As you might have expected, I have a few comments regarding the four nominees
for the Police Conduct Oversight Commission whom you will be discussing
tomorrow.
1. Thank you for appointing four non-lawyers. As I have pointed out several
times previously, the PCOC, throughout its entire eight-year history, has
tended to have an excessive number of lawyers on it, frequently a majority.
That was absurd, so thank you for moving away from that past practice.
2. Once again, the public portion of the people not being appointed are not
available to the public unless we make a Data Practices request. That, of
course, means we have no way of providing informed input before your meeting in
one day. Previous incarnations of the Public Safety Committee have made this
request of the City Clerk's office or of the OPCR, but the provision of data on
the unsuccessful applicants has been sporadic at best -- and frequently not
available in a timely manner. Again, when you claim to be advocates of
transparency, this is not acceptable. Not only that, it's bad in terms of
public engagement.
3. Once again, not a single appointee has ever attended a PCOC meeting in
person, let alone made comments at any of those in-person meetings. You never
have appointed anyone to the PCOC who has shown that kind of an interest in the
commission. For example, I happen to know of two unsuccessful applicants this
time around who have attended numerous PCOC meetings, frequently making
suggestions through public comments. The PCOC, from its inception, has had a
history of excluding people who attend meetings, make comments, and ask
questions. Again, that is totally unacceptable from a public engagement
perspective. You need to find out why the Civil Rights Department has
consistently excluded people who have shown the most interest in this board
before they have applied to be on it. Otherwise, these appointments are
farcical.
Keep safe; stay healthy.
Yours,
Chuck Turchick
Chuck Turchick
Phillips