On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Court Approve Settlement (CASA) mandating 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department APD. The settlement was a result of a year’s long investigation of the APD and findings of “excessive use of force” and deadly for and a “culture of aggression.” A major reform measures was mandating the creation of a full time, professional Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) with a full time Director and investigators and with a 9-member, all-volunteer Civilian Police Oversight Board appointed by the city council. The CPOA board is ultimately responsible for investigations of police misconduct and making recommendations to the Chief of Police for disciplinary actions. The postscript to this blog article gives detailed description of the duties and responsibilities of the CPOA with a link to the ordinance that creates it.
CPOA CHAIRMAN RESIGNS
On December 9, Eric Olivias, the Chairman Of Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) Board submitted his letter of resignation. In addition to Olivias resigning, two others CPOA Board member resigned within a 48 hour period and they are Tara Jaramillo-Prewitt and Geonie Ralph. A 3rd newly appointed CPOA Board member Richard Johnson who was appointed to the Board at the same time as Gionnne Ralph is reported have to have silently walked away from the CPOA Board on or about November 1, 2021. The Olivia’s letter is a scathing indictment of the CPOA. The resignation comes less than 2 months after CPOA Executive Director Ed Harness resigned and less than one month after Superintendent Of Police Reform Sylvester Stanley announced his retirement at the end of December.
Below is the Olivias letter of resignation:
EDITOR’S NOTE: Because of the length of the resignation letter, capitalized and bold headlines were added for clarity to assist the reader.
“I wish to inform you of my intent to resign my position on the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Board effective at 4:59 PM on December 9, 2021. It has been a great privilege to serve this community through this Board. It has been a humbling experience to see and understand the issues the men and women of APD deal with each and every day. I am resigning my seat for the reasons listed below.”
BADLY BROKEN PROCESS
“First and foremost, let me state that I am not resigning for personal reasons, but rather because I believe this process is badly broken and many persons, policies, and politics have led to that breakdown. This is not a Civilian Police Oversight Board as it is titled, rather this Board is a Civilian Police Advisory Board. The Board has no oversight authority over APD, it can issue recommendations for discipline and policy, but all recommendations are non-binding and can be dismissed, as they often are, by the Chief of Police. No matter the evidence presented, the Board is able to have little effect on the actual operations of APD.”
BOARD HAS TOO MANY RESPONSIBILITIES TO FUNCTION
“The Board itself is tasked with far too many responsibilities. The City Council erred in assigning so many tasks and responsibilities to the Board and its members and then restricted its ability to function by limiting the number of committees that Board members may serve on. Further, the list of training required for Board members is far too ambitious for unpaid volunteers. This requirement skews the membership of the Board towards retirees and those who are independently wealthy, hardly a subset reflective of our diverse community. For example, the required Civilian Police Academy course occurs two times per week over the course of 3 months adding up to nearly 60 hours of training including topics such as the Horse Mounted Unit and Impact Investigations. These are important units of APD, no doubt, but is knowledge of them required for Board service? Hardly. To be a fully functional and well-informed member of this Board an individual needs approximately 20 hours a week minimum to devote to Board service.”
CITIZENS VOLUNTEER BOARD LEADS TO FAILURE
“The Board has members who cannot and do not devote the time required to serve, and it clearly shows. Some members come to meetings completely unprepared and have not reviewed materials or have only done a surface review. Recently I learned that one member who had been voting on cases for 6 months, only recently learned how to access case materials and findings letters after contacting agency staff. After spending months correcting faulty training records and regaining compliance on training requirements, just one member can set back the efforts of the Board immensely. Despite the obvious deliberate non-compliance of some members, many Board members refuse to hold those members responsible accountable. One member went so far as to say that CPOA staff should be checking in with new members on a weekly basis and another wondered whether access to a computer was a reason for non-compliance with training requirements. To be a member of this Board, some basic skills, self-accountability, and self-reliance must be had. If the Board can’t hold itself accountable, why would anyone entrust the Board with real power to hold APD accountable?”
DEBATING THE MINUTIAE
“The Board is charged to review allegations of officer misconduct impartially and fairly based on policy, not based on feelings or a particular ideology. Because of the emphasis of certain Board Members on how a particular case “feels”, the Board is constantly bogged down debating the minutiae of minor complaints where, even if the allegations or “bad feelings” were true, little to no discipline would result. Yet, when serious policy matters come before the Board, such as when the suite of Use of Force Policies was recently reviewed, many of these same Members that drill into the details of each minor complaint had nothing to say or didn’t even bother to show-up.”
