To: John Timoney, Police Commissioner, and
John Gallagher, Esq., Assistant to Commissioner
215-625-0612 fax and phones 686-3357 and 3280
From: Rita Addessa215-772-2001 and 724 8244 before 8 am
Re: (1) April 12, 1999 Meeting Summary and Questions
(2) Scheduled Next Meeting:
Thursday, September 16, 1999 and Emergency Backup, September 23, 1999
Date: April 23, 1999
Again, thank you for the opportunity to meet. We appreciated your sharing with us a summary of the important reforms you have already accomplished and hope to accomplish within the constraints posed by various legal constraints, judicial decisions, FOP contracts, and the inveterate American Arbitration Association, a troubling barrier to effective law enforcement, police discipline and discharge.
I summarize below certain key points from the April 12, 1999 meeting and ask if you would kindly delegate a return call -– by next week if possible – to answer some clarification questions.
1. The "Meta-Analysis," the "Blue-Ribbon Team" and project planning, implementation, tracking support for intended reforms (Summary, p.p. 8-9).
As our meeting closed, we talked very briefly about this notion, a concept raised in various individual organizational recommendations by a variety of names over the last decade. We understand that there are many recommendations and very limited resources available.
It is gratifying, Commissioner, that many elements of your experience-driven reforms are also reflected in various independent reports and recommendations - noted on the packet’s table of contents – inclusive of course of the NAACP/Police Barrio Project consent decree.
You mentioned that your prioritized reform agenda was delivered to "City Hall." If the Mayor considers this document public information we will obtain a copy, and remain willing to help you with what must be a very challenging process. It would be useful and interesting to compare the various components of the agenda to the various recommendations embedded in many thoughtful and expensive reform studies, long-ignored, perhaps still useful, perhaps not.
2. On Training:
It is very clear that each of the police-focused analyses and reports we have reviewed support professional training for all levels of police command and uniformed patrol officers.
Your strong support, Commissioner, for higher eligibility criteria, advanced degrees, and professional academy and district training is refreshing. Political will and funding, of course, will produce the desired end results. Perhaps we can partner in publicly advocating – through press and the like – for meaningful and direct city and state funding for these expanded training courses as well as formal education initiatives (especially given low entry level salaries among the rank and file).
My notes indicate that academy training under your leadership has increased from 750 hours to 32 weeks.
Questions: Does this mean 2400 hours of recruit training? Are formal evaluations completed by the recruits and the trainers to assess outcomes? If yes, who evaluates the evaluations and are the reports published for internal review?
In contrast, as I understand it, you do not support the Task Force proposed specific recommendation of a nine-day diversity training course for all police officers, and have not yet considered adoption of the NOBLE protocols proposed for (1) large and (2) small police departments to identify and handle bias crime – step-by-step (Packet, Att. 1). (Note: A training outline for this nine-day program has been provided to various commissioners over time. Were you interested, it could be updated. The NOBLE protocols remain extremely relevant.)
Follow-Through: I appreciate Mr. Gallagher’s willingness to forward the training curricula course guide outline. I will share it with participants who wish to have their own copy unless John would prefer to send each participant a copy (I am happy to provide addresses).
3. On the matter of Supervision, Supervisors’ Roles, and Evaluations (see also 4 below).
Although we did not address this issue particularly, each of the organization’s recommendations within the packet speak to the important role of supervisors, and the need for supervisors (1) to supervise rather than to participate in specific events (e.g. demonstrations at Summary, p. 3); (2) to show leadership and exercise control (Summary, p. 4); to be held responsible for the performance and integrity of those under their command and for monitoring (evaluating) officers’ performance (Summary, p. 6).
As I understand my notes, you support these general roles, Commissioner, and we appreciated knowing about your NY experience in handling multiple demonstrations, without incident, given the too-soon Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.
The issue however around Performance Evaluations remains unclear. Per our conversation, it sounded as if you were precluded from administering qualitative evaluations and that you are bound for some arcane reason to a no-win "satisfactory" or "non-satisfactory" evaluation instrument. We would like to help you to resolve this barrier.
On the other hand, it has been reported (perhaps a press report?) that you do not believe that performance evaluations – presumably if modified – are useful because of supervisors’ reluctance to conduct such evaluations.
Question: Are both things true? If there are no meaningful performance evaluations, how will the department and its employees be held publicly accountable? Will the evolving computerized Internal Affairs Bureau data (grids) be used as the tool to promote, assign, and discipline police? (Summary, p. 7 and Committee of Seventy Recommendations as well.)
Note: Larry Krasner, Esq., did suggest that supervisors could be at least encouraged and recognized for completing the narrative section of the current unsatisfactory evaluation form - pro tem.
4. Internal Investigations Bureau, Computerization, and Evaluation (see also 3 above)
It is encouraging that the proposed combination of various offices charged with the investigation of police misconduct, corruption, brutality, negligence, etc. is completed (the Internal Affairs Division; IMPACT (fka Ethics Accountability Division; and the Internal Investigations Bureau).
As I understand it, the computerization project per the consent degree, though delayed, will provide uniform reports and documentation about various elements of police performance including educational background and training, commendations, arrests made, firearms discharges, IAD investigations, vehicle accidents, lawsuits, use of force incidents, sick leave, injury on duty, court attendance, and one would hope, performance evaluations by supervisors.
Question: Is this true? And is this computerization project being developed in tandem with the larger "compstat" computerization project to map "crime"? And will these computer systems be complementary and interactive? (My notes indicate that the project will be completed within 1.5 to 2 years.)
5. Use of Force
As part of this discussion, John Gallagher, noted a specific policy, which now forbids police to strike the "collarbone," a rationale used to justify unnecessary and sometimes fatal head injuries. Instruments referred to as "blackjacks" are no longer used. Stricter reporting requirements are intended to mitigate the seemingly high incidence of racial profiling in pedestrian and vehicular stops. And, as I understand from news clips, you have assured that any police officer under a protection from abuse order will not be permitted to maintain a weapon and will be removed from active duty.
Commissioner, your public commitment to reduce the incidence of physical brutality and abuse is an important step forward in Philadelphia, and your willingness, as you noted, to call publicly for the arrest of police officers who commit crimes is especially pertinent. If officers understand that strict disciplinary measures for physical brutality and abuse will be enforced (including discharge and arrest if appropriate), then surely the Department will reach this critical public interest goal under your leadership.
Closure:
Again, thank you both very much and if any errata, please apprise.
Rita Addessa
cc: Participants
David Berney, Esq., Philadelphia Bar Association Civil Rights Committee
Judge John Braxton, Barristers
Larry Gross, Ph.D., PLGTF
Julie Hoke, Esq., PILCOP Hotline
Leigh Jerner, Esq., Chair, Gay and Lesbian Lawyers of Philadelphia
Larry Krasner, Esq., Special Police Advisory Review Team
Will O’Brien, Project Home
Miranda vanDalen, Esq., PILCOP
Materials Due: the Academy training curricula course guide outline, and weapons policy if available.
New Request: Is there a copy of a organization flow chart available?###