Fixing the Berkeley Police Review Commission

What would it take to fix the Berkeley police review commission?

1: Family members of the Berkeley police department should be prohibited from serving on the police review commission.  There is too much of a conflict of interest which clearly will cause bias in decision making.  Currently, there is one commissioner (Commissioner Cardoza) who is the father of a Berkeley police officer who was present at the death of a Berkeley resident who died in police custody.  As well, Officer Cardoza has harassed people at city council meetings on more than one occasion, for speaking against police violence.  Family of police can already speak during public comment; there is already opportunity for their opinion to be heard.  If family of police feel they need to have a prominent voice, there could be an advisory position created which does not having power to vote on decisions made by the review board.

2: Members of the public should be granted more opportunities to speak.  Along with this, the review commissioners should be asking questions when a member of the public says something they don't understand or need more information on.  Currently, members of the public are only granted a chance to speak at the start of meetings, before topics are discussed, and at the very end of meetings after all discussion has been closed.  Currently, the commission maintains a standard of not asking questions in regards to statements made by members of the public.  It is fairly common for the commission to not even address statements made by the public.  At city council meetings, and at meetings for other commissions, every agenda item is accompanied by a moment for public statements.  When public comment is during the respective agenda item, comments have more impact and are not likely to be forgotten, as opposed to having comments being presented at the start of the meeting separate from the discussion.  For purposes of clarification and to make more informed decisions, members of the police review commission should ask questions about statements made from the public.

3: The police review commission needs to do more outreach to the public.  While the police review commission cannot directly ask the public for complaints, as per its guidelines, it can do more to make the public aware that the commission exists, and how the complaint process works.  There has been a recent instance in which a person filed a complaint late because they didn't realize the time limit for filing a complaint started on the incident date, not the court date.

4: The police review commission should have complaint forms at meetings.  People will show up to a meeting to voice a complaint, not knowing that complaints have to be submitted in writing.  It is typical for there not to be any complaint forms at review commission meetings.  When people show up to a meeting in order to make a complaint against a member of the police department, they are told to retrieve a form at the commission office during office hours.  The meetings are held in the evenings, and it would be more convenient for many people if they could pick up a complaint form at a meeting, rather than get one during the day.

5: The police review commission needs to be more open to the complaints made by the public.  The commission understandably needs to maintain a position of non-bias, but there is a difference analytical skepticism and being hostile to complaints.  The police already has legal/union representation; the police do not need the review commission to play that role for them.  The incredulous attitude of the commission makes people feel like they are fighting against both the police and the commission.

6: Review commission should switch out with more frequency.  There are 2 commissioners who are resisting stepping down, despite having served for approximately a decade.  One of them, George Perezvelez, has even been serving on the BART police review board as well, practically becoming a professional police reviewer.  Perezvelez holds very conservative views, and has a record of verbally hostility towards complainants.  When controversial commissioners do not step down to allow for a replacement, there should be a complaint review process available against the police review commissioners themselves.  The police review commission is unfortunately tied to local politics; the commissioners are chosen by the city council and mayor (thus there being 9 slots - one currently vacant).  There has not been any turn-over in city council; the same incumbents keep getting re-elected; the commissioners that actually have stepped down have done so voluntarily.

7: It can be debated that the audio records of police review commission meeting should be available online.  All meetings are recorded, but the audio files are not readily available to the public without special request (which can be denied).  Complaint hearings do not take place during meetings; so there would be no issue with recording private information regarding personal complaints against officers.  Meetings discuss issues of public interest, and set public policy.  The police and the review commission would be more accountable if the meetings were shared online in audio format.  In comparison, city council meetings are available online on audio and 2 different video formats.