures ◦ Provisions from U.S. oversight agencies often include violations of confidentiality agreements, irreconcilable conflicts of interest, neglect of duties, criminal offences, or violations of codes of ethics Developing a specific procedure for what the PCRB does for investigations The intent is for the Board to elect an Investigation Committee from it’s ranks that will operate as follows: “When the Investigation Committee of the Civilian Review Board determines that criteria specified in the Operating Procedures indicate that an independent investigation is warranted, they shall instruct the Executive Director to request that the City Manager initiate an investigation. Currently, the draft ordinance says: “…a qualified investigator independent of the Police Department shall be engaged in accordance with the provisions of City Code Sec. 2‐156. Required elements of the scope of work for independent investigations shall be as set forth within the Operating Procedures. The investigator shall be required to execute a written confidentiality agreement, prior to commencement of work. Procedures for avoiding conflicts of interest need to be specified in the Operating Procedures Practical issues relating to rapid response need to be worked out as well How will disciplinary authority operate? The Board’s proposed general approach to exercising disciplinary authority is found in Section 2‐461 of the draft Ordinance ◦ The board shall consult with the Chief of Police and/or Supervisors of accused officers to consult on disciplinary decisions ◦ Board discussions of disciplinary matters will take place in closed meetings ◦ Misconduct will be defined in accordance with the prevailing Police Disciplinary Matrix ◦ The Board is allowed to consult complainants and witnesses in the closed meeting(s) ◦ Officers will be notified of specific misconduct with which they are charged and offered an opportunity to address the Board and be represented by counsel ◦ The Board cannot compel officers to provide statements ◦ The Board’s disciplinary decision will be made in an open meeting by majority vote Many procedural issues remain to be worked out! What are “serious breaches of departmental and professional standards”? ◦ The Board’s disciplinary authority is restricted to “serious” misconduct ◦ The Work Group and Board are considering ways to define “serious” ◦ CPD Discipline Matrix categories ◦ Models from other municipalities (Fairfax County, Seattle, Eugene OR) ◦ Need to achieve balance between: ◦ Identifying all cases involving harm, flagrantly discriminatory practices, harrassment ◦ Not overburdening the Board with cases that can be resolved without its intervention ◦ Input from all stakeholders will be required to develop a workable formula Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 1 ARTICLE XVI. – POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF 3 CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) 4 5 Table of Contents 6 Sec. 2‐450.‐Title ............................................................................................................................................ 2 7 Sec. 2‐451.‐Police Civilian Review Board Established; Immunities. .............................................................. 2 8 Sec. 2‐452.‐Powers and Duties of the Police Civilian Review Board............................................................. 2 9 Sec. 2‐453.‐ Police Civilian Review Board Membership Appointment, and Terms. ..................................... 4 10 Sec. 2‐454. – Public Meetings. ...................................................................................................................... 5 11 Sec. 2‐455.‐Police Civilian Review Board Executive Director. ....................................................................... 5 12 Sec. 2‐456.‐Police Civilian Review Board Legal Counsel. .............................................................................. 5 13 Sec. 2‐457. ‐ Receipt and Investigation of Complaints ................................................................................. 6 14 Sec. 2‐ 458. ‐ Investigations of Incidents. ..................................................................................................... 6 15 Sec. 2‐ 459. ‐ Review of Investigations Conducted Internally by the Department ....................................... 6 16 Sec. 2‐ 460. ‐ Independent Investigations Conducted by The Civilian Review Board ................................... 8 17 Sec. 2‐461. ‐ Binding Disciplinary Action ..................................................................................................... 10 18 Sec. 2‐ 462. ‐ Investigations of Policies, Practices and Procedures ............................................................ 10 19 Sec. 2‐ 463. ‐ Request Annual Reports of Police Expenditures ................................................................... 11 20 Sec. 2‐ 464. Authority to Hold Hearings ...................................................................................................... 11 21 Sec. 2‐ 465. ‐ Deferral of Complaint Review and Investigations ................................................................. 11 22 Sec. 2‐466. ‐ Police Civilian Review Board Recommendations and Annual Report. ................................... 12 23 Sec. 2‐467. ‐ Police Civilian Review Board Operating Procedures .............................................................. 13 24 Section 2‐468. – Audits ............................................................................................................................... 13 25 Section 2‐469. ‐ Community Engagement and Community Relations ........................................................ 14 26 Section 2‐471. ‐ Training ............................................................................................................................ 14 27 Section 2‐472. ‐ Stipends ............................................................................................................................ 14 28 29 30 31 32 33 Page 1 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 34 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council previously enacted an ordinance establishing a Charlottesville 35 Police Civilian Review Board and codified the ordinance within Chapter 2, Article XVI of the Code of the 36 City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended; and 37 WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020 the Virginia General Assembly enacted House Bill 5055, the provisions 38 of which become effective July 1, 2021, and this legislation expressly authorizes the governing body of a 39 locality to establish a law enforcement civilian oversight body; and 40 41 WHEREAS, City Council hereby finds that it would be in the public’s best interests for the City to conform 42 Chapter 2, Article XVI of the City Code to the requirements of the new state legislation and to 43 reestablish the City’s Police Civilian Review Board with certain additional oversight powers and duties 44 enabled by the new state legislation; 45 46 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that Article 47 XVI within Chapter 2 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990) is amended and reenacted, as 48 follows: 49 50 ARTICLE XVI‐POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 51 Sec. 2-450.-Title 52 53 This article shall be known as the Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board Ordinance. 54 Sec. 2-451.-Police Civilian Review Board Established; Immunities. 55 There is hereby established a Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board which shall be referred to as 56 the Police Civilian Review Board, or “the Board”, within this article. The Board shall have the authority 57 and duties of a law‐enforcement civilian oversight body, as expressly authorized by state law and as 58 provided within this ordinance. The Police Civilian Review Board shall enjoy the protection of sovereign 59 immunity to the extent allowed and provided by pursuant to Virginia statutory and common law. 60 Sec. 2-452.-Powers and Duties of the Police Civilian Review Board. 61 62 (a) The Police Civilian Review Board shall have the following powers and duties: 63 64 (1.) To receive, investigate, and issue findings on complaints from civilians regarding the conduct of 65 law enforcement officers and civilian employees of the Charlottesville Police Department; 66 67 (2.) To investigate and issue findings on incidents, including the use of force by a law enforcement 68 officer, death or serious injury to any individual held in custody, serious abuse of authority or 69 misconduct, allegedly discriminatory stops, and other incidents regarding the conduct of law 70 enforcement officers and civilian employees of the Charlottesville Police Department; Page 2 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 71 72 (3.) At the conclusion of any investigation conducted pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (2), above, 73 consistent with the Board’s findings in the investigation: to make binding disciplinary 74 determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of departmental and professional 75 standards, as defined by City Council within the Board’s Operating Procedures adopted pursuant 76 to Sec. 2‐467; 77 78 (4.) To investigate policies, practices, and procedures of the police department and to make 79 recommendations regarding changes to such policies, practices and procedures, as set forth 80 within sec. 2‐462 of this article; 81 82 (5.) To review investigations conducted internally by the Police Department, as set forth in sec. 2‐ 83 459 of this article, including internal investigations of civilians employed by the Police 84 Department, and to issue findings regarding the accuracy, completeness, and impartiality of the 85 investigations and the sufficiency of any discipline resulting from such investigations; 86 87 (6.) To request reports of the annual expenditures of the Police Department, and to make budgetary 88 recommendations to the city council concerning future appropriations; 89 90 (7.) To make public reports on the activities of the Police Civilian Review Board, including 91 investigations, hearings, findings, recommendations, determinations and oversight activities; 92 93 (8.) To hold hearings and, if after making a good faith effort to obtain, voluntarily, the attendance of 94 witnesses and the production of books, papers, and other evidence necessary to perform its 95 duties, the Board is unable to obtain such attendance or production, it may apply to the Circuit 96 Court for the City of Charlottesville for a subpoena compelling the attendance of such witness or 97 the production of such books, papers and other evidence, and the court may, upon good cause 98 shown, cause the subpoena to be issued. Any person so subpoenaed may apply to the 99 Charlottesville Circuit Court to quash it; and 100 101 (9.) To undertake other duties, as reasonably necessary for the Police Civilian Review Board to 102 effectuate its lawful purpose as provided for in this article, in order to effectively oversee the 103 Police Department. 