POORLY DESIGNED CITY COUNCIL PROCESSS
“The City Council has designed a bad process. From the appointment process, to training, and of course the long list of responsibilities delegated to the Board, the Civilian Police Oversight Ordinance in Albuquerque is broken. Efforts are underway to nibble at the edges of the problem, but frankly the proposed amendments to the ordinance hit at the low hanging fruit and do nothing to give a meaningful role to Civilian Oversight of Police in Albuquerque. On numerous and repeated attempts to arrange meetings with City Councilors to discuss issues with the CPOAB several never even responded, of those that did respond and meet, 3 will no longer be on the Council at the end of this month. It is clear from meetings with councilors and even more clear from public statements, that many councilors do not understand the ordinance they wrote. In one recent meeting a Councilor went so far as to state that the members of the CPOAB, “hold the lives and livelihoods of officers in their hands.” This statement would be funny if it wasn’t so ignorant of how the process really works. Other Councilors have made similar statements indicating that they do not have a good understanding of how the CPOA Ordinance is written and how it works in practice. If City Councilors want a strong and effective Civilian Oversight process in Albuquerque, I would urge them to listen to those that know best including, but not limited to Board Members.”
FEDERAL MONITOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, POLICE UNION PART OF PROBLEM
“Despite serious issues within the Board, the greatest problems in this process lie within the parties of the CASA including the Monitor, the USDOJ, the APOA, and the City. While training records for the Board have been incomplete for nearly 2 years, only in [Independent Monitor’s Report 14 or] IMR-14 is the issue formally raised. In IMR-13 the issue was raised during informal meetings. Has the monitor really been doing its job if it took two years to note that training records were out of date? Moreover, the monitor has provided conflicting guidance. Criticizing the Board for spending too much time reviewing cases while in the next paragraph applauding the Board for catching serious deficiencies in an Agency investigation during its case review process. When pressed for clarity, only more ambiguity was provided. What else in this process is the monitor missing or giving conflicting guidance on? Might there be some financial incentive for the out-of-state monitor to drag this process on and give conflicting advice? Why has the monitor not held the City out of compliance for not filling Board positions and not publishing a clear and transparent process for how applicants will be screened and vetted? The City has promised action on this for years, none has been taken, yet the monitor is silent.”
DOJ AND CITY ATTORNEY MEDDLING
“The USDOJ meddles in Board business as it sees fit. When the Assistant US Attorney didn’t like an ill-informed statement that a new member made in a committee meeting, USDOJ rallied the City Attorney and others to its cause insisting that this was a sign of the Board being complacent, rather than looking to City Council as to how such a poorly informed and biased member was appointed to this Board in the first place. The assistant US Attorney has also made statements in support of the now departed Executive Director, while failing to recognize that the Board cannot comment on such matters given Personnel protections.”
“The City Attorney has also meddled in Board business despite the professed need for independence of the Board. The City Attorney has all but declared that the current training provided to the Board is inadequate. Without stating what about the training was/is inadequate, the City Attorney has convinced all the parties that the City Attorney is better suited to provide training to the Board, despite obvious issues with the independence of the Board. However, when the assistance of the City Attorney was requested to address APD not providing required CPA training to the Board by a more accessible virtual means during the pandemic, the response indicated that it would be inappropriate for the City Attorney to intervene on the Board’s behalf given its independent status. The City Attorney has provided inaccurate information to City Council on Board training compliance, despite being provided evidence to the contrary. On numerous occasions the City Attorney has lectured and belittled the Board and myself about its shortcomings and lack of priorities. This criticism came from one of the primary parties responsible for the compliance of the City of Albuquerque with the CASA, despite improvements in CASA compliance being stalled for the last 1.5 years.”
