The
effort by two New London city councilors to keep discussions of alleged police
misconduct closed to the public has reached a point of desperation. Unable to
get anyone with legal training or administrative authority to agree with them,
the councilors - John Maynard and Marie Freiss-McSparran - are now trying to
protect officers by truncating the entire civilian complaint process.
In 1976, the city
agreed to a stipulated consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court of
Connecticut in a case brought by a Hispanic citizen. The defendant had alleged
discriminatory actions by police and pointed to the lack of any formal complaint
process. The two-page decree required the city to create one. Anyone who feels
police acted improperly can file a complaint form. Police then conduct an
internal investigation and issue findings. The final report and the complaint
that precipitated it are public documents.
To provide additional
oversight, a council back then created a Police Community Relations Committee
"to foster better understanding between citizens and police
officers." The council later gave it the job of reviewing those internal
investigations to assure they were adequate or, in other words, to make sure
there was not a whitewash.
This responsibility
has led to a debate in recent years as to whether the community relations
committee should be discussing the complaints and investigation findings in
public. The answer is obvious. Yes, the meetings should be open; yet some
continue to resist.
The complaints and
the reports are public records, so of course the committee's discussion about
them should be as well.
The city attorney
concludes the discussions must be open under the Connecticut Freedom of
Information law. Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio agrees, as do the police chief and
deputy chief. They all recognize transparency and openness is vital to securing
public confidence in the process.
There remain holdouts
on the committee itself, those who contend it is unfair to officers to talk
about details of the allegations openly. Nevertheless, in recent months the
committee has voted repeatedly to keep its meetings open. Officer Todd Lynch,
the union president, objects, but that is no surprise.
What is surprising is
how persistently councilors Maynard and Friess-McSparran keep fighting to keep
this information from the public. With very few exceptions, the Police
Community Relations Committee verifies that the internal investigations were
carried out adequately. Also, with few exceptions, those investigations clear
police of the allegations of misconduct. So why hide anything and erode faith
in those findings?
Having failed to win
the debate, and finding themselves on the wrong side of FOI law, the two
councilors now propose stripping the community relations committee of the
authority to review the adequacy of police investigations into civilian
complaints. The 2-0 vote came at the May 2 Public Safety Committee meeting,
chaired by Maynard and of which Freiss-McSparran is a member. The third member,
Councilor Donald Macrino, was absent.
In a Sept. 17 letter
sent to Mayor Finizio and the council, the Police Community Relations Committee
strongly objected to the attempt to take away its reviewing authority, calling
that its "primary responsibility."
"By voting to
take this responsibility away, the Public Safety Committee has voted to take
the people's voice away," states the letter.
Freiss-McSparran told
me the change would allow the committee to focus on building police community
relations. Those upset with the results of how police handled their complaint
could still appeal to the mayor, she notes.
To her credit,
Freiss-McSparran is frank about her primary motive - protecting officers from
having allegations about them discussed in public. She doesn't want to see an
officer's reputation hurt by unfounded allegations.
Good cops don't need
that protection and bad cops shouldn't have it.
"This committee,
through ongoing review of completed police investigations provides necessary
oversight of the citizen complaint process. This supervision is essential if we
are to continue building trust between the community and the New London police
force," the committee letter well states.
Fortunately, this
ordinance is probably headed nowhere. The proposed ordinance now goes to the
Administration Committee. Chairman Wade Hyslop says he opposes it. It's
unlikely the council would support it. If it did, Mayor Finizio would veto it.
Voters, however, can
weigh in. Maynard is not seeking re-election, but Freiss-McSparran is. Voters
should repudiate her blind support for what she sees as serving the interests
of police, even at the cost of public accountability. By handing her a layoff
notice, voters can send the message that while they respect police, they want
their government open.
Paul Choiniere is
editorial page editor.