104 (b) The Police Civilian Review Board shall not exercise the powers and duties set forth within 105 paragraphs (a)(1)‐(9), or any of said paragraphs, until (i) City Council approves Operating Procedures 106 for performance of such powers and duties pursuant to sec. 2‐467 of this article, and (ii) sufficient 107 public funds have been appropriated by City Council within the Board’s annual budget for all staff, 108 independent investigators, independent legal counsel and other resources as are necessary for the 109 Board to effectively carry out such duties and powers. Page 3 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 110 Sec. 2-453.- Police Civilian Review Board Membership Appointment, and Terms. 111 112 (a) Board composition. The Police Civilian Review Board shall reflect the demographic diversity of the 113 City of Charlottesville. The Police Civilian Review Board shall be composed of seven voting members 114 and one non‐voting member appointed by the City Council. The members shall be removable by the 115 City Council for causes specified in the Operating Procedures. 116 (1) The seven voting members of the Police Civilian Review Board shall be residents of the City of 117 Charlottesville except that the member who represents an organization that seeks racial or social 118 justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities shall either be a resident of the City of 119 Charlottesville or the organization they represent shall perform advocacy on behalf of City of 120 Charlottesville residents. 121 (2) The seven voting members shall include: at least three members who come from historically 122 disadvantaged communities that have traditionally experienced disparate policing or who are 123 residents of public housing, and at least one other member who represents an organization that 124 seeks racial or social justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities. 125 (3) The non‐voting member of the Police Civilian Review Board shall be an individual with policing 126 expertise or experience. The non‐voting member may be a retired law enforcement officer, who 127 prior to his or her retirement was employed in a locality similar to the City of Charlottesville. 128 (4) No Police Civilian Review Board voting member shall be a current City of Charlottesville 129 employee, a current candidate for public office, a former member of the Charlottesville Police 130 Department, an immediate family member of a current Charlottesville Police Department employee, 131 or a current employee of a law enforcement agency. 132 (b) Appointment Process. The City Council shall appoint the members of the Police Civilian Review 133 Board. The Council shall announce a public application process with applications available online 134 and by hardcopy in English and Spanish for individuals interested in serving on the Police Civilian 135 Review Board. 136 (c) Terms. Each member of the Police Civilian Review Board shall be appointed for a term of three 137 years. 138 (d) Vacancies. If a Police Civilian Review Board member’s service on the Board ends before the 139 conclusion of the Board member’s term, the City Council shall appoint an individual to complete the 140 remainder of the term. A Board member whose term has expired may continue to serve until his or 141 her successor is appointed by City Council. 142 143 Page 4 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 144 Sec. 2-454. – Public Meetings. 145 146 The Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board shall hold public meetings, at least once per calendar 147 month. 148 Sec. 2-455.-Police Civilian Review Board Executive Director and Auditor 149 150 (a) The City Manager shall appoint a Police Civilian Review Board Executive Director with the approval of 151 a majority vote of the City Council. 152 (b) Before the Police Civilian Review Board Executive Director is appointed, the City Manager shall 153 convene an interview panel that includes two members of the Police Civilian Review Board. If the two 154 members of the Police Civilian Review Board serving on an interview panel recommend a candidate for 155 appointment as Executive Director, the City Manager shall provide a written justification to the Board if 156 a different candidate is appointed. 157 (c) The duties of the executive director shall be to support the Board in the implementation and exercise 158 of all of its functions authorized under this ordinance and to undertake specific oversight tasks assigned 159 by the Board. 160 (d) The City Manager shall be responsible for day‐to‐day supervision of the Executive Director. The City 161 Manager will conduct an annual evaluation of the Executive Director’s performance, which shall include 162 consideration of a written performance review submitted by the Police Civilian Review Board to the City 163 Manager. The Police Civilian Review Board may at any time, by a majority vote, request a conference 164 between the Board’s Chair and the City Manager to discuss the Executive Director’s performance. The 165 City Manager shall provide the Police Civilian Review Board a written justification for rejecting a 166 recommendation of the Board that the Executive Director’s employment should be terminated. 167 (e) The Board may utilize a police Auditor to support the Executive Director in fulfilling the functions 168 described in Sec. 2‐468, subject to the availability and appropriation of funding by City Council within 169 the Board’s budget for the Auditor position. The Auditor shall be appointed by the Executive Director, 170 with the consent of the City Manager, after following an an interview process the same as described in 171 subparagraph ( b), above, except that the Executive Director shall also be a member of the interview 172 panel. 173 Sec. 2-456.-Police Civilian Review Board Legal Counsel. 174 175 The Police Civilian Review Board may retain legal counsel to represent the Board in all cases, hearings, 176 controversies, or matters involving the interests of the Board, and the Board’s Chair shall have authority 177 to execute a contract in the name of the Board for legal services if the contract has first been approved 178 by the Board and endorsed by the City’s Finance Director to verify that funding is available and has been 179 appropriated to support performance of the payment obligations of the Board under such contract. The Page 5 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 180 Board’s legal counsel shall be paid only from funds that have been appropriated to the Board’s budget 181 by City Council. The Board and the Board’s Executive Director may consult the Office of the City Attorney 182 for legal advice concerning legal questions not related to cases, hearings, investigations, or controversies 183 that are before the Board, or any other matter in which the Board’s and Police Department’s interests 184 may conflict. 185 Sec. 2-457. - Receipt and Investigation of Complaints 186 187 (a) The Police Civilian Review Board is authorized to develop and administer a process for receiving, 188 investigating, and issuing findings regarding civilian complaints about the Charlottesville Police 189 Department. The process will be defined in the Board’s Operating Procedures. 190 (1) Complaint Intake. The Civilian Review Board will receive all complaints regarding police 191 misconduct. A complaint is considered to have been received when a written complaint is delivered 192 to the Executive Director or when the Executive Director receives a complaint that is filed 193 electronically. The Board will forward all complaints to the Charlottesville Police Department within 194 24 hours. 195 (2) Complaint Form and Content. The Board and the Police Department will work cooperatively to 196 develop a standardized complaint form. The Board may also develop procedures for handling 197 complaints that are filed by means other than the standardized form. 198 199 (b) Complaint Processing. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Executive Director shall consult with the 200 Investigation Committee of the Board. Using criteria and procedures described in the Board’s Operating 201 Procedures, the Committee shall determine if the complaint qualifies for independent investigation by 202 the Board. If the Investigation Committee determines that a complaint merits independent 203 investigation, the Executive Director shall request the City Manager initiate an independent 204 investigation as described in Section 2‐460. If the Investigation Committee concludes that the complaint 205 does not merit an independent investigation, then the Executive Director will notify to Chief of Police 206 and the Police Department shall investigate the complaint. 207 Sec. 2- 458. - Investigations of Incidents. 208 209 The Civilian Review Board shall have the authority to conduct independent investigations of incidents of 210 police officer misconduct, in the absence of a civilian complaint. Decisions to investigate incidents of 211 misconduct shall be made by the Investigations Committee of the Board, using procedures and criteria 212 set forth within the approved Operating Procedures for the Board. 213 Sec. 2- 459. - Review of Investigations Conducted Internally by the Department 214 215 (a.) Scope of Board Review Authority. Page 6 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 216 The Police Civilian Review Board may review Charlottesville Police Department internal affairs 217 investigations to ensure their thoroughness, completeness, accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality where 218 (i) the Charlottesville Police Department has completed an internal affairs investigation of a police 219 officer; and (ii) a request is filed by a civilian with the Board’s Executive Director, asking for the Board’s 220 review of the Department’s findings (“Review Request”). A Review Request shall be deemed filed when 221 it is received by the Executive Director. 222 (b) The Board shall not review: 223 (1) Any Review Request related to an incident that occurred before the date of Council’s 224 adoption of this Article, except for those under Internal Affairs investigation on the date as of 225 which the Article is adopted; 226 (2)A Review Request that is filed more than one (1) year after the date of the incident that is the 227 subject of the complaint; 228 (3)A Review Request filed more than seventy‐five (75) days after the date of the Charlottesville 229 Police Department notice sent to the complainant that informs the complainant of the 230 completion of the Charlottesville Police Department’s internal affairs investigation (unless 231 the Police Civilian Review Board determines that there is good cause to extend the filing 232 deadline); or 233 234 (4)A Review Request concerning matters that are subject of a pending criminal proceeding in 235 any trial court, a pending or anticipated civil proceeding in any trial court (as evidenced by a 236 Notice of Claim or a filed complaint), or any City of Charlottesville grievance proceeding. 