Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/03/05 Item 15CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA MARCH 5, 2013, Item E5 ITEM TITLE: REPORT REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT THEREIN, AND RELATED ISSUES SUBMITTED BY: CITY ATTORNE~~ POLICE CHIEF ~ ' '~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAG ASSISTANT CITY ANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO SUMMARY This report provides information on the Police Department's Community Advisory Committee, options for City Council involvement therein, and related issues. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it has been determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 153'78 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council consider the report and provide direction to staff. The Police Chief recommends that the Community Advisory Committee continue in its current form. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION At its February 5, 2013 meeting, the City Council discussed combining the Police Department's Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Council's Public Safety Subcommittee (PSS). The Council discussed possible levels of City Council involvement in the CAC as a way of addressing Council interest in public safety issues. The Council 15-1 MARCH 5, 2013, Item 15 Page 2 of 5 referred the item to the Police Department and the City Attorney's Office to review the CAC and report back to Council. This report provides information on the CAC and a brief analysis of legal considerations of Council Members attending CAC meetings or participating in the CAC. History An ad hoc citizens task force recommended that the Police Department form a community advisory committee on police practices and procedures. The task force, authorized by the City Council in May 2001, was charged with studying and making findings on whether the Department needed a civilian review board to evaluate complaints of police misconduct. The seven-member Citizen Task Force (CTF) was formed by City Manager David R. Rowlands, Jr., who, with a consultant's help, solicited more than 20 community groups to nominate members to serve on the CTF. The CTF met eight times from August through November 2001. Over that four-month period, CTF members invested an estimated 656 hours on their mission. They reviewed police policies and procedures on investigating and resolving citizen complaints; materials on civilian review boards in other jurisdictions; SANDAG's 2000 Citizen Opinion Survey; and police academy and in-service training on ethics and police conduct. They reviewed claims filed against the Police Department and fourteen (14) formal citizen complaints filed with the Police Department within the preceding 12-month period. They also participated in police ride-alongs and the Department's Citizen Academy; interviewed community members, members of police groups, and participants in civilian review boazds. They took public testimony at a three-hour public meeting, which drew about 50 community members. The CTF summarized its work and recommendations in a twenty-page report, which it presented to the City Council on December 17, 2001. The CTF found no demonstrated need for a civilian review boazd. Instead, the CTF "strongly recommend(ed)" an advisory citizen board on police practices and procedures. According to the CTF's report, "The purpose and scope of an advisory board would be to work in partnership with the Chief of Police on matters related to public safety and community-related issues. An advisory boazd would advise and consult with the Chief of Police concerning police departrnent polices and procedures that involve the department's interaction with the public. The advisory boazd would meet regularly with the Chief of Police to discuss relevant public safety and community-related issues." The City Council unanimously accepted the CTF's report and approved its recommendations in Resolution 2001-455. The Police Departrnent's Community Advisory Committee (CAC) held its first meeting on October 21, 2002. Composition The CAC meets up to quarterly at the Police Department. The next meeting is scheduled for April 3, 2013 at 5 p.m. The CAC operates in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. Accordingly, CAC meetings are open to the public and provide an opportunity for public comment. Agendas are posted the week before the meeting at various places in Chula Vista, including the Civic Branch Library bulletin board, the Police Department, and Civic Center Kiosk. Notice of the meeting is included on the 15-2 MARCH 5, 2013, Item ~ Page 3 of 5 City's website calendar and is mailed to local media. The meeting is staffed by members of the Police Chief s executive team. The City Attorney's Office does not staff the CAC. The CAC has no required number of members. It currently has 10 community members: Anthony Millican, Gerry Sablan, Gustavo Bidart, Henrietta Harb, Jose de la Garza, Norma Cazares, Patty Chavez, Peter Mabrey, Ray Aragon, and Temot MacRenato. Members are volunteers and serve without pay. They are appointed by the Chief of Police, serve terms of two to three years, and may extend with the Chief s permission. Members aze encouraged to complete the Department's Citizen Academy, which is offered annually, before joining the CAC to have a basic understanding of the Department's functions and operations. Members are also encouraged to take advantage of training opportunities offered by the Department. Those interested in serving on the CAC may contact the Chiefls Office at 619-691-5150 for more information. Focus The CAC provides a mechanism for two-way communication between the Department and community members on police. issues and practices. CAC members may give informed opinions and reactions to the Police Department and gain understanding on public safety issues of concern. Members are urged to shaze what they have learned with their peers and neighbors. Similarly, the Police Department may receive