Hi, Michael.

Thanks for joining us through Zoom.

Um good afternoon, everybody.

Um, my name is Donna Moore, and I um am the chair of public safety.

And I have with I am joined today by Councillor Chol Majuk, Councilor Aaron Rike.

Yeah, but I want to say your first name.

One of those two.

Hannah Aaron Wright, Councillor Martinave, President Paniagua, and Councillor Helen Hudson.

Joining us on Zoom is Michael.

I'm gonna butcher your last name, so I'll let you say it.

It's a tough one.

Okay, Szynski from um he's joining us on Zoom today.

Um so today I called the meeting because there's been a lot of community outreach to me personally um around the CRB, and I wanted to give an opportunity both for our counselors to hear some um differing viewpoints that I've been listening to, as well as um let the community know where we're at.

Um one of the reasons that the um CRB investigations have stopped is because of a ruling that has happened in Rochester, and our corp counsel has advised us that that ruling impacts Syracuse, New York because we're in the same district.

Um so that is where we're at today.

Um she has advised the common council also advised um the CRB board.

So that's I just want to give you a background of why we're at today.

Um I've asked a couple people to come and speak tonight.

Um we have Ellen Rosenthal, who is a prominent lawyer, civil rights lawyer here in the area, um, who I've spoken to several times and appreciate his help.

We have Michael Szyzinski um from the NYCLU, he's the um policy director.

Is that correct, Michael?

Okay.

Thank you.

And then we have, and I don't want to butcher her name, Mizahar from the NAACP is here.

She is the chair of the legal redress.

So those are the three people that are going to be speaking at our meeting today, and the counselors will be asking questions.

This is not a public comment um session.

So if you have questions, you can ask us after, but you can't ask during the meeting, okay?

So I just asked you to respect that.

Um so is Alan here?

Alan, I'd love to have you come up first if you don't mind.

Oh yeah, you're welcome to sit at the table with us if you'd like to.

Whatever you prefer.

I always prefer the left side of the table.

All right then.

You can see here you can see it in this one.

Come to the dark side.

Go to the dark side, Alan.

Thank you for the uh opportunity to to be here and and hopefully help explain um what has been bandied about now for months as to whether or not the ruling from the appellate division in the fourth department has any controlling effect whatsoever on any other review board.

Um in New York State.

Simple.

Because the issue is rather simple.

Speak straightforward and tell you that I think that the council and the CRB have been hoodwinked and horn swaggled by your own corporation counsel.

And it's not the first time that this has happened when it comes to an issue involving the CRB.

Invariably the administration and the corporations council is more interested in their working relationship with the police than upholding the accountability that was so hard fought for in Syracuse dating all the way back to 1993.

So you've been told by corporation counsel that this appellate division case pertaining to Rochester, call it on what has now become known as Locust II, comes in the wake of several years of litigation, Locust one, up and down through the courts.

But you've been told that it's now the law of the land, and is precedent to conclude that the Citizen Review Board can no longer conduct investigations.

This legal opinion that you've received is dead wrong and is jurisprudentially dishonest.

Let me explain why I make this bold statement.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand.

We start simply with an analysis of what was at the core of the decision, that the courts, starting with Supreme Court, up to appellate division, up to the Court of Appeals, what it is at what was it at the core of the decisions in Locust IST II.

And to digress for a second, it is ironic.

I have litigated police misconduct cases against the Rochester police department.

It is ironic that it's called the Locust Club.

The Locust Club is another name for the Billy Club used to brutalize people.

They proudly wear the name Locust Club.

I'll stop digressing.

The concern of the courts in the in the locust cases was whether the what they call their police accountability board, our version of the CRB, had been vested with the authority by their local ordinance to impose discipline for the misconduct of Rochester police officers, and as a result, undermine the right of the police union, which they have to collectively bargain over the subject of police discipline and police disciplinary procedures.

That's what it is at the heart of this all.

It seems clear, and there's no argument.

Police discipline falls presumptively within the category of broad terms and conditions of public employment and is the subject of mandatory collective bargaining.

In other words, in Locust Club II, to have any for Locust Club II to have any force and effect on Syracuse's CRB in our local ordinance, our ordinance would have had to be similar to Rochester's, in that it would ours would have to give the authority over discipline to our CRB.