237 238 (c)Access to Materials. Upon scheduling a Review Request for a hearing before the Police Civilian 239 Review Board, the Board shall notify the Charlottesville Chief of Police. The Police Department shall 240 provide each Board member the following records: (1) a complete copy of the internal affairs file that is 241 the subject of the Review Request, in accordance with protocols set forth within the Operating 242 Procedures. Any information related to a juvenile shall be protected by redaction or other means, as 243 required by Virginia Code Section 16.1‐301. 244 245 (2) the officer’s complete complaint history, including any final disciplinary action taken against 246 the officer who is the subject of the Review Request relative to each complaint. 247 248 (3) any material or evidence utilized by the Charlottesville Police Department during its internal 249 affairs investigation related to the Review Request, unless the Chief of Police, upon concurrence 250 of the Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney, determines that the material or evidence is 251 the subject of an active criminal investigation. 252 253 The records referenced in (c)(1)‐(3), above shall be provided by the Police Department after each 254 member of the Board has signed a confidentiality agreement, promising not to disclose the contents of Page 7 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 255 an internal affairs file or disciplinary action taken against the officer. Failure to adhere to the 256 confidentiality agreement shall result in the Council removing the Board member from the Police Civilian 257 Review Board. 258 259 (d) Hearings in Support of Review Requests 260 261 The Police Civilian Review Board shall conduct a hearing on all Review Requests that it finds to be in 262 conformance with the criteria established in Section 2‐459(a), as described in the Board’s Operating 263 Procedures. 264 265 (e) Findings 266 267 The Police Civilian Review Board shall report its findings within thirty (30) days of the hearing of the 268 Review Request. The Board shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, and by a majority 269 vote of Police Civilian Review Board members one of the following findings: 270 271 (1) The Police Civilian Review Board concurs with the findings of the Charlottesville Police 272 Department investigation; or 273 274 (2) The Police Civilian Review Board advises the City Manager that the Charlottesville Police 275 Department investigation’s findings are not supported by the information reasonably available 276 to the Charlottesville Police Department and make further recommendations to the City 277 Manager concerning disposition of the Review Request; or 278 279 (3) The Police Civilian Review Board advises the City Manager that the Charlottesville Police 280 Department’s investigation is incomplete or unsatisfactory and provide the specific reasons for 281 this finding. 282 283 (f) Investigations in Support of Review Requests. 284 285 If the Police Civilian Review Board advises the City Manager that the Charlottesville Police 286 Department’s investigation is incomplete or unsatisfactory, the Board shall provide a written 287 explanation to the City Manager and Chief of Police explaining their concerns. The Board may initiate 288 an independent investigation, as set forth within Section 2‐ 460(a)(3). 289 290 Sec. 2- 460. - Independent Investigations Conducted by The Civilian Review Board 291 292 (a.) The Civilian Review Board may initiate independent investigations under any of the following 293 circumstances: Page 8 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 294 295 (1) When the Board’s Investigation Committee determines that a civilian complaint or incident as 296 defined in Section 2‐452(A)(2) merits such an investigation; 297 (2) When an Internal Affairs investigation of a civilian complaint is not completed in 75 days, and, 298 after consultation with the Chief of Police, a majority of the Board determines an investigation is 299 necessary; or 300 (3) If, after completion of a Review Request, the Police Civilian Review Board advises the City 301 Manager that the Charlottesville Police Department’s investigation is incomplete or 302 unsatisfactory, and, after consultation with the Chief, the majority of the Board determines an 303 investigation is necessary. 304 305 (b.) Any investigation initiated by the City Manager shall comply with existing federal, state, and 306 local laws. Board members, the Board’s Executive Director, and the Board’s legal counsel shall not have 307 any authority to compel a statement from any Charlottesville Police Department employee. When an 308 independent investigation is required by Sec. 2‐460, a qualified investigator independent of the Police 309 Department shall be engaged in accordance with the provisions of City Code Sec. 2‐156. Required 310 elements of the scope of work for independent investigations shall be as set forth within the Operating 311 Procedures. The investigator shall be required to execute a written confidentiality agreement, prior to 312 commencement of work. 313 314 (c.) Investigations of Complaints and Incidents. When the Investigation Committee of the Civilian 315 Review Board determines that criteria specified in the Operating Procedures indicate that an 316 independent investigation is warranted, they shall instruct the Executive Director to request that the 317 City Manager initiate an investigation. 318 319 (1) When the Civilian Review Board decides that an independent investigation is warranted 320 under its Operating Procedures, the Board shall notify the Chief of Police. Upon receipt 321 of the Board’s notice, the Police Department shall cease investigating the complaint or 322 incident. Upon receipt of a copy of the investigator’s confidentiality agreement, the 323 Police Department shall provide the independent investigator with all information, files, 324 evidence or other material relevant to the complaint or incident. This information may 325 include the records referenced in Sec. 2‐459(c)(1)‐(3). The investigator shall be afforded 326 full cooperation by all employees of the Police Department. 327 (2) The investigator will review the evidence provided by the Police Department and 328 conduct additional interviews and investigation as necessary to determine which, if any, 329 Department policies, procedures or standing orders were violated. 330 (3) The results of all investigations shall be provided to the City Manager, Chief of Police 331 and the Executive Director. 332 Page 9 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 333 (d.) Investigations initiated pursuant to Sec. 2‐460(a)(2) or 2‐460(a)(3) shall be initiated and 334 conducted in accordance with paragraph (c), above. The Police Department shall cooperate with 335 the investigation as set forth within Sec. 2‐460(c)(1). 336 337 (e.) Prior to commencement of an independent investigation pursuant to Sec. 2‐460(a)(3) the Board 338 shall provide a written explanation of what aspects of the initial investigation they consider to 339 be inadequate or incomplete. The Police Department shall cooperate with the investigation as 340 set forth within Sec. 2‐460(c)(1). 341 Sec. 2-461. - Binding Disciplinary Action 342 343 (a) Upon receipt of the investigator’s report related to a complaint or incident involving a serious breach 344 of departmental and professional standards, as defined within the Operating Procedures, the Board 345 shall convene in one or more closed meetings, to discuss appropriate disciplinary action. The Board 346 shall consult with the Chief of Police as well as the officer’s direct supervisor or commander. Disciplinary 347 action to be considered by the Board shall include those specified within any applicable disciplinary 348 matrix utilized by the Police Department. The Board may also consult complainants and witnesses, when 349 discussing the appropriate disciplinary action to be imposed. Prior to commencement of any such 350 disciplinary deliberations, the accused officer(s) or employees shall be given notice of the proceedings 351 and of the range of disciplinary actions under consideration, and the officer shall be offered an 352 opportunity to be heard. The officer may be represented by legal counsel during any discussions or 353 deliberations of the Board. No officer or Police Department employee, and no other City employee, shall 354 be compelled to provide statements to the Board during its deliberations. 355 356 (b) Any final disciplinary action shall be evidenced by majority vote of the Board taken within an open 357 meeting. 358 359 (c) Final disciplinary action imposed by the Board shall be implemented by the Chief of Police and any 360 other Police Department employee having direct supervisory authority over the employee against 361 whom the disciplinary action is to be taken. 362 363 (d) Any law enforcement officer or other Police Department employee against whom disciplinary action 364 is imposed by the Board shall have a right to file a grievance requesting a hearing before the City’s 365 Personnel Appeals Board, provided that the matter is a qualifying grievance under the City’s 366 grievance procedures. 367 Sec. 2- 462. - Investigations of Policies, Practices and Procedures 368 369 (a) The Charlottesville Civilian Review Board is authorized to investigate and make recommendations 370 regarding policies, practices, and procedures of the Charlottesville Police Department, including, without Page 10 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 371 limitation written policies, procedures and standing orders. If the Police Department declines to 372 implement any changes recommended by the Board, the Board may require the Department to create a 373 written record, which shall be made available for public inspection, of its rationale for declining to 374 implement the Board’s recommendation. 375 (b) In support of developing recommendations, the Board may require the Executive Director to conduct 376 Audits of police activities, IA investigations, and other matters as described in Sec. 2‐468. 377 Sec. 2- 463. - Request Annual Reports of Police Expenditures 378 379 Not more than once per year, during the City Manager’s preparation of a proposed budget for the City, 380 the Budget Office shall provide the Civilian Review Board with annual expenditure estimates and future 381 year projections, itemized to the same level of detail as provided to the City Manager. The estimates 382 shall be presented to the Board at the same time they are presented to the Budget Office. The Civilian 383 Review Board will review the estimates and is authorized to make budgetary recommendations to the 384 City Manager and/or to the City Council during the annual budget process. 