valuable input and advice from members to help implement problem-solving measures or improve performance. Although the CAC is advisory only, the exchange of information and opinions strengthens the communication and relationship between the commnnity and the Police Department. The Department and CAC may jointly develop the meeting agenda. Standing topics include budget, crime reports, and summary data on police complaints. Topics the CAC has considered over the years have included DUI. checkpoints, recruiting, traffic stops, use of force, a resident opinion survey, geographic policing, verified response to security alarms, peace officer education standards, and the Apartment Safety Project. Some of these topics also have been presented to the Public Safety Subcommittee and the City Council as stand- alone topics or as part of a lazger presentation, such as budget. City Council Participation in the CAC As Observers City Council members may attend CAC meetings, either occasionally or on a regular or rotating basis. However, Council should be aware of the following issues and limitations: • Council members may attend CAC meetings as observers, like any member of the public, because the CAC meetings are open to the public. Government Code Section 54952.2 (c)(4). • As observers, Council members may make comments, like any member of the public, in the public comment portion of the CAC meeting. 15-3 MARCH 5, 2013, Item ~ 5 Page4of5 • A violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act could occur, however, if a majority of the Council attends a CAC meeting and discusses, deliberates, or takes action among themselves on business that is within the City Council's jurisdiction. A majority of the City Council gathering and discussing a matter within the Council's jurisdiction is a meeting under the Brown Act. Such a meeting would require prior noticing so that members of the public would have the opportunity to know of the meeting, to attend, and to listen to the Council members' discussion. For example, if three or more Council members attended a CAC meeting featuring a presentation on police staffing, and discussed among themselves how to pay for more police officers, a meeting under the Brown Act has occurred and would require prior noticing. Another example of Council participation at a CAC meeting that could violate the Brown Act is a majority of Council members making comments or asking questions during a CAC meeting on police staffing that could be construed as discussion, deliberation, or consensus-building on a matter within the Council's jurisdiction. This is an area requiring cazeful navigation by Council members. As Members One suggestion at the February 5, 2013 Council meeting was appointing two City Council members to the CAC, in lieu of a Public Safety Subcommittee. A legal structure could be developed for more formal City Council involvement with the CAC. However, the following legal and policy issues should be considered: • With two Council members as members of the CAC, the Brown Act is implicated if a third, fourth or fifth Council member attended a CAC meeting. These members could attend as observers only but could not otherwise participate in the meeting. Government Code Section 54952.2(c)(6). This provision is to prevent an inadvertent meeting of a majority of Council members, in which a matter within the Council's jurisdiction is discussed among Council members without giving the public the opportunity to know in advance about the Council meeting and to listen to it or participate in it. • As noted, the CAC was formed and operates as a bridge between the community and police on police issues and practices. The CAC has operated successfully for more than a decade as a group made up of community volunteers. A concern of the Police Department and some members is that adding two Council members would change the group's character and could chill community participation, to the detriment of the CAC's mission. • Even though the CAC is an advisory group, adding two Council members raises the potential, or the perception, that these members exert supervisory influence over the Police Chief, contrary to the City's Charter and Municipal Code. Charter Section 401 vests the City Manger with the responsibility to the City Council to administer the City's affairs. This section also charges the City Manager with appointing department heads, including the Police Chief. Similazly, Municipal Code Section 2.09.020.A provides that the Police Chief is appointed by, and reports to, the City Manager. This section also provides that the "police department shall be 15-4 MARCH 5, 2013, Item I S Page 5 of 5 administered by the police chief as same may be, from time to time, directed by the city manager." DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Not applicable. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Additional staff time and costs could result from City Council involvement in CAC meetings if additional Brown Act analysis and noticing is required. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Same as above. ATTACHMENTS None. Prepared by: Carol Trujillo, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney's ice 15-5 `err, dN OF CHULA VISTA Councilmember Patricia Aguilar City Of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 619.691.5044 - 619.476.5379 Fax DATE: February 28, 2013 MEMO TO: Mayor Cheryl Cox, Councilmembers Rudy Ramirez, Pamela Bensoussan and Mary Salas, City Manager Jim Sandoval, Police Chief David Bejarano, Fire Chief David Hanneman, Deputy City Manager Gary Halbert, ;~(z. ~~ I ~ ,~ `Jr'LrCJt"1J FROM: Councilmember Patricia Aguilar ~~C2 ~i~~Yr~~4ti ~,~c~~~~~~u~~~~ RE: Summary of Activities of the City Council Public Safety Subcommittee, CY 2011 & 2012 Colleagues: At a City Council meeting earlier in February I verbally summarized the work of the Public Safety Subcommittee during the two years I have been a member. Also, in your agenda packet for the last Council meeting you received a