Office of Independent Monitor & the Police Civilian Oversight Board - My Thoughts
postedHi Everyone,
Last week Lucas Robinson of Wisconsin State Journal posed the following questions to me about the Office of Independent Monitor (OIM) and the Police Civilian Oversight Board for a piece that appeared in this morning's newspaper:
- What’s your overall view toward how the OIM is addressed in the mayor’s two budgets?
- Where would you have liked to see the OIM in terms of its responsibilities/accomplishments at this point in its existence?
- Even if the referendum’s passed, do you think the council should make further cuts to the OIM or eliminate it entirely?
- Is there anything additional you would like to see from IM Copley and/or the PCOB in the weeks ahead to reassure alders of its work?
I responded as follows:
The Mayor was correct to address OIM shortcomings in her budget.
If the City had funded a non-profit in 2020 and progress reports in ensuing years showed only halting steps toward achieving stated goals, we likely would have pulled the plug. Similarly, if a bank had loaned money to a startup four years ago but the business had failed to turn a profit or execute a sale, the line of credit would have all but dried up.
Despite all the hard work that went into creating the OIM and the PCOB, the effort has not yielded satisfactory results. The implementation has been flawed, the PCOB has been riddled with dysfunction, and the executive hired to manage the effort failed to perform at a high level. We’re now told that’s about to change, that we’re on the cusp of a promising breakthrough, and that we should maintain and fully fund the status quo.
Given our budget constraints, Council must determine if there’s not a more efficient means of achieving our shared goal of robust police accountability. It’s evident the most essential function is to provide a level playing field whereby complainants may file their claims before the PFC with the help of outside counsel equivalent to that retained by police defendants.
It’s not clear to me this must be an independent function set up as an “island” agency within the City. I envision this being part of the Department of Civil Rights, which currently provides analogous services for residents filing claims of discrimination in housing and other matters. In fact, it’s my belief the insistence the OIM function as an independent agency within the City deprived the office of the administrative support, mentorship and accountability necessary to perform at a high level.
This design flaw likely contributed to the OIM’s substandard performance and should be addressed before moving forward.
I strongly support police oversight and accountability, but that fact doesn't erase my questions and concerns about the lack of progress to date. Rather than restoring funding and maintaining the status quo, I believe Council should determine if there's not a better means of achieving our goals.
The most essential function in my mind is to ensure residents who have legitimate complaints against MPD have the same resources to argue their claims before the PFC that the police have in their defense. By moving the OIM into the Department of Civil Rights, which already has an institutional basis for functioning as an advocate for residents who have complaints of various kinds, would increase the likelihood of success.
If you have thoughts about this topic, please feel free to email me at district13@cityofmadison.com.
Take care and stay safe,
Tag
Alder Tag Evers
District 13
Contact Alder Evers