Public Safety Committee

ALBANY COMMON COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES Thomas Hoey, Chair Meeting called by: Thomas Hoey, Chair | Date: July 26, 2023 | Time: 5:42 PM Committee Members Present: Hoey, Chair ☒ | Balarin ☒ | Flynn ☐ | Frederick ☒ | Kimbrough ☒ Council Members Present: Robinson City Personnel Present: Shaniqua Jackson, Jake Eisland, Max Thierry, Bryan Jimenez, Juliette Geraghty, Nairobi Vives, John Levendosky, Antoinette Santos, and Michele Andre Minutes Topic(s) of Discussion:  Issues with the Albany Community Police Review Board’s access to necessary information Speaker(s): Nairobi Vives, Chair of the Albany Community Police Review Board John Levendosky, Member of the Albany Community Police Review Board Antoinette Santos, Member of the Albany Community Police Review Board Mark Mishler, Retained Outside Legal Counsel for the Albany Community Police Review Board Michael Goldstein, Retained Outside Legal Counsel for the Albany Community Police Review Board Discussion  The Chair called the meeting to order and introduced the topic of discussion before recognizing CPRB Chair Vives.  CPRB Chair Vives introduced the work of the CPRB and spoke on issues that the board is facing when attempting to cooperate with the Albany Police Department and Corporation Counsel.  CPRB Member Levendosky spoke on issues with the timeframe that CPRB investigators are allowed when attempting to access evidence relevant to CPRB investigations.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on the difference between the amounts of time envisioned for investigations to be completed versus the time investigators are allowed to access evidence.  CPRB Member Levendosky spoke on difficulties accessing materials after the investigators’ allotted time had lapsed.  The Chair recognized that Council Member Frederick had joined the meeting.  CPRB Member Santos spoke on the possibility of establishing a timeframe for investigations to be completed so that the CPRB’s case backlog could be addressed.  Council Member Hoey asked for clarification on who establishes investigation timeframes. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that APD leadership establishes timeframes.  Council Member Hoey asked what a better timeframe for investigations might be. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that 30 days would be workable, but that 60 days would be better. o CPRB Member Levendosky responded that the timeframe to view evidence needed to match the scope and length of the investigation.  Council Member Hoey asked for further clarification on investigation timeframes. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that case turnaround timeframes were established by Local Law J of 2020. o CPRB Member Levendosky responded that access to evidence was governed by APD.  Council Member Hoey asked whether CPRB would like the Council to revisit case turnaround timeframes as established in Local Law J of 2020. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that if systems were working properly, no revisit would be necessary.  Council Member Hoey thanked the speakers.  Council Member Kimbrough asked for clarification on the timeframe to view evidence. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that limits on the ability to access evidence was hampering investigations. o CPRB Member Levendosky responded that APD needed to feel comfortable that they had possession of evidence while still allowing reasonable access to evidence. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that the CPRB needed license to independently access evidence.  Council Member Hoey asked what timeframes NYPD had in place. o CPRB Member Levendosky responded that New York City’s CPRB was more integrated with the NYPD.  Council Member Hoey thanked CPRB Member Levendosky. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that the CPRB could get more information on timeframes.  Council Member Hoey thanked CPRB Chair Vives.  Council Member Kimbrough asked for clarification on how the CPRB currently accesses evidence. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that the Office of Public Safety shares a timed link. o CPRB Member Levendosky responded that CPRB logins are secure.  Council Member Hoey asked about sharing confidential information and building trust with APD. o CPRB Chair Vives responded with information on the APD-CPRB confidentiality agreement and current practices.  Council Member Hoey thanked CPRB Chair Vives.  CPRB Member Levendosky provided background on the confidentiality agreement.  Council Member Frederick asked for clarification on CPRB’s subpoena powers. o Research Counsel Eisland responded that CPRB and Corporation Counsel disagreed on subpoena powers but deferred to each to articulate their own legal argument.  Council Member Frederick asked for clarification on Corporation Counsel’s position on subpoena powers. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that their retained attorneys were present to answer questions. o Michael Goldstein asked for the question to be repeated. o The Chair invited Goldstein to speak before the committee.  Council Member Frederick clarified her question on subpoena power. o Goldstein spoke on the differences between CPRB and Corporation Counsel’s arguments.  Council Member Frederick asked for clarification on the CPLR. o Goldstein and CPRB Chair Vives defined CPLR as Civil Practice Law Rules.  Council Member Frederick asked whether CPLR was at the state or federal level. o Goldstein responded that CPLR exists at the state level.  