385 Sec. 2- 464. Authority to Hold Hearings 386 387 (a) The Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board is authorized to hold hearings in connection with any 388 of its authorized activities, including, without limitation: 389 (1.) Complaint review; 390 (2.) The conduct of independent investigations of complaints or incidents of misconduct; 391 (3.) Disciplinary actions authorized by Section 2‐461; 392 (4.) Other matters which the Board determines to require the gathering of facts, public testimony, 393 or other information to facilitate adequate police oversight. 394 395 (b) A hearing may be called at the request of any two members of the Civilian Review Board. Hearings 396 may be public or closed if confidential information is to be discussed, subject to applicable provisions of 397 law. 398 399 (c) Hearings shall be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth within the Board’s Operating 400 Procedures. 401 Sec. 2- 465. - Deferral of Complaint Review and Investigations 402 403 (a.) If at any point in the complaint review process the Police Civilian Review Board learns that the 404 matters pertaining to a Review Request are the subject of pending criminal proceeding in any trial court, 405 a pending or anticipated civil proceeding in any trial court (as evidenced by a notice of claim or filed 406 complaint), or any grievance proceeding, the Police Civilian Review Board shall: 407 Page 11 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 408 (1.) Suspend its review, including any ongoing investigation; 409 (2.) Defer the review pending final resolution of the criminal, civil or grievance proceeding by the 410 trial court or Personnel Appeals Board panel, as applicable; 411 (3.) Notify the complainant, in writing, of the suspension and deferral; and 412 (4.) Track any deferred matter and notify the complainant once the proceedings are closed and the 413 Review Request may proceed. 414 415 (b.) The Police Civilian Review Board may request assistance of the City Attorney in making its 416 determination that matters of a Review Request are the subject of pending proceedings. 417 418 (c.) Deferral of Investigations. If at any point in an investigation of a complaint or incident the Police 419 Civilian Review Board or an independent investigator finds evidence of a possible criminal act or 420 offense, the Police Civilian Review Board and investigator shall: 421 422 (1.) Suspend its investigation, deferring it until notified by the Commonwealth’s Attorney that any 423 criminal investigation and/or prosecution has been completed; and 424 (2.) Provide any information and records gathered in the investigation to the Charlottesville Police 425 Department, Commonwealth’s Attorney, or any court investigating or prosecuting the matter; 426 (3.) The Board or investigator may resume its previously suspended investigation after the City 427 Attorney determines that there are no pending or anticipated criminal or civil proceedings. 428 Sec. 2-466. - Police Civilian Review Board Recommendations and Annual Report. 429 430 (a) The Police Civilian Review shall provide the City Council a list of recommendations, if the Board 431 determines any recommendations are necessary, for the Council’s consideration to include in its annual 432 legislative program present to the General Assembly. These recommendations shall be presented to the 433 City Attorney’s Office by August 15 of each year. 434 (b) On or before April 15 of each calendar year, the Police Civilian Review Board shall provide the City 435 Council with an annual report of activities conducted during the preceding calendar year. The report 436 shall detail the Police Civilian Review Board’s calendar year activities with sections related to the 437 appointment of committees and their actions; the establishment of any community advisory panels; an 438 overview of complaints received during the calendar year including the number of complaints, the 439 complaints’ findings, and the number of complaints deferred due to pending proceedings; the number 440 and outcome of any independent investigations; an overview of proposed policy recommendations and 441 amendments to Charlottesville Police Department policies and whether the recommendations and 442 amendments were implemented by the Charlottesville Police Department; the number, type, and 443 attendance at community listening sessions; recommendations the Police Civilian Review Board wishes 444 to make about policing within the City of Charlottesville; and any other information that the Police 445 Civilian Review Board deems necessary to provide a complete overview of the Board’s activities. Page 12 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 446 Sec. 2-467. - Police Civilian Review Board Operating Procedures 447 448 (a) City council shall establish, and may from time to time amend, policies and procedures 449 (“Operating Procedures”) for the performance of each of the powers and duties of the Board 450 authorized within sec. 2‐452 (a)(1)‐(9) of this article. 451 (b) The Police Civilian Review Board may from time to time propose amendments to the approved 452 policies and procedures. Any proposed amendment must be presented by a Police Civilian 453 Review Board member in writing to the Board at a regular Board meeting. Upon an affirmative 454 vote of a majority of Board members having the right to vote, the proposed amendment shall be 455 recommended to City Council for consideration. 456 Section 2-468. – Audits 457 458 The Executive Director or Auditor shall have the authority, assisted by the Board, to conduct audits, 459 analyzing data and identifying trends in CPD patterns and practices. The Executive Director, in 460 consultation with the Auditor, has discretion to determine the scope and substance of audits, including 461 examinations of: 462 463 1. the timing and processing of ongoing and completed IA and Board investigations; 464 2. the timing and substance of communications and collaboration between the CPD and the Board, 465 as required by this enabling ordinance and the Board’s Operating Procedures; 466 3. the timing and substance of information‐sharing, including disclosure of files, documents, 467 evidence, and data between the CPD and the Board, as required by this enabling ordinance and 468 the Board’s Operating Procedures 469 4. trends in the findings and dispositions of completed IA investigations; 470 5. trends in patterns of instances of use of force and officer‐involved death, particularly as to the 471 presence of a discriminatory impact on historically‐disadvantaged communities that have 472 traditionally experienced disparate policing; 473 6. trends in practices of arrest and stop and frisk (termed “investigative detention” by the 474 City and the CPD), particularly as to the presence of a discriminatory impact on 475 historically disadvantaged communities that have traditionally experienced disparate 476 policing; 477 7. compliance by the CPD and the Board with applicable training, practices, and policies; 478 8. compliance by the CPD with its minority‐recruitment and retention initiatives and policies; and 479 9. any other policing matter of pressing public concern. 480 481 The Charlottesville Police Department shall cooperate with Executive Director/Auditor in the 482 performance of audits and provide them access to files, records, and evidence reasonably necessary to 483 fulfill their duties. The Executive Director shall report periodically to the Board and issue public reports 484 detailing the findings and conclusions of any audit. The Board may, at its discretion, recommending 485 policy, systemic, or training reform based on the results of audits. Page 13 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 486 Section 2-469. - Community Engagement and Community Relations 487 488 The Board, supported by the Executive Director, is authorized to engage in community outreach and to 489 enlist the assistance and input of community members. At least quarterly, the Board, assisted by 490 Oversight Staff, shall host public community listening sessions to discuss policing matters of pressing 491 public concern, including the impacts of local policing on historically‐disadvantaged 492 communities that have traditionally experienced disparate policing. 493 494 The Board may also host public police‐community relations meetings, in which Board members, 495 supported by The Executive Director, mediate discussions between CPD Officials and community 496 members about policing matters of pressing public concern, including questions about transparency, 497 availability, legitimacy, mutual respect and trust, equitable treatment, social and racial justice, equal 498 rights, and community safety and order. 499 500 At least quarterly, the Board, assisted by Executive Director, shall issue a public report, detailing the 501 Board’s community outreach and engagement activities, public input, and any recommendations for 502 community‐policing initiatives or for improved police‐community relations. 503 Section 2-471. - Training 504 505 At least once every two years, and within six months of Board appointments, the City, 506 assisted by Executive Director, shall provide new Board members with a training of at least eight 507 hours, presented by the National Association for Criminal Oversight of Law Enforcement or a 508 comparable professional organization. The training should be tailored to the Board’s mission, this 509 enabling ordinance, and the Operating Procedures. 510 511 At least once every two years, and within six months of Board appointments, the City, assisted 512 by the Executive Director and other relevant city departments, shall provide new Board members with a 513 training: 514 1. explaining the legal and ethical obligations of members of a public board; 515 2. explaining CPD procedures and policies; 516 3. describing the substance of CPD personnel files and the scope of prevailing confidentiality rules; 517 4. reviewing completely, at least one closed and anonymized CPD IA investigation; and 518 5. educating the Board on relevant CPD and City databases, administrative systems, and 519 operations. 520 As needed, the City, assisted by Oversight Staff, shall provide Board members with additional 521 training, including ride‐alongs, relevant training by subject matter experts on mental health, trauma‐ 522 informed policing, civil rights and constitutional law, race and racism, community organizing and 523 outreach, mediation, investigation, and policing practices, policies, and administration. 