And as a result, it would then infringe on collective bargaining.

But as you'll see, the ordinance that we have, starting in 1993 and then having been amended, doesn't do that.

And it doesn't do it by design to avoid this very problem that the Rochester Review Board faced.

And they were done in different times.

Right.

You'll recall the Rochester Review Board is very new.

In the heat of struggle in 2019, it was enacted there.

In the wake of a number of deaths, both at the hands of police, both in Rochester and around the country.

And so to address that, there was a significant departure from what all review boards in New York looked like, and whole cloth.

Right?

The police accountability board.

It's not what we did in Syracuse in 1993.

So let's compare, and you'll really get a feel for it when you see how dynamically different the Rochester Review Board was and what it was that got the court's attention.

That in 33 years that our ordinance has been in place, nobody's ever wondered does this infringe on the collective bargaining right of the police department.

Don't you think that the police department in 33 years with their disdain for the review board would have raised it?

But they didn't, and they have it.

But let's compare.

You'll see a world of difference.

In 2019, Rochester enacted their local law number two, and it gave exclusive authority to conduct disciplinary hearings.

Not to the police, not to the mayor, to the PAB.

Excuse authority.

Local law too took the authority to met out all discipline away from the mayor, away from the police chief, and gave it all to the police accountability board.

They created a matrix for punishment, they meted out punishment, not recommendations, they meted out the punishment.

The chief of police in Rochester was explicitly obligated by their local law to execute the police accountability board's decree of discipline.

Whatever they said, the police chief had no say in it.

The police chief had to follow the instruction of the PAB.

The only discretion the police chief had, he couldn't lessen the punishment, he couldn't ameliorate the punishment, he could only make the punishment more severe.

The local law authorized the PAB to establish a disciplinary matrix.

I don't think anywhere in the country, but certainly not in New York, and I'll tell you why I know about New York, that had never been done.

This was all so different, driven by the heat of passion of 2019 and deaths around the country.

You could understand why it happened.

You could also understand why they may have overstepped.

Interestingly, local law too in Rochester required that in order to remain employed by the Rochester Police Department, all Rochester police department officers and the police chief must fully cooperate with the police accountability board.

Go there, be interviewed, testify.

In 33 years, not a single police officer in Syracuse has ever been interviewed by the CRB.

We're talking about a world of difference.

The ruling as to one cannot apply to the other.

By its terms, local law too in Rochester, prevented the mayor from engaging in collective bargaining regarding officer discipline, thus conflicting with civil service law.

Police officer unions have a right to collectively bargain.

This cut it off.

Thank you.

You knew I was going to talk wrong.

The PAB was given almost complete control over the Rochester Police Department.

Before the enactment of their ordinance, the Rochester Police Department had negotiated and their collective bargaining agreement.

And quite frankly, I haven't a clue.

I don't know that anybody in this room does.

What the collective bargaining agreement in Syracuse says about the procedures for discipline.

And it's important.

But let me tell you a little bit about Rochester.

In Rochester, the police union had negotiated over the manner in which police would be interviewed in conflict with their local ordinance, right?

They had negotiate over by whom and when the interview would take place, what prior written notice would be given to the police officer, officer's right to representation at an interview, attorney's right, the attorney for the police officer, right to ask questions, as well as guidelines for command discipline.

All of this was in the collective bargaining agreement, which was transgressed by the local ordinance.

It is no wonder that it opened the eyes of the court, leaving them scratching their head.

Clearly, the Rochester local law enacted in 2019 overstepped its bounds.

Understandable, but it did.

It infringed on collective bargaining rights.

Let's look at Syracuse.

Let's go back to 1993.

The Syracuse Ordinance established in the CRB doesn't authorize the CRB to impose any discipline.

It merely authorizes the CRB to make a recommendation.

There's nothing that requires the police chief to follow the recommendation.

And I would dare say that that the recommendation of the CRB was rarely, has been rarely followed.

Our ordinance very specifically states the chief of police retains his or her authority to discipline members of the police department, as juxtaposed to Rochester, where it was all transferred to the police accountability board.

Under the Syracuse Ordinance, no police officer can be forced under jeopardy of losing their job to cooperate with the review board.