GREATEST FAULT LIES WITH APD
“Despite the many parties failing in their obligations in this process the greatest fault lies with the Albuquerque Police Department, mainly its Executive Leadership. Rather than appoint leaders with real experience in reforming a large police department the current mayoral administration chose a union endorsed insider. More concerning is the bloat and constant turnover in APD command staff. When the current mayoral administration began their tenure they proclaimed that they were reforming the APD organizational chart. They accused the prior administration of having a bloated and top-heavy command that left the field short-handed. Now we have 2 Chief’s (the Chief and Superintendent). There are more deputy chiefs and chiefs of staff and deputy chiefs of staff than I care to mention. Then there are public safety advisors, public safety liaisons, public information officers, and the list goes on and on. The current organizational structure makes the past administration look efficient by comparison. The solution to every problem has been to create and staff a new high-level, at-will position.”
“As if the top-heavy structure wasn’t enough, the churn through these cushy positions makes an Amazon warehouse look calm and tranquil. Nearly every week we learn that some high-level commander has been reassigned, retired, or resigned. The training academy, a perennial issue of concern in the monitor’s reports, has had 4 commanders in 4 years. Some commanders last a matter of months, others even less than that. How can an organization project stability and good function when nothing about it is stable or consistent? How can we hold field officers accountable when command staff changes on a whim and guidance from said command staff can change on a dime depending on who is in charge and what stimuli they are responding to.”
STONEWALLING IS ENGRAINED IN APD
“While the Board is charged with evaluating and making recommendations on APD Policy, APD has consistently stonewalled the Board on basic data requests. The Board has requested data on the expensive and untested Shotspotter program only to be given a letter assuring the Board that all procurement processes were followed (with no evidence) and a short briefing emphasizing that the program was too new to offer full statistics and analysis. Many other cities use Shotspotter, why didn’t APD look at those programs before committing to its own version of this program? When you don’t have enough officers to respond to the actual calls in the system, why purchase a complicated and expensive system to generate even more (lower priority) calls? The Board has, on numerous occasions, requested data on the K9 unit. Given the high rate of injuries (to civilians and APD personnel) and frequent settlements, having the Board look at this unit and its policy would seem to be a no-brainer, yet APD has stonewalled for nearly a year. What is APD hiding, or are they just that bad at keeping records? The Board has also requested records on traffic stops including data on fines collected, injuries, shootings, etc. Once again, APD has stonewalled this request and avoided accountability. Lastly, despite years of reporting on overtime abuse at APD, spearheaded by a CPOA Investigation, little action has been taken to implement meaningful reforms to the APD Overtime process.”
APD IS BROKEN
“APD is broken. Not because of the brave and hardworking men and women who serve the community as field officers, detectives, and front-line supervisors, but because of a command staff focused on politics and micromanagement. There is no accountability for the organization as a whole. The City Council seems convinced that throwing money at APD will solve all the problems. Despite the City Council budgeting the department for hundreds more officers each year, that goal has never been met. APD blames the national recruiting environment and no-one asks questions. How is it that BCSO maintains a nearly full staff while APD is struggling to tread water? City Council buys APD a new helicopter, a new communication system, gadgets like ShotSpotter, and more, yet City Council never asks hard questions as to how violent crime rates continue to rise, recruitment struggles, and progress towards meeting the requirements of the CASA are non-existent. I believe the answer to these good questions City Council refuses to ask is relatively simple: bad leadership. When officers don’t feel supported and valued and they see the churn and burn at the top, why would they not assume that they are expendable to the organization at the first sign of trouble? Yes the organization must discipline and remove bad officers, but it must also show that it is stable and supportive of those doing their jobs correctly and to the best of their ability. “
NEED COMPETANT COMMANDERS
“APD must install commanders that are competent and assure them some stability to implement and oversee changes. The APD Chief should be appointed to 6, 8, or even a 10 year term to give the department the stability it needs and to attract top-tier candidates interested in leading the department for the long-run, not just padding their PERA with a few high paying years. Lower level commanders should also be afforded more job stability so that they can actually see-through reforms they implement. The APD budget must be scrutinized and funding for fancy gadgets and at-will positions must be trimmed back while emphasizing recruitment and retention of field officers and investigators.”
REFORM ORDINANCE
““The [Civilian Police Oversight Agency Board and Civilian Police Oversight Agency] CPOAB/CPOA Ordinance must be reformed to narrow the focus of the Board. The training requirements of the Board should be pared back, but front loaded. Before someone is allowed to vote on cases, they should be trained on the policies and processes that govern that review. The current training requirement of 6 months after appointment is akin to allowing an officer to join the force and begin patrolling the streets with a badge and a gun before being trained, we all think that would be crazy, but for CPOA Board Members that is exactly what we allow, if Board members ever complete their training in the first place. Board members should be compensated for their time with generous stipends tied to completing training and attending meetings. If this city wants a professional CPOAB, it should pay for it. Paying Board Members also helps to break down barriers to entry allowing a more diverse slate of membership. Board Members should be required to sponsor and attend community outreach events. Most importantly, the Board must be empowered to make binding decisions on policy and discipline. What is the point of Civilian Oversight if it is purely non-binding and advisory?”
TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC
“The last point I wish to make is that parties in this process need to step back and tone down the rhetoric. The process is so rife with finger pointing and backstabbing that I’m not sure any of the primary parties involved is actually interested in the stated goal of ensuring that Albuquerque has constitutional community policing. If the parties actually listened and tried to understand one-another it might become apparent that most of those involved want the same thing. It is possible that many individuals involved in the process have made mistakes and many parts of this process are flawed. No one group is solely responsible for failures, yet each group takes great pride in blaming others. If the real goal is to achieve constitutional community policing for Albuquerque, shouldn’t the process involve adopting the best ideas and practices regardless of who came up with them? The parties need to move on from failures with constructive solutions instead of getting bogged down in assigning blame and scapegoating. I hope this reform process is successful, it needs to be, for the sake of our officers and our community.”
“Thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to finding other ways to serve this city I love.”
Eric Oliva
CPOA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RESIGNS
It was on October 15 that CPOA Executive Director Ed Harness announced his resignation and left his job on November 15. In his resignation announcement, Harness gave a blistering condemnation of the board. Harness resigned because he had requested to be reappointed as executive director but instead the board opened the position to other applicants, a move he said was done without consulting stakeholders, the City Council, or the Department of Justice. In his resignation announcement to the board, Harness said:
“[What is] most shameful is the fact that you didn’t even have enough respect to speak with any member of the CPOA staff – the people that do all the work to support your efforts. … This decision has permanently damaged the relationship between the agency and the board. … [Under my leadership the CPOA] has been restored to its rightful place as a meaningful oversight body … and has been applauded by the Department of Justice and the independent monitor] … You will set back the organization and its ability to maintain compliance with the [court approved settlement agreement] … because being executive director of the CPOA is not a plug-and-play position.”
https://www.abqjournal.com/2438118/executive-director-of-police-oversight-agency-resigns.html
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REFORM SYLVESTER STANLEY “RETIRES” AFTER 8 MONTHS
On December 1, a mere 8 months on the job, Superintendent of Police Reform Sylvester Stanley announced he was retiring effective December 31. Stanley was appointed to the two positions of Superintendent of Police Reform and Deputy Chief Administrative Officer in early March. He was tasked with handling discipline of APD sworn police officers, overseeing the APD academy and the Internal Affairs division and working with the Department of Justice on the reform effort.
When Stanley was appointed by Mayor Tim Keller he said they expected him to fill the position in an “interim basis” for 6 months or until the end of the year. The city has launched a national search for his replacement, saying it’s looking for “an experienced professional to lead this cutting edge position” and someone “who is dedicated to police reform.”
When Keller made the appoint in March, he had this to say:
“We developed this innovative position to bring about a new era for our police department. … Our Superintendent of Police Reform works hand and hand with our Chief so that each leader can focus on their core duties while supporting one another for the most benefit for the department and the community.”
https://www.abqjournal.com/2450956/interim-superintendent-of-police-reform-to-retire.html
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
With the resignations of CPOA Board Chairman Eric Olivias, the resignations of CPOA board members Tara Jaramillo-Prewitt and Geonie Ralph, the resignation of CPOA Executive Director Ed Harness and the “retirement” of Superannuant of Police Reform Sylvester Stanly, it is painfully obvious that the CPOA has become as useless as tits on a boar hog.
FATE OF CIVILIAN POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY NEEDS TO BE DECIDED
Ever since its creation in 2014, the CPOA has struggled to exist and has been plagued with infighting and controversy within itself with many board members having their own personal agendas that conflict between civilians wanting true civilian oversight versus those who take the side of law enforcement.
The CPOA has also been resisted by both Mayor Berry and Keller in their own ways and the Albuquerque Police Department command staff and vilified by the police union. Simply put, the CPOA represents what all sworn police at all levels do not want or ever want which is civilian police oversight of police officers.
