My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence- #22
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
10/18/2022 Special and Regular
>
Correspondence- #22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2022 2:07:44 PM
Creation date
10/18/2022 9:25:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
12/1/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
October 14, 2022 <br /> Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers <br /> 20 Civic Center Plaza <br /> Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br /> Via Email <br /> RE: Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission and Agenda Item 22 <br /> Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, <br /> ACLU of Southern California and Chispa write to respond to the October 18, 2022 City Council <br /> agenda item 22, "Police Review Commission Draft Ordinance Discussion," and Exhibit 1. We <br /> commend the City Attorney's willingness to meet with community-based organizations to discuss <br /> our policy recommendations. We also commend the City Council for directing city staff to <br /> examine the Police Oversight Ordinance drafted and supported by community-based <br /> organizations.We are concerned,however,that the policy language of Exhibit 1 profoundly differs <br /> from the model policy that was discussed by the City Council on July 29, 2022, supported and <br /> written by community-based organizations. The Exhibit 1 policy language will establish an <br /> oversight model that largely mirrors the City of Anaheim's Police Review Board, which a <br /> majority of this council and the community have rightly labeled as insufficient. The Police <br /> Oversight Ad Hoc Committee previously recommended a hybrid investigation-focused and <br /> auditor/monitor-focused model of police oversight. The policy language of Exhibit 1 will fail to <br /> accomplish the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and the City Council's goal to establish an <br /> effective police oversight model. We cannot support the ordinance as written unless the <br /> fundamental police oversight provisions, listed herein, are included in the policy. We urge the <br /> City Council to introduce pivotal amendments to establish an effective police oversight <br /> commission. <br /> Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lan,-ua,-e <br /> As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more <br /> detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will <br /> give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct <br /> is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa <br /> Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.1 <br /> 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian <br /> Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as <br /> "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely <br /> 1 Kpetman,Roxana. (2021,August 3). "Santa Ana to Host Virtual Forum on Police Oversight." The Orange <br /> County Register.l�I I //www ocr ,;p,islc�.cortr/�0�p/t� /03/s�i�l pia to laosl virt�i�l ior�irt7 oi� al,rc� ovb ; i.;plaC/ <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.