And as I said, in 33 years, no police officer has cooperated to the extent of even giving an interview with the review board.

And provide, unlike Rochester, provide a non-exclusive alternative to civil litigation.

One of its purposes was to encourage people to seek redress there rather than suing the city, rather than seeking damages from the city.

Seems to me the city would have an interest in encouraging rather than discouraging that.

In 2017, and you have to breathe in all of the litigation that's taken place.

The CRB has been under attack under every administration.

And there's been litigation.

They've had to hire their own counsel.

In 2017, in the case matter of citizen review board of Syracuse versus the Syracuse Police Department going to the Fourth Department, the very same Fourth Department that gives us the Locus II case.

A dispute arose between the police department, the police chief and the CRB, the CRB contending that the police chief wasn't meeting his responsibility, his obligations to provide information to the CRB, and that got litigated.

How did it get litigated?

Because the CRB hired their own independent counsel, corporation counsel, telling the police chief he was good to go, they represented the police chief.

What did the fourth department do?

They ruled against corporation counsel, they ruled against the police chief, they ruled in favor of the CRB.

If you stand up, you can win.

This is different than metting out punishment.

This is getting at the heart of the problem.

And you can't get to the heart of the problem unless you do your own investigation.

And so over the years, the CRB does investigations.

They come to their own determination.

Was there police misconduct or not?

They can then hold it up in comparison to what the police chief has done with civilian complaints, these same complaints.

And if repeatedly the police chief finds no misconduct, and repeatedly they find misconduct, you start to see a systemic problem.

And the judge in that case recognized how important that was for police accountability.

In addition, and it's kind of the last point I'll make on differences.

The Syracuse Ordinance empowered the board to identify, analyze, and make recommendations about police policies, right?

Not discipline, policies, procedures, and practices, or other systemic concerns about police conduct to the police chief, and provide copies of such recommendations to the mayor and the chair of the common council's public safety committee.

To do this requires investigation.

As you can see, there's a huge world of difference between the Rochester Ordinance and the Syracuse Ordinance.

And most importantly, nothing, nothing whatsoever that the CRB is authorized to do infringes on the collective bargaining rights of the police union.

This takes it outside of the scope and control of Locus Club II and explains why it's not controlling for us and why the other CRBs around the state are intimidated by a false rationale that somehow Locus II is controlling.

It's worth noting that the lower court in 2020 in Locus Club I, right?

So this is Supreme Court.

Starts in Supreme Court, goes to appellate division, goes to the Court of Appeals, it did a little survey in the course of writing its decision.

It did a survey of the review boards around the state.

And as you might expect, what it found was that only Rochester's PAB was enacted with the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions, making it different than every other review board in this state.

All of the other review boards, including Syracuse, are purely investigative in nature and can only make recommendations.

For the reasons that I just explained, since our CRB has nothing whatsoever to do with discipline, it's not applicable.

But even if it was, over the last couple of days, I took a little deeper dive.

When you carefully parse the language.

But even if it did apply, which we certainly don't concede, Locust Club II, contrary to what Corporation Council has told the CRB that they can't do interviews because it's now prevented.

Locust Club II did not say that review boards cannot conduct investigations.

What it did say was that it could not conduct interviews of police, a subject of collective bargaining.

Investigating isn't a subject of collective bargaining, and it was particularly so because the police union in Rochester had collectively bargained how and when and where they would be interviewed.

Totally contrary to what the ordinance provided.

You could see that it clashed.

The court will easily avoid it when they consider Syracuse because it's so different.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Doesn't say that.

Quick history lesson.

The advantage of getting old is that you've lived through a lot.

And I lived through the enactment of the first version of the Citizen Review Board in 1993.

And I must say, as a fire brand advocate and somebody very concerned about police misconduct, I desperately wanted the Syracuse CRB to be able to met out discipline.

I'm glad I wasn't successful.

But people ask, why does our CRB seem so toothless?

You hear this in the community.

It is for a reason.

As we negotiated the ordinance, I had a com a conversation with corporation counsel.

I didn't like the conversation.

But the conversation was Alan.

The review board cannot met out discipline.

If it does, it will contravene the collective bargaining agreement.

And so and the administration, right?