Council Member Frederick asked whether the subpoena power in Local Law J of 2020 was enforceable. o Goldstein responded that CPRB and Corporation Counsel disagreed on this point.  Council Member Frederick said that she was interested in researching this further. o Eisland responded that he intended to research further.  o Council Member Hoey responded that a meeting had been planned to discuss the issues of subpoena power and responses to subpoenas, but it had to be cancelled.  Goldstein said that he would be happy to meet with Eisland and Mark Mishler to discuss the issues. o Eisland responded that he was happy to meet.  Council Member Hoey asked whether Local Law J of 2020 could be amended to avoid these issues. o Eisland responded with an example involving the judiciary.  Council Member Hoey clarified his question. o Eisland responded that he would have to research jurisdiction.  Council Member Hoey asked whether and how the Common Council had subpoena power. o Eisland responded, saying that it depended on the situation.  Mishler expanded on the CPRB’s legal argument for subpoena power.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on obstructions to the board’s investigations and said that conflicts of interest were hampering the board’s work.  The Chair recognized Council Member Balarin.  Council Member Balarin noted that Council Member Robinson had his hand up. o Council Member Robinson responded that his question was answered.  Council Member Balarin suggested that all parties meet face-to-face to share goals and legal arguments. o Council Member Hoey responded that a previous meeting had to be cancelled and that Corporation Counsel was unable to attend the Public Safety Committee meeting, though they had agreed to meet.  Council Member Hoey said that he was unsure whether police officers’ collective bargaining agreement forbade involving an outside agency in employee discipline. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that CPRB had yet to try to discipline officers, saying that the board’s concerns were with barriers to investigation.  CPRB Member Levendosky said that subpoenas did not receive a response or challenge, stating instead that subpoenas were ignored.  Council Member Hoey asked whether CPRB had been notified that officers would not be appearing after being subpoenaed. o CPRB Member Levendosky said that investigators were under the impression that officers would appear.  Council Member Hoey asked whether CPRB Chair Vives had received a letter. o Goldstein responded that he had exchanged correspondence with an attorney for the officers’ union. o Mishler responded that there is a procedure to quash a subpoena that neither officers nor the City utilized.  Council Member Kimbrough asked whether subpoenas were served via the APD Chief’s office. o CPRB Chair responded that they had confirmed that the subpoenas were served on the Chief’s office. o Goldstein responded that proper service was acknowledged by the attorney for the officers’ union.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on escalating issues between the board and Corporation Counsel.  Council Member Hoey asked whether CPRB had any successes. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that CPRB had successes, but that the barriers it faces have led to growing frustration.  The Chair recognized Council Member Balarin.  Council Member Balarin thanked the CPRB for its successes and urged continued commitment to move the board’s work forward.  Council Member Hoey thanked Council Member Balarin and added that the Council would do what was needed to clarify the interpretation of the law.   The Chair recognized Council Member Robinson.  Council Member Robinson thanked the CPRB for its work and asked whether the board had received a copy of the officers’ new collective bargaining agreement. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that they had not.  Council Member Robinson clarified that he wanted to ensure that the CPRB could review the collective bargaining agreement for possible conflicts with Local Law J. o CPRB Chair Vives responded that they had been told to submit a Freedom of Information Law request for the collective bargaining agreement.  Council Member Robinson thanked CPRB Chair Vives.  Council Member Hoey said that he had requested a copy of the collective bargaining agreement from the Mayor’s Office.  CPRB Chair Vives said that leaders were meeting monthly to address issues but that they would need the Council’s help to resolve issues now.  CPRB Member Levendosky added that the CPRB was setting precedent and that any clarification now would lay the foundation going forward.  Council Member Hoey asked CPRB Chair Vives whether she wanted to discuss the discipline matrix. o CPRB Chair Vives gave an update on the discipline matrix and said that the board would present more at their next meeting with the Council.  Council Member Hoey asked whether there were any other questions before reiterating that another face-to-face meeting was needed.  CPRB Chair Vives spoke on laying the correct foundation for the board’s work and welcomed a face-to-face meeting.  Council Member Hoey thanked those present.  Eisland spoke on the scope of the resolution that will come from the committee meeting.  Council Member Hoey thanked Eisland. Public Comment: No public comments were made. Adjourn: The Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:57 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Max Thierry Junior Policy Analyst Albany Common Council