The Cleveland Community Police Commission and Mayor Justin Bibb are in the middle of a dispute over the commission’s role. On Wednesday, a proposal from Commissioner Kyle Earley about police policies, prompted opposition from the mayor just hours before it was going to be introduced. The motion was held back until next week.
Ideastream Public Media’s Matt Richmond joins us to talk about what the CPC, a civilian police oversight body tasked with police officer discipline, training and department policies, wants to do and why it’s received such strong pushback from the mayor.
HOST: So Matt let’s start from the beginning — what was Commissioner Earley, one of the CPC's 13 civilian members, proposing?
MATT RICHMOND: Earley, with the backing of at least a few other commissioners, proposed a motion that blocked all new police policies and divisional notices from being issued by the department until at least a process for CPC’s review of those policies is established.
HOST: And can they do that?
RICHMOND: Yes, in 2021 voters approved a civilian police oversight amendment called Issue 24. It includes section 115 — which gives the commission the final authority over police policies.
HOST: But Earley’s motion ended up not being introduced Wednesday night?
RICHMOND: No, it was blocked. No new business was introduced at last night’s meeting. Instead a special meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday night, and it’s on the agenda for then.
HOST: The CPC has been around since 2015 and Issue 24 passed more than two years ago. Why are they doing this now?
RICHMOND: Other commissioners say this is not out-of-the-blue, and they’ve been trying to communicate with the mayor’s office on this and other issues for months.
Long before the current commission was seated, in April of last year, the Interim Executive Director Jason Goodrick, reached out to the city about setting up processes with the city so the CPC could carry out its duties. They say nothing happened.
In August, the Policy Chairperson Piet van Lier requested meetings about the RISE initiative, which has policy elements in it. Nothing happened. The commission sought to set up regular coordination and planning meetings with the Police Accountability Team in the mayor’s office but nothing happened.
Those commissioners say the list goes on. That’s just the policy-related things.
In response to questions about these concerns, spokesperson Marie Zickefoose sent the following:
"The CPC should be working with [Cleveland Division of Police] to create collaborative processes, not the Mayor's Office. To that end, CDP is present at all CPC meetings and has been responsive to working with the Commission. The CPC training committee has already connected with Cmdr. Maguth (leads CDP training), and they have been working together.
The chair of the newly formed CPC policy committee just reached out to Cmdr. Carney (leads CDP policy) for the first time this week. Carney was immediately responsive and agreed to meet and discuss inclusion of the CPC policy committee. That meeting is scheduled for Monday 12/18.
It is my understanding that the CPC did not seek meetings with Dr. Anderson [head of the Police Accountability Team.] They sought to meet with the [Department of Justice] and Monitoring Team. Important to clarify that the Police Accountability Team and Dr. Anderson are focused on the Consent Decree and are not the liaisons between the CPC and the administration (except where Consent Decree compliance is concerned). That said, Dr. Anderson has been and continues to be communicative and responsive with commissioners and staff."
HOST: So what happened Wednesday that brought this into the public’s view?
RICHMOND: Apparently, someone within the commission shared the motion with the mayor’s office. The mayor sent before the meeting a message to members of the Cleveland police department describing the proposal as “dangerous” and “alarming” and jeopardizing "the safety and security of all Clevelanders."
But in a follow-up, his spokesperson said the mayor was still deciding what actions to take and described Commissioner Earley’s motion as rushed.
HOST: OK, so that sets up an interesting situation. The mayor was a supporter of Issue 24 and this new commission going back to early in his campaign. He appointed 10 of 13 of its commissioners. Now, at least part of the commission is in open conflict with the mayor.
RICHMOND: It will be interesting to see what happens when a vote is taken Tuesday.
But yes, that appears to be the case. Earley said at last night’s meeting he still wanted to submit the motion but couldn’t because of a decision by the co-chairs of the commission to delay discussion of new business.
HOST: Well, what next? If the mayor’s office concludes Earley’s motion is too dangerous for public safety to accept, what could the commission do?
RICHMOND: I asked the attorney who was the primary author of Issue 24, Subodh Chandra, that question, and he said he anticipated the possibility of obstruction from a mayor.
“We wrote into that the commission could take this to court and any resident of the city could do the same,” he said.
HOST: Are we headed to court?
RICHMOND: I have been told by a political organizer that a lawsuit from activists is imminent.
