At the end of the year, the consultancy provided to the Philadelphia Police Department by the Department of Justice – which was meant to assist the troubled agency in implementing recommendations related to use of force, training, transparency, civilian oversight and community participation – is set to expire within months, per the agreement. With the conclusion of this process, so, too, was to dissipate the Police Community Oversight Board established via Executive Order by former Mayor Michael A. Nutter to ensure correct implementation of said recommendations.
However, PCOB life’s span was shorter than expected—the mandate and expectation was that the body shall exist for as long the reform process does—and instead of informing the public that members of the board had apparently become disillusioned by the process and opted to withdraw participation, the City issued no communication regarding the status of the now dormant government body and is now privately determining its future. According to Mr. Kelvyn Anderson of the Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission—who served as a member of PCOB and who has continued to, in the absence of the board’s outputs, push for transparency and community inclusion in body camera policy development—the likely plan is to merge PCOB with PAC, whose board is, according to its Executive Order, supposed to consist of 19 individuals but today has only eight, and of those eight, just one is African-American.
Mr. Anderson favors the merger, but only if it means investing in the already established infrastructure of PAC, which has a budget of less than 1% of the PPD’s. The reason the PCOB didn’t live up to expectations is due to circumstances which are also germane to PAC: no real staff to support efforts.
How the City (mis)handles civilian oversight is “dangerous” said Mr. Anderson, referring to how it could further enable cynicism among policing critics. Indeed, when the PCOB was established in 2015, a number of local activists weren’t impressed, mainly because they were excluded from participation, and they stated that the board would have little-to-no-impact. That sentiment, given the present circumstances, was more prophetic than cynical.
The impact of the board’s dormancy is evident in the way the PPD, despite recommendations to do otherwise, dealt with the development of its body camera policy: in private, rather than in public and with the community, as suggested by the DOJ and PAC. Mr. Anderson said he doesn’t believe the PPD has “satisfied” the DOJ with its progress on collaborating with the multiple stakeholders in the development of policies and protocols for use of body-worn cameras—several recommendations remain undone, mainly because they involve contracts, and the City has already been given an extension by the DOJ.
“I haven’t seen any pressure on the department to go public,” said Mr. Anderson, whose agency next month will release its annual report, which has a whole section dedicated to the PPD and its workings with body-worn cameras and the policies that govern their use.
Mr. Anderson, who today served on a panel with former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Mr. Charles Ramsey, said he’s been screaming about the policy since it debuted and had urged Mr. Ramsey on several occasions that “we need to have a vigorous public debate around the cameras.” It’s likely that officials at PPD have reached out to consult with certain individuals, but to date, no public hearing or debate on the issue of body camera policies has taken place.
“Citizens have to have direct input on policy formation; that doesn’t mean calling a few people and having them look at it,” Mr. Anderson stated.
Over 24 hours ago, I emailed the current police commissioner and his public affairs department to inquire why members of the community, particularly civil rights activists, haven’t been included in a meaningful way regarding the policy development of body-worn cameras. I have yet to receive an answer.
By not including the public in reforms to critical areas of their concerns, and by allowing a high-profile government body to go dormant without so much as a notice to the public, Philadelphia officials risk further exacerbating the trust deficit. Trust is an important factor to successful government and it’s critical to policing.
But the context of trust shouldn’t only be citizens putting theirs in government to not be corrupt and abusive. It should also mean that officials trust in citizens to provide them with insight on policies regarding policing et al. that would be best for the populous; for there is truly no greater expert on policing reforms than those who are often policed badly.
Thanks for reading. Until next time, I’m Flood the Drummer® & I’m Drumming for JUSTICE!™