Given the serous allegations made in the resignation letter, it should be placed on the agenda for discussion at the December 16 hearing on the Federal Monitor’s 14th Report on APD’s Compliance Levels. What the Federal Court should consider is abolishing the agency or at least the board of all volunteer civilians as unworkable, too cumbersome and way too difficult work for an all volunteer civilian board.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REFORM
The appointment of a Superintendent of Police Reform when made by Keller in March was met with extreme skepticism by stakeholders involved with the DOJ reform process, especially when Keller labeled it an “innovative position.” There was absolutely nothing innovative about it. Many stakeholders involved with the DOJ reform process believed that the position was created to help Keller with his re election efforts and that it was created to deflect the incompetence of Mayor Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina by relieving Medina of duties he was responsible for when it comes Internal Affairs, police discipline and the DOJ police reforms.
The position was and still is a “scape goat” position created 9 months before the Mayor’s race and viewed as a political appointment to give Keller and Medina the ability to deflect their miserable failures implementing the DOJ reforms. It is a scapegoat position to allow Keller and Medina to have someone to blame and fire as APD upper command fail to implement the DOJ reforms. Ostensibly, Sylvester Stanley was smart enough to know what was going on and that is why he took the position on an “interim basis” and “retired” as soon as he could before he got fired by Mayor Keller. Confidential sources within APD command have said the only thing Sylvester Stanley accomplished in the 8 months he has been with the city is to draw a $150,000 salary with the intent to build his resume in order to run for Bernalillo County Sheriff once again next year. Confidential sources are saying Stanley is planning on announcing for Bernalillo County Sheriff around the second week of January.
_________________________________
POSTSCRIPT
On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice entered into a Court Approve Settlement (CASA) mandating 271 reforms of APD. The link to the CASA is here:
https://documents.cabq.gov/justice-department/settlement-agreement.pdf
The CASA mandates community engagement and oversight and mandates the creation of a Civilian Police Oversight Agency along with the creation and appointment of a 9 member, all volunteer, civilian oversight board. The major duties and responsibilities of the Civilian Police Oversight Agency in a nutshell are as follows:
(1) Community Outreach by employing or designating a full-time staff member within the Administrative Office dedicated to community outreach efforts.
(2) Promotion of Accountability and Impartiality. The CPOA shall promote a spirit of accountability and communication between the civilians and the Albuquerque Police Department while improving community relations and enhancing public confidence. The CPOA shall also promote a spirit of impartiality in its review of police conduct, and shall ensure that officer conduct is judged fairly and objectively.
(3) Investigations. The Administrative Office shall independently investigate all civilian complaints; shall audit and monitor all incidences of use of force by police and all matters under investigation by APD’s Internal Affairs (IA) or other APD personnel tasked with conducting administrative investigations related to a use of force incident; and shall prepare proposed findings and recommendations on all officer involved shootings and serious uses of force.
(4) Disciplinary Recommendations. The Board may recommend officer discipline based on any findings that result from review of internal affairs investigations of officer involved shootings and serious uses of force. The imposition of the recommended discipline is at the discretion of the Chief of Police. However, if the Chief of Police does not follow the disciplinary recommendation of the Board, the Chief of Police must give a detailed explanation of the reason as to why the recommended discipline was not imposed.
(5) CPOA Policy Recommendations. The CPOA shall engage in a long-term planning process through which it identifies major problems or trends, evaluates the efficacy of existing law enforcement practices in dealing with the same, analyzes and evaluates data (including APD raw data), innovative practices, national trends, and police best practices, and establishes a program of resulting policy suggestions, recommendations, and studies each year.
(6) Policy Recommendations Originating from the CPOA. The Board shall review and analyze policy suggestions, analysis, studies, and trend data collected or developed by the Administrative Office, and shall by majority vote recommend policies relating to training, programs and procedures or other matters relating to APD. Any such policy recommendations shall be supported by specific, written findings of the Board in support of the proposed policies. The Board’s policy recommendations shall be submitted to APD and to the City Council. The Board shall dedicate a majority (more than 50%) of its time to the functions described in this subsection.
(7) Reports to Mayor and Council. The CPOA shall submit a semi-annual written report to the Mayor and City Council.
The link to the ordinance creating the Police Oversight Agency, Sections 9-4-1-1 through 9-4-1-14 is here:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm/0-0-0-10504