memo from me outlining some options for moving forward on the matter of what to do about Council and public involvement with public safety issues. (This memo, dated Feb. 21, is attached for your convenience.) Given my understanding that the Council may take action on the fate of the Public Safety Subcommittee on March 5, I wanted to take the time to provide you a written summary of the major activities of the subcommittee over the past two years. PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES, CY 2011 8 2012 The Subcommittee held ten public hearings over this two-year period (more than one per quarter). The following is a list of some of the major agenda items that were heard by the Subcommittee: • Report from the Fire Department on initiating an Advanced Life Support program. • Report from the Public Works Department on graffiti abatement activities. This public hearing resulted in the Council increasing funding for graffiti abatement, and establishment of a volunteer graffiti removal program within the Public Works Department. • Two separate Subcommittee public hearings on changes to the city's ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, which resulted in final Council approval of a revised ordinance. • A presentation from members of the community, and response by staff, regarding the sale of synthetic drugs in neighborhood markets. This issue was discussed at three separate Subcommittee hearings, resulting in Council passing ground-breaking legislation regulating the sale of synthetic drugs. • Report from the Police Department on DUI enforcement protocol. • Public hearing on Police Department's Verified Alarm Response program (this issue remains outstanding). Attendance by the public at Subcommittee hearings (as judged from the sign-in sheet) varied from a low of seven people to a high of 45 people at the hearing on verified alarm response. The medical marijuana dispensary and the synthetic drug hearings also all had heavy attendance. 15-6 All meetings were Brown Act compliant and were held at various city recreation centers and local schools around the city. All meetings were held at 6 p.m. in the evening. Agendas and minutes were all prepared by Council administrative staff. f am looking forward to Council and public discussion of this issue on March 5. cc: City Clerk Donna Norris, City Attorney Glen Googins Attachment: Feb. 21, 2013 memo re: possible options for Council engagement with public safety issues. 15-7 ~i11~ ~~t CHU~LA VISTA Councilmember Patnua Aguilar City Of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 619.691.5044 - 619.476.5379 Fax MEMO DATE: Feb. 21, 2013 TO: Mayor Cheryl Cox, members of the City Council, City Manager Jim Sandoval, Police Chief David eejarano 1 FROM: CouncilmemberPatriciaAguilar ~~j:, it .iu /~„ /~r~i t ~z~~~ ~ru ,~~,.rtJ 7T !. l 4/~t /~Jctildr RE: Five options for engaging with the communi on public safety issues 7 ` Public safety is the city's highest priority. By far the largest chunk of the city's General Fund budget goes to public safety. For the past seven years the City Council has acknowledged this priority by having an active Public Safety Subcommittee (PSS), established by council resolution in 2006. I would like to suggest some options for the future of the subcommittee. O tp ion 1. No Public Safety Subcommittee. Based on my experience as a member of the PSS over the past lwo years, I have come to the conclusion that it serves an important purpose. It offers an opportunity for members of the public to communicate directly with councilmembers in an informal setting about public safety concerns, whether they are brought forward by the police or fire departments, or by members of the public. Public safety issues are often complex and multi-faceted, and the subcommittee discussions provide an opportunity for in~fepth exchanges on these issues that is diffcult to accomplish at formal, structured City Council meetings. Examples of the kind of public safety issues that were served well by these kinds of in-depth discussions were medical marijuana dispensaries, synthetic drugs sold in our neighborhood markets, Police Department protocol for responding to burglar alarms, and solutions for the adverse impact of local bars on neighboring communities. O ion 2. Appoint two councilmembers to serve on the Police ChieFs Community Advisory Committee (CAC). I opposed this proposal at the Feb. 5 City Council meeting because I do not think it is a good idea to have councilmembers serve on a community group advising the Police Chief. I am concerned this would politicize the CAC, and have a "chilling effect" on frank and open discussions between community members and the chief. In addition, because the chief reports to the city manager, adding councilmembers to the CAC could be perceived as an "end run" around the city manager. Option 3. Keep standing Subcommittee status. Under this option the PSS would continue as a standing council subcommittee. If the council chooses this option, I recommend that the subcommittee reduce the number of meetings it holds, and limit meetings to issues where there is, or is expected to be, significant community concern. Option 4. Instead of a standing subcommittee, use ad hoc committees comprised of different pairs of council members, on an issue-by-issue basis. I do not recommend this approach because I have learned over the past two years that public safety issues are inter-connected, and I am concerned that under this approach continuity would be lost. O tp ion 5. Full City Council does work of Subcommittee. As I envision this option, the council could 15-8 have quarterly, noticed informal workshops on public safety issues. If the wuncil decides to use this approach, 1 recommend that these workshops NOT be held a[ City Hall but at various recreation centers around the city in the evenings, to make them more accessible to the public, and kept as informal as possible. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts on this important issue 15-9