By David Stanczak
July 24, 2017
I hope the City Council’s postponement of action on a police oversight committee is a prelude to their killing it. At the risk of overstating what is or should be obvious, consider the following:
1. During the entire time the proposal has been considered, there have been no demonstrated deficiencies in either Bloomington Police officers’ behavior or the failure of the Department or its civilian Board of Fire and Police Commissioners to provide effective oversight of police officers.
2. The group will be biased against police officers. The proposal prohibits any former police officer from being a member. Not so with offenders whose membership is welcome. The result? At best, this group, totally devoid of any professional training, would be neutral toward police officers. More likely, however, it will be biased against cops. Ask yourself: who is most likely to seek a position on this board? Most likely it would be someone who believes or suspects that cops are out of control, or biased, or insensitive, etc.
3. Establishment of the group sends a message of non-support to the police. If they aren’t doing something wrong, why would their ultimate bosses, the Mayor and City Council, create and give an official City of Bloomington microphone to a group whose very existence suggests that they are?
4. The creation of the group could hurt prosecution of criminal cases. Prosecutors must disclose any exculpatory information they have to a defendant and his attorney. This would include any official complaints lodged against any officer involved in the case. Complaints lodged against an officer before this board could be used to attack his credibility on the stand and be used by a defense attorney to argue reasonable doubt, even if the complaint had nothing to do with the case in which the officer testifies.
5. The board would create antagonism. Persons with a gripe about a police officer, real or imagined, are likely to lodge a complaint with what they feel is a favorable forum for the complaint. People will take sides in the resulting controversy resulting in more, rather than less, antagonism.
6. The proposal looks at only half the “problem.” There are two parties (at least) in any police-citizen interaction. There are very few unpleasant interactions that aren’t caused, or at least exacerbated, by citizen hostility or “attitude.” But the proposal holds accountable only one of the parties: the cop. There is no mention of any kind of program that educates citizens to use common sense in their dealings with police. While I expect more of police than of the average citizen, both parties must accept responsibility for the interaction.
For over 18 years, I’ve watched the operation of the Bloomington Police Department from inside city hall. The city didn’t need a civilian oversight board then and it needs it even less now. The Bloomington City Council has enough on its collective plate without wasting its time “fixing” something that doesn’t need to be fixed. They need to get back to business, like fixing streets that do need to be fixed.
David Stanczak, a WJBC commentator since 1995, came to Bloomington in 1971. He served as the City of Bloomington’s first full-time legal counsel for over 18 years, before entering private practice. He is currently employed by the Snyder Companies and continues to reside in Bloomington with his family.
The opinions expressed within WJBC’s Voices are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily those of WJBC or Cumulus Media Inc.