524 Section 2-472. - Stipends 525 Page 14 Discussion Draft Only: This document has not been approved by the Charlottesville Civilian Review Board or City Council 526 The City shall provide voting Board members with a minimum annual stipend of $1,500 for Board 527 service. Page 15 Written Comments on 4/16 Draft Ordinance Maisie Osteen, Legal Aid Justice Center Sec. 2‐453(a) (3.) At the conclusion of any investigation conducted pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (2), above, consistent with the Board’s findings in the investigation: to make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of departmental and professional standards, as Commented [LAJC1]: The statute spells out examples of defined by City Council within the Board’s Operating Procedures adopted pursuant to Sec. 2‐467; disciplinary actions that the PCRB is authorized to take. Should those be spelled out here? Sec. 2‐452(a)(4.) To investigate policies, practices, and procedures of the Charlottesville Police Commented [LAJC2]: The statute authorizes the PCRB to Department and to make recommendations regarding changes to such policies, practices and require the CPD to make a written record of its rationale for procedures, as set forth within sec. 2‐462 of this article; declining to implement these recommendations. That should be included here. Sec. 2‐255 (d) The City Manager shall be responsible for day‐to‐day supervision of the Executive Commented [LAJC3]: Does this mean the ED is not going Director. to report to the Deputy City Manager for the Office of Equity? Sec. 4‐257(a.) (1) Complaint Intake. The Civilian Review Board will receive all complaints regarding Commented [LAJC4]: Does this mean that all complaints police misconduct. will be filed with the PCRB, and that complainants will not choose whether to file with the PCRB or the CPD? If so, it Sec. 4‐257(b.) Using criteria and procedures described in the Board’s Operating Procedures, the seems like that should be more explicit in this section. If not, Committee shall determine if the complaint qualifies for independent investigation by the Board. If the it should also specify that CPD must forward complaints that Investigation Committee determines that a complaint merits independent investigation, the Executive it receives to the PCRB as well. Director shall request the City Manager initiate an independent investigation as described in Section 2‐ Commented [LAJC5]: What criteria will be used to 460. determine this, and where will that be spelled out? In the Operating Procedures? Will the complainant be notified and have any avenue to challenge that decision? Sec. 4‐259(a.) The Police Civilian Review Board may review Charlottesville Police Department internal affairs investigations to ensure their thoroughness, completeness, accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality Commented [LAJC6]: How will civilians be notified of their right to request a review? Can that request be where (i) the Charlottesville Police Department has completed an internal affairs investigation of a included in their initial complaint? police officer; and (ii) a request is filed by a civilian with the Board’s Executive Director, asking for the Commented [LAJC7]: There should be an exception for Board’s review of the Department’s findings (“Review Request”). A Review Request shall be deemed cases in which a community member has been charged with filed when it is received by the Executive Director. resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, or something similar, where the complaint involves the conduct giving rise to Sec. 4‐259(b.) (4) A Review Request concerning matters that are subject of a pending criminal those charges and the community member requests that the investigation continue despite the criminal charges. proceeding in any trial court, a pending or anticipated civil proceeding in any trial court (as evidenced by Commented [LAJC8]: There should be an exception to a Notice of Claim or a filed complaint), or any City of Charlottesville grievance proceeding. the time limits in subsections (2) and (3) in cases where there is also a criminal, civil, or grievance proceeding. So the Sec. 4‐259(c.) The records referenced in (c)(1)‐(3), above shall be provided by the Police Department Board should be able to review requests that were submitted within a certain time after the resolution of any after each member of the Board has signed a confidentiality agreement, promising not to disclose the criminal/civil/grievance proceeding. contents of an internal affairs file or disciplinary action taken against the officer. Commented [LAJC9]: This is not required by the State statute. The confidentiality agreements should allow for disclosure of the outcome of their investigation and the Sec. 4‐260(a.) The Civilian Review Board may initiate independent investigations under any of the basis for that outcome when a complaint has been following circumstances: determine to be founded or valid. If the officer has a history of similar misconduct, that should be able to be disclosed as well. (1) When the Board’s Investigation Committee determines that a civilian complaint or incident as Commented [SB10R9]: Agree! defined in Section 2‐452(A)(2) merits such an investigation; Commented [LAJC11]: Again, this should refer to some criteria that guides when a complaint merits investigation. Sec. 4‐261. (a) Upon receipt of the independent investigator’s report related to a complaint or incident involving a serious breach of departmental and professional standards, as defined within the Operating Procedures, the Board shall convene in one or more closed meetings, to discuss appropriate disciplinary action. The Board shall consult with the Chief of Police as well as the subject officer’s direct supervisor or commander. Disciplinary action to be considered by the Board shall include those specified within any applicable disciplinary matrix utilized by the Police Department. The Board may also consult complainants and witnesses, Commented [LAJC12]: Complainants or "victims" – in some cases where the allegations were founded and the reporter should be considered a victim not a complainant. Sec. 2‐464 (a.) (a) The Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board is authorized to hold hearings in connection with any of its authorized activities, including, without limitation: (1.) Complaint review; (2.) The conduct of independent investigations of complaints or incidents of misconduct; (3.) Disciplinary actions authorized by Section 2‐461; Commented [WM13]: Edits to 2‐461 suggest the Board might not be allowed to hold a hearing on a disciplinary case. Sec. 2‐ 465. ‐ Deferral of Complaint Review and Investigations Commented [LAJC14R13]: Why would they want a hearing for this discussion? Sec. 2‐ 465 (c.) Deferral of Investigations. If at any point in an investigation of a complaint or incident Commented [LAJC15]: It might be more clear and cleaner if these provisions were just included in the the Police Civilian Review Board or its independent investigator finds evidence of a possible criminal act review/investigations sections rather than in a separate or offense, the Police Civilian Review Board and investigator shall: section. See comment above. Commented [LAJC16]: This refers to criminal acts by Sec. 2‐ 465 (c.) (1.)Suspend its investigation, deferring it until notified by the Commonwealth’s Attorney police officers, not community members, correct? If so, that should be clarified. that any criminal investigation and/or prosecution has been completed; and (2.) Provide any information and records gathered in the investigation to the Charlottesville Police Department, Commonwealth’s Attorney, or any court investigating or prosecuting the matter.; Commented [LAJC17]: These seem out of order. This section seems to be addressing circumstances where the PCRB is conducting an investigation and discovers evidence of a criminal act that is not yet the subject of a criminal investigation. In those circumstances, it might be more appropriate to have the PCRB defer its independent investigation for a defined period of time (30 days?) to allow the Commonwealth’s Attorney to determine whether to initiate a criminal investigation. If the CA declines or no determination is made, the PCRB’s investigation can continue. Commented [SB18R17]: I agree. Sarah Burke, Ordinance Work Group, Member of Initial CRB Sec. 4‐257(a.) The Police Civilian Review Board is authorized to develop and administer a process for receiving, investigating, and issuing findings regarding civilian complaints about the Charlottesville Police Department. The process will be defined in the Board’s Operating Procedures. Commented [SB19]: I suggest spelling out that complaints can be made anonymously and need not be Sec. 4‐257 (b.) Complaint Processing. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Executive Director shall consult made by the person who is alleged to be the subject of the with the Investigation Committee of the Board. misconduct. Commented [SB20]: I suggest including the number of Sec. 4‐259(a.) The Police Civilian Review Board may review Charlottesville Police Department internal Board members you intend to have on this committee. In affairs investigations to ensure their thoroughness, completeness, accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality my opinion, it should be no fewer than three members, so that this critical role is not left in the hands of one or two where (i) the Charlottesville Police Department has completed an internal affairs investigation of a people who will/could meet privately to avoid FOIA law. police officer; and (ii) a request is filed by a civilian with the Board’s Executive Director, asking for the Board’s review of the Department’s findings (“Review Request”). A Review Request shall be deemed filed when it is received by the Executive Director. Commented [SB21]: I strongly disagree that a Review Request should be mandated. It is a hurdle that need not be Sec. 4‐259(b.) (3) A Review Request filed more than seventy‐five (75) days after the date of the included. If you want to include a Review Request for Charlottesville Police Department notice sent to the complainant that informs the complainant of the procedural reasons, I suggest including that the Board itself may also file a Review Request at any time within a year of completion of the Charlottesville Police Department’s internal affairs investigation (unless the Police the conclusion of the IA investigation. Civilian Review Board determines that there is good cause to extend the filing deadline); Commented [SB22]: If you're going to mandate a Review Request, I suggest deleting this. You already have subsection b(2) above that keeps anyone from filing a Sec. 4‐259 (c.) Access to Materials. Upon scheduling a Review Request for a hearing before the Police review request more than one year after the incident. By Civilian Review Board, the Board shall notify the Charlottesville Chief of Police. including this section, you are limiting that much further. A complainant may think at first that they don't want to bother going through the PCRB review process. But after a Sec. 4‐259 (c.) (3) any material or evidence utilized by the Charlottesville Police Department during its month or two, they may change their mind. There is no internal affairs investigation related to the Review Request, unless the Chief of Police, upon concurrence reason not to allow that kind of flexibility here. of the Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney, determines that the material or evidence is the subject Commented [SB23]: This language is strange. I suggest of an active criminal investigation. saying "upon receipt of a Review Request, the Board shall notify the Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department." You need not schedule a hearing to get access to the Sec. 4‐259 (e.) (2) The Police Civilian Review Board advises the City Manager that the Charlottesville complete files. The Review Request alone should grant you access to complete CPD files. Police Department investigation’s findings are not supported by the information reasonably available to the Charlottesville Police Department and make further recommendations to the City Manager Commented [SB24]: I suggest mandating that the CPD and CWA issue a joint letter explaining what evidence is concerning disposition of the Review Request; or being excluded. Commented [SB25]: I recommend adding language that Sec. 4‐260 (c.) Investigations of Complaints and Incidents. When the Investigation Committee of the mandates a response from CPD with detailed explanations Civilian Review Board determines that criteria specified in the Operating Procedures indicate that an (as per NACOLE's suggestion) independent investigation is warranted, they shall instruct the Executive Director to request that the City Manager initiate an investigation. Commented [SB26]: The ED instructs the CM to initiate the investigation? Why so many steps? Sec. 2‐462 (a.) If the Police Department declines to implement any changes recommended by the Board, the Board may require the Department to create a written record, which shall be made available for public inspection, of its rationale for declining to implement the Board’s recommendation. Commented [SB27]: Consider being more explicit re: what the "rationale" letter should include, per NACOLE's comments. Sec. 2‐463. Not more than once per year, during the City Manager’s preparation of a proposed budget for the City, the Budget Office shall provide the Civilian Review Board with annual expenditure estimates and future year projections, itemized to the same level of detail as provided to the City Manager . The estimates shall be presented to the Board at the same time they are presented to the Budget Office. The Civilian Review Board will review the estimates and is authorized to make budgetary recommendations to the City Manager and/or to the City Council during the annual budget process. Commented [SB28]: Include that the CPD shall also provide the previous year's actual spending and revenue. Part of this power is also to see, for example, how much Sec. 2‐465. If at any point in the complaint review process the Police Civilian Review Board learns that overtime costs are, how much revenue the CPD is making the matters pertaining to a Review Request are the subject of pending criminal proceeding in any trial and by what means, how much grant or other funding they are getting from outside sources, etc. court, a pending or anticipated civil proceeding in any trial court (as evidenced by a notice of claim or filed complaint), or any grievance proceeding, the Police Civilian Review Board shall Commented [SB29]: Check your language here. Sometimes you use the term "Charlottesville Civilian Review Board" sometimes it is "Police Civilian Review Board" and Sec. 2‐467 (b.) The Police Civilian Review Board may from time to time propose amendments to the sometimes it is "Civilian Review Board." I'd suggest choosing one of the latter two for consistency. approved policies and procedures. Any proposed amendment must be presented by a Police Civilian Review Board member to the Board at a regular Board meeting. Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of Board members having the right to vote, the proposed amendment shall be recommended to City Council for consideration. Commented [SB30]: Removed "in writing" because it's an added hurdle that isn't necessary. A Board member should be permitted to propose an amendment verbally, have it discussed and have the language crafted as a group, and have it voted upon without having to wait a month to present it in writing. Comments in Email from Janice L. Redinger P.L.C Wed 4/21/2021 12:33 PM This is bad policy. What is it that you are trying to address with this bloated, convoluted, excessively complex policy? Why do you want to give an officer 2 hearings and, therefore, 2 bites at the apple? How will you address the issue of a different grievance process for complaints that result in binding discipline by the CRB and those that do not? Is it your intent to abrogate the police bill of rights? Are you aware that as of May 1 police officers have a right to unionize (if approved by city council)? Do you think this policy will increase the likelihood that will happen? Do you think the public, police, city council or any reasonable person trusts this CRB with actually being able to comply with this? Why don’t you decide what you need to do for effective, meaningful police oversight (which is your charge, and your only charge) and do that? How can you draft a policy, law, or anything else, without EVER having a discussion on your board? How many times have I, and others, urged you to have a board work session? Even one that is facilitated by perhaps your LAWYER? There’s been no public engagement (and yes, I get COVID and no, People’s Coalition is not public engagement, although valued perspective). You have an existing ordinance. I also recognize there are some limitations due to no ED being hired. HOWEVER, what has this CRB done under the authority you have been granted? FOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR? Have you analyzed all the CPD policies? Did you request and analyze the CPD budget, as budget season came and went? Have you addressed the complaints you have before you? Have you even publicly reported on them? Have you discussed other initiatives that might be important for local oversight and transparency? Do you even peruse the vast database that is on the CPD’s website? Which is growing? Have you had discussions about what you’d like to see added to that public database? None of these discussions have taken place. You want “all the powers” without ever once discussing how it would actually work in real life. For what? To put a big P for progressive beside your name? I do not believe Lisa intended for her template to be tacit approval of all that she added to it. I believe she was providing you with the template, and as a matter of convenience, copied and pasted word‐for‐ word each of the enumerated powers of the enabling legislation so that the proper language was there. She is not in a position to make recommendations on policy; that would be a conflict. The enabling legislation is ENABLING, not a mandate. Be smarter. This is bad policy, in my opinion. Janice Comparison Between Interim Board Proposed Oversight Model, 2019 Ordinance and Bylaws, and Proposed 2021 Oversight Model Provision/Power Interim Board Proposed Oversight Model 2019 Ordinance and Bylaws 2021 Proposed Model Oversight Model General Approach Complaint Review, Audit, Investigation and Review and Advisory Investigation, Review and Auditor Advisory Staffing Director, Auditor, ideally also an Executive Director Executive Director, Auditor(?) Investigator and Data Manager Staff Hiring Hiring Committee includes four Board Executive Director hired by City Currently same as 2019 Ordinance Procedure members; public interview forum, public Manager; two Board members on ranking of candidates, City Manager must interview panel, City manager must justify hiring other than Committee justify hiring candidate other than Board recommendation recommends Board Membership Seven voting members, one resident of Seven voting members, three residents Currently same as 2019 Ordinance; public housing, four from historically of public housing or members of Expand to four members from disadvantaged communities, one historically disadvantaged communities, disadvantaged communities? representative of racial/social justice one representative of racial/social organization; justice organization; Non‐voting Up to two (discretionary); one member of One member with law enforcement Same as 2019 Ordinance Membership the City Council, one with law enforcement experience experience Board Member Candidates announced publicly, Board Public application process; candidates Same as 2019 Ordinance Selection members interview candidates, public interviewed by City Council, Board forum and public input to the ranking of members selected in open Council candidates, rank ordering publicized, Meeting Council must justify appointments/non‐ appointments Board Member City Council must provide a reason for Members may be removed “by the City Removal by the City Council for cause Removal removing Board member not at the request Council” (no justification required.) only (causes to be specified in Operating of the Board Procedures) Stipend Board members receive a minimum stipend No stipend Stipend, as in Interim Board proposal of $1,500 per year Responsibilities of Receives civilian complaints, coordinates Executive Director receives and “…support the Board in the Executive Director weekly with IA, maintains communications processes complaints, receives implementation and exercise of all of its with complainants, reports to the Board complaint review requests, interacts functions…” (to be further defined in monthly regarding the status of complaints, with CPD regarding untimely complaint Operating Procedures; likely similar to conducts investigations, arranges hearing investigations, reports to Board, initiates 2019 role. Hiring an Auditor would free logistics. investigation requests to City Manager, up time for Executive Director to fulfill organizes Board training, consults with other functions.) independent Council, consults with City Manager to initiate investigations Termination of By City Manager; Board may recommend By City Manager; Board may request By City Manager; Board provides input Executive Director termination, City Manager must provide meeting to discuss ED performance; City to the Executive Director’s personnel reasons for not doing so Manager must provide reason for not evaluation; other powers as in 2019 accepting Board recommendation to model. terminate ED Responsibilities of Examines long‐term trends in policing, Not included Evaluate trends in policing and IA Police Auditor issues periodic reports on all policing activities and outcomes; monitor and outcomes, with access to all CPD maintain information channels with CPD documents; makes recommendations Workload considerations suggest hiring regarding changes in CPD policies an Auditor as well. Receipt of Board can develop procedures to receive The Board and CPD are required to Opt‐out would no longer be allowed; the Complaints [all] complaints against the CPD forward complaints they receive to each Board would be able to track all other, except the complainants my opt complaints; procedures for receiving out of having complaints forwarded to complaints, maintaining confidentiality the Board. to be defined in the Operating Procedures. Actions on The Board may receive, review complaints, The Board may review complaint Serious complaints and incidents will be Complaints review IA