On January 15^th, the Urbana Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) convened for an appeals hearing in regards to a handful of police complaints filed more than a year prior.  A number of issues arose which seem to indicate that due process is of little concern in regards to police complaints, and always favors the police department.

When the appellant questioned the appeal procedure laid out by City staff, CPRB Chair Ricardo Diaz became so annoyed that he said he was compelled to rule against the appellant’s case simply because of the appellant raising those procedural issues.  Given multiple opportunities to retract his prejudicial statement, Diaz refused and even exclaimed that he was standing by it.

During one of the complaint appeals, CPRB member Scott Dossett said that he refused to consider any evidence that was not written into the original police complaint.  When prompted, Dossett could not explain the purpose of holding the hearing if no new information could be admitted.  Another quandary is created when one considers the fact that the burden of providing evidence is almost entirely placed upon the Urbana Police Department (UPD), not the complainant.  If Dossett’s rule is followed, then the UPD could simply fail to provide information knowing that the appellant would never be allowed to supplement the evidence in any way.

In another instance, Chair Diaz tried to force the appellant to answer a question asked by a non CPRB member, even though the CPRB Ordinance specifically prohibits that.

One of the appeals argued that the UPD should not be able to escape the police complaint process by violating state law.  The appellant demonstrated that the UPD had violated public records laws, taking months to supply police records whereas state law requires those records to be provided within five business days.  When the Urbana resident finally acquired the police records and filed their CPRB complaint, Deputy Chief Robert Fitzgerald denied the complaint, indicating that it was not filed within 45 days of the incident.  Part of that complaint was also made against Fitzgerald himself and specifically named him.  Allowing a police officer to deny a police complaint against himself would seem to be a rather hazardous procedural problem, but the CPRB voted that the Fitzgerald’s denial was acceptable.

The CPRB also determined that a complainant/appellant is not entitled to see a copy of their own complaint investigation report at any time, including before an appeals hearing.  This would seem to violate the very basic tenets of discovery that are followed in all judicial settings.  If an complainant wants to see a copy of their own complain investigation, they can go through the FOIA process, but that often takes months and results in documents so heavily redacted that they are nearly useless.

The hearing officer hired by the City of Urbana, Alyx Parker, did not give any indication at any time that any of these issues posed a problem.  Parker, who works for Meyer Capel Law Firm, did not seem concerned for maintaining due process, and by all appearances he appears to be a fixture placed by the City to give the appeals process the appearance of credibility.

This appearance was well-demonstrated in the one instance where Parker raised a procedural issue.  At the very end of the meeting when the CPRB was set to take a vote, Parker questioned the voting process based on his reading of the ordinance.  However, when City Administrator Carol Mitten suggested doing it differently, he immediately capitulated to Mitten.

A similar CPRB appeals hearing is scheduled for February 12^th, 2021 at 6pm.