investigations, conduct investigations upon receipt of a review investigated independently, not waiting investigations, hold hearings and make request by the plaintiff; may not review for Internal Affairs; findings and disciplinary recommendations. untimely complaints, untimely review Complaints not characterized as serious requests, sustained complaints; must will be treated similarly to 2019 suspend review if issues are subject to ordinance, except that sustained criminal or civil litigation; may hold complaints may be reviewed to examine hearings consistency of final disciplinary action with CPD General Orders and Disciplinary Matrix Investigation Triggered (“under limited circumstances”), Board investigations are allowed when The Board may initiate investigations of Authority when IA investigation is untimely or (1) an IA investigation is not completed serious allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory, or in any officer‐involved in 75 days or (2) the Board concludes serious incidents immediately, taking death; Board must meet with CPD before after a review request that the IA over for IA. Investigations may also be deciding if an investigation is necessary investigation was incomplete or undertaken in response to untimely or unsatisfactory unsatisfactory IA investigations (as under 2019 framework) Investigation “Board, assisted by Oversight Staff, may … After an untimely or unsatisfactory IA Investigations would be conducted by Procedures conduct an investigation consistent with investigation, the City Manager, in independent professional investigators existing federal, state, and municipal law, consultation with the Executive Director, with requirements and scopes of work including the Virginia Law Enforcement will procure an independent to be specified in Operating Procedures. Officers Procedural Guarantees Act.” investigator, who issues a report to the Investigations must conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws City Manager and Executive Director (scope of investigation not specified) Hearings Board, assisted by Staff, may “administer Hearings may be held as part of review Hearings may be held in support of public hearings about any policing matter request process. Complainant may investigations, complaint review, of pressing public concern.” Closed sessions present evidence and witnesses related disciplinary oversight, and “Other are allowed when discussing personnel to review request; CPD representative matters which the Board decides require matters, other information “legally will also present “shall present a the gathering of facts, public testimony, recognized as confidential.” statement which summarizes all findings or other information to facilitate. of fact and a review of all evidence adequate police oversight.” Hearing collected” procedures currently under development. Information Access “With respect to reviews of complaints, There is no MOU. In support of a review The new Ordinance would specify that hearings, independent investigations, or hearing, the CPD will provide complete the Board will have access to all audits, the City shall ensure that the Board [redacted] IA file to the Board. Also “the information necessary to fulfill its and Oversight Staff have access, consistent Police Civilian Review Board shall have functions. This would include support with existing federal, state, and municipal access to any material or evidence for independent investigation, review law and confidentiality requirements, to utilized by the Charlottesville Police requests, and Auditor functions. relevant CPD files, documents, data, and Department during its internal affairs physical and testimonial evidence…” investigation related to the Review A Memorandum of Understanding between Request…” and “the officer’s complete the Board and CPD was envisioned to more complaint history including any final clearly specify which records were to be disciplinary action taken against the provided and procedures for doing so. officer that is the subject of the Review Request.” The Board “shall have access to raw and aggregated data on the timing, findings, and dispositions of CPD internal affairs investigations.” Complaint Review “Board or Oversight Staff may issue a Board may (1) concur with the CPD Same as 2019 ordinance except a Findings written public report, including findings of investigation, (2) find that the outcome recommendation to allow mediation of fact and recommendations… the Board, is not supported by the available some complaints is under consideration. assisted by Oversight Staff, shall determine evidence, (3) find that the investigation whether the complaint’s allegations are is incomplete or unsatisfactory, (4) after sustained or unfounded, or whether in independent investigation, find as in another disposition is appropriate.” The (3) and provide reasons Board may recommend discipline, reopening the IA investigation, mediation and/or policy or systemic reform. Subpoena Power The Board has no power to subpoena No subpoena power The Board is authorized to “To hold evidence, compel the presence of hearings and, if after making a good witnesses, or take testimony under oath. faith effort to obtain, voluntarily, the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and other evidence necessary to perform its duties, the Board is unable to obtain such attendance or production, it may apply to the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville for a subpoena compelling the attendance of such witness or the production of such books, papers and other evidence…” Disciplinary The Board may “offer disciplinary or other “The Board shall be advisory and shall “At the conclusion of any investigation Authority recommendations to the Chief of Police not have disciplinary authority.” [of complaints or incidents]… consistent and City Manager after a review, with the Board’s findings in the investigation, or hearing…” “The Board has investigation, and after consultation no disciplinary authority…” with the Chief of Police: [the Board is authorized] to make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of departmental and professional standards.” Criteria for determining if misconduct is “serious” will be included in the Board’s Operating procedures. Grievance procedures related to board‐ imposed sanctions now governed by local grievance process, rather than LEOPGA. Audits Oversight Staff (Auditor) has broad No formal Audit function. Options: authority to review IA procedures and Limited audit functions to be performed findings, trends in use of force, stop and by Executive Director. frisk, CPD compliance with training, Extended audit functions performed by practices and policies, minority Auditor (recommended) recruitment, and other “policing matters of pressing public concern” Audits will be conducted monthly; Auditor will issue quarterly reports of findings. Policy “The Board and Oversight Staff are “The [Board] may recommend policies Authority to suggest policy Recommendations authorized to serve as policy advisors on or procedures to the City Council or the recommendations would be similar to policing matters to City Council, the CPD, Charlottesville Police Department…” 2019 ordinance, but review of proposed and other relevant governmental CPD must respond to Board changes to orders would not be limited entities…” recommendations and give reasons if to those listed in the November 4, 2019 The Board may review CPD policies and they are not adopted. The Board may Resolution. Recommendations may be Standing Orders 30 days before they go “may request reconsideration of the based on Audit results. into effect, solicit public input regarding the Charlottesville Police Department’s proposed changes and issue public reports. decision by providing a written request CPD must agree/disagree with findings of to the Chief of Police and City fact and provide reasons for not Manager…” implementing changes recommended by The Board may comment on proposed the Board. changes to CPD general orders listed on the November 4, 2019 City Council Resolution, specifically with regard to impacts on historically disadvantaged disparately policed communities. Community The Board will: The Board is “is authorized to engage in Requirement for quarterly public Engagement Hold quarterly public community listening community outreach efforts to discuss listening sessions reinstated; provision sessions and public police‐community and gather information about for joint participation with CPD in relations meetings community relations between the community outreach activities Mediate discussions between CPD Officials Charlottesville Police Department and and community members. the general public… [the Board] may Issue quarterly reports on public outreach request the City Council to conduct a and engagement activities, including any joint meeting to discuss issues of recommendations for community‐policing concern between the Charlottesville initiatives or for improved police‐ Police Department and the general community relations. public.” Outreach and public information gathering activities would be included in the Board’s Annual Report. Budgetary Input No specific authority to review or comment Not mentioned “To request reports of the annual on CPD expenditures (implicit ability to expenditures of the Police Department, affect budget by recommending changes in and to make budgetary priorities and practices) recommendations to the city council concerning future appropriations…” Review budget documents in parallel with the City Council and provide recommendations. March 10, 2021 – DRAFT CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD HEARING PROCEDURES 1. Hearings and Meetings a. The PCRB may, from time to time, hold meetings for such purposes as it deems advisable and consistent with the authority granted to it by ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order or such other procedures as the PCRB may adopt. Any PCRB-adopted procedures shall control. b. The PCRB may, from time to time, upon receipt of information relating to a Complaint, conduct a Hearing related to a Complaint. i. The PCRB may receive information relating to a Complaint from any person or entity provided the information is submitted to the PCRB in writing and the person making the submission identifies their name, address, and telephone number. c. A Complaint shall mean: i. A complaint from a civilian regarding the conduct of law-enforcement officers and civilian employees of a law-enforcement agency serving under the authority of the City of Charlottesville (“Civilian Complaint”); or ii. Information relating to incidents, including the use of force by a law- enforcement officer, death or serious injury to any person held in custody, serious abuse of authority or misconduct, allegedly discriminatory stops, and other incidents regarding the conduct of law- enforcement officers or civilian employees of a law-enforcement agency serving under the authority of the City of Charlottesville (“Police Conduct Complaint”); or iii. Information related to an investigation conducted internally by law- enforcement agencies serving under the authority of the City of Charlottesville, including internal investigations of the conduct or behavior of law enforcement officers and of civilian employees of such law-enforcement agencies, and taking issue with the findings, accuracy, completeness, and impartiality of such investigations and the sufficiency of any discipline resulting from such investigations (“Internal Affairs Review”). d. Any Complaint shall set out with particularity any claim of misconduct by a law enforcement officer and/or a civilian employee under the authority of the City of Charlottesville DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 1 and shall set forth facts or information sufficient for the PCRB identify any law, policy, or procedure the misconduct may or is alleged to have violated. e. Upon receiving a Complaint, the PCRB shall determine whether (i) any applicable ordinance of the City of Charlottesville permits or requires the PCRB to conduct a Hearing to review the Complaint and (ii) whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it determines a Hearing is appropriate. f. The PCRB shall conduct Hearings concerning Complaints in accordance with the procedures set forth herein provided that it may make modifications to these procedures from time to time as circumstances concerning a particular Complaint may require provided that no such modification shall operate to deprive any party to a Hearing of substantial justice. g. The parties to a Hearing shall include: i. Any person or entity who alleges they were the subject of police misconduct related to the Complaint that is the subject of the Hearing; ii. The police officials who are the subject of the Complaint. 2. Advisors. a. Right to advisor/representative of choice. Throughout the Hearing process, each party has the right to choose and consult with an advisor. An advisor may be any person, and may be, but is not required to be, an attorney. b. Role of advisor/representative. The parties may be accompanied by their respective advisors at any meeting or proceeding related to the Hearing which right shall not include the right to be present during investigative efforts related to the Complaint. While the advisors may provide support and advice to the parties at any meeting and/or proceeding, unless the advisor is also an attorney licensed by the Virginia State Bar, they may not speak on behalf of the parties, submit written statements attributed to the party, or otherwise participate in, or in any manner disrupt, such meetings and/or proceedings. 3. Investigation. a. Upon receipt of a Complaint, the PCRB shall compile or cause to be compiled a Written Record related to the Complaint. The Written Record shall include: DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 2 i. Material from the Charlottesville Police Department which the PCRB shall request by notifying the Charlottesville Chief of Police of the Complaint. Upon receiving such a request, the Charlottesville Police Department shall, within _____days[?], provide the PCRB with: 1. a complete copy of any internal affairs file that is the subject of the Review Request. The City Attorney shall review the file and redact any information related to a juvenile pursuant to Virginia Code Section 16.1-301, as amended or as otherwise required to be redacted by law; 2. the complete complaint history including any final disciplinary action taken against any officer or civilian employee who is the subject of the Complaint; 3. any material or evidence utilized or collected by the Charlottesville Police Department during its internal affairs investigation related to the Complaint unless the Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department, upon concurrence of the Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney, determines that the material or evidence is the subject of an active criminal investigation; 4. raw and aggregated data on the timing, findings, and dispositions of Charlottesville Police Department internal affairs investigations; and ii. Any additional written information provided by a party to the PCRB that the party believes to be relevant to a Complaint at any time prior to the commencement of the Hearing. b. Investigative material from the Charlottesville Police Department shall be presumptively confidential and may not be disclosed by the PCRB except upon a certification by the PCRB that it is germane to a Hearing, serves the public interest to be disclosed in public proceedings of the PCRB, and, in the interests of fairness, must be made available to the parties to the Hearing. 4. Policies Governing Hearings. a. Presumption of Lawful Conduct. The Hearing and related investigation are a neutral fact-gathering process. All parties are presumed, until findings are made to the contrary, to have acted lawfully and in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. That presumption may be overcome only by a PCRB finding that that there is sufficient evidence, by a DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 3 preponderance of the evidence, that any person or entity acted unlawfully or in violation of applicable policies or procedures. b. Participation by the Parties and Witnesses. In the absence of a lawfully issued subpoena, no party or witness is required to participate in a Hearing but the PCRB may infer from a party’s or a witness’s voluntary absence from a Hearing, despite notice and a request to appear, that their truthful participation would have been adverse to the interests of such voluntarily absent party or witness. c. Prior or Subsequent Conduct. Prior or subsequent conduct of a party may be considered in determining pattern, knowledge, intent, motive, or absence of mistake. The determination of relevance of such conduct will be based on an assessment of whether the previous or subsequent conduct was substantially similar to the conduct under investigation or indicates a pattern of unlawful conduct or conduct that violates applicable policies or procedures. d. Relevance. The PCRB may determine in any Hearing the relevance of any proffered evidence and to include or exclude certain types of evidence from the Hearing. e. Rules of Evidence. Virginia’s Rules of Evidence, contained in Part II of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia and in the Code of Virginia and in applicable case opinions are not binding in Hearings but may be the basis for arguments in support of the admission or exclusion of evidence which the PCRB may consider in determining, in its discretion, whether to admit evidence. f. Expert Consultation(s). The PCRB may consult disinterested medical, forensic, technological, or other experts, as defined by applicable law, when expertise on a topic is needed in order to achieve a fuller understanding of the issues presented by the Complaint. g. Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The activities of the PCRB are subject to the requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. 5. Conduct of Hearings. a. Information Provided to Decision Maker. Prior to the Hearing, the PCRB shall review the Written Record. b. Purpose of the Hearing. The Hearing is an opportunity for the parties to address the PCRB about issues relevant to the Complaint. c. Order of Hearing. DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 4 i. The PCRB shall hear any motions or requests at the commencement of the Hearing and may rule on them or defer ruling upon them as the PCRB determines to be appropriate. ii. Each party may make an opening statement at the commencement of the Hearing. iii. The PCRB and the parties may call witnesses or seek to introduce documentary evidence not already part of the Written Record. The PCRB shall determine the order in which parties shall present evidence. iv. The parties may submit written questions to the PCRB to pose to witnesses and the PCRB members may pose questions to any witnesses. The PCRB shall determine whether any question is inappropriate for submission to a witness. v. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the parties may make closing arguments to the PCRB. d. Notice of Hearing. The PCRB shall provide written notice to the parties of no less than 14 days of the date, time, and location of the Hearing. The hearing may be continued by the PCRB from time to time until completed. e. Location of Hearing. A Hearing may be conducted with all parties physically present in the same geographic location or, at the discretion of the PCRB, any or all parties, witnesses, or other participants may appear at the Hearing virtually, with technology enabling participants simultaneously to see and hear each other. f. Pre-Hearing Conference. The PCRB may convene a Pre-Hearing Conference during which preliminary matters related to the Hearing are discussed and/or resolved. The parties will be provided advance written notice of the date, time, and location of the pre-hearing conference. g. Recording of Hearing. The PCRB shall make arrangements to create an audio or audiovisual recording, or transcript, of the Hearing. h. Determination by the PCRB. After the Hearing, the PCRB will objectively evaluate all relevant evidence, both from the Written Record and presented during the Hearing, and make a written finding within the time and in the form provided by the enabling Ordinance, for each allegation of misconduct in the Complaint: i. Whether there was a preponderance of evidence that the misconduct alleged in the Complaint occurred; DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 5 ii. Whether the PCRB concurs with any finding by the Charlottesville Police Department concerning the misconduct; iii. Whether the PCRB finds that the Charlottesville Police Department’s investigation, if any, of the Complaint is incomplete or unsatisfactory and, if so, in what regard; iv. With respect to any Civilian Complaint or Police Conduct Complaint, to the extent permitted by Charlottesville City Ordinance: 1. Whether the PCRB wishes to consult with a Charlottesville Police Department officer’s or employee’s direct supervisor or commander, to make binding disciplinary determinations in cases that involve serious breaches of department and professional standards as defined by the City of Charlottesville which determinations may include letters of reprimand, suspension without pay, suspension with pay, demotion within the department, reassignment within the department, termination, involuntary restitution, or mediation, any of which is to be implemented by the local government employee with ultimate supervisory authority over officers or employees of law-enforcement agencies serving under the authority of the locality. 6. Informal Resolution. a. At any time after receiving a Complaint and before issuance of the written findings required at the conclusion of a Hearing, the PCRB and any party may propose an informal resolution of the Complaint which may be adopted if all parties and the PCRB agree to such a resolution. DRAFT – MARCH 10, 2021 - 6