The Tom Young administration at the time would oppose it, would fight it.

The solution that they proposed, the compromise, like all legislation subject to compromise, was to simply have the CRB have the right to make a recommendation.

And that would avoid any conflict with the collective bargaining rights.

And it's what we did, we did it for a purpose to avoid the very problem that Corporation Council, contrary to her predecessor Corporation Council, is telling you is a problem.

And I'm telling you it's not.

Corporation counsel as indicated to counselors and to the CRB that if you don't desist from continuing to investigate cases, and if the police union sues you personally, corporation counsel will not defend you, and if there's a judgment against you, will not indemnify you in hopes that the boogeyman scares you away.

And let me tell you two things.

One, in looking back at about 50 years worth of litigation between review boards and police departments, there's not been a single one in which individual CRB members or city counselors were sued personally for money damages.

It's not how these cases are litigated.

It's the boogeyman.

These cases are litigated as declaratory judgments in which one side or the other, right?

The police union can bring a declaratory judgment, or the CRB can bring a declaratory judgment, asking a judge to determine, in this case, what's the authority of Locust II and its impact on Syracuse CRB.

Now, if you weren't faint of heart and concerned about the boogeyman, you might just say, tomorrow, we're open for business, and we're going to do our next investigation.

But there is an alternative, and that is just as the CRB did in 2017, and hopefully with the support of the City Council, go and hire your own independent counsel, bring a declaratory judgment, and settle this.

It is no answer to simply wait to see what might happen on the appeal of Locust II, which will have us waiting for more than a year if I have my doubts, if the Court of Appeals even decides to consider taking it as an appeal.

But that doesn't decide.

Even if it goes up on appeal, the Court of Appeals is going to decide the narrow question of the legality of the PAB in Rochester.

They're not going to throw answers to Syracuse, and we'll be waiting for Godot, waiting for nothing.

You let the CRB lie fallow for a year, it will die.

The CRB is authorized under Section 8 of the ordinance.

When there are conflicts with corporation counsel, I can't imagine a bigger conflict to retain independent legal counsel, and the compensation for such legal services shall be established through the annual budgetary process as set forth in Article 6 of the City Charter of 1960 amended.

The CRB was born out of struggle, a long time ago.

People were beaten, people died.

People died.

Your constituents marched, rallied, advocated, cried for this much needed tool of police accountability.

The ghosts of police brutality past can still be heard.

Their moans and cries for help.

Over the 33 years that the CRB that's has been in effect, it has been under attack over and over again.

It's not my first time before the city council.

But through struggle, it's endured.

This is not the time for the CRB or the city council to shuffle silently into the night.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alan.

Um does anyone have any questions, not legal advice, but just questions on any of the information that Alan presented to us?

Any of the counselors that want to ask?

I think it was a very thorough report.

Thank you.

I want to make one comment.

We were talking about Rochester.

Now we don't have a residency where police officers have to live in circuit.

How about Rochester?

Do they have a residency?

I don't know the answer to that.

Okay.

All right.

Ellen, I do have a question.

So we were also told that because the ruling Syracuse is located in the Fourth Appellate District, and the ruling came from the Fourth Appellate District, that it applies directly to us, and not to the same extent to the CRB in Albany or the CRB in New York City, which are still continuing to operate.

So I think that that was presented that way.

To answer people's questions, why are we in Syracuse knuckling under this?

When other CRBs are still vibrant and active in other cities.

If there's a ruling only from one department, and the locus two decision is new and not been addressed in other departments, that department is the controlling law for the whole state.

And so one has to wonder why are other city councils and other CRBs not afraid of the boogeyman.

And why are they standing up?

But more importantly, I think they see that the decision in the Rochester case has no applicability to the other CRBs around the state because they didn't do.

Mistaken but bold to try and gain civilian control over the betting out of discipline.

And it is why the decision in Locus II is contained to that case, that set of facts and doesn't apply to Syracuse.

And just a statement to that, we were told that the original lower court told them to just remove the um the penalty part, and they could continue, which they didn't, and that's why they're in the higher court at this point.

So if we don't do the penalties, and we are just doing the investigation, we would have been in the same boat had they done what they were supposed to do the first time.

So we would have been in the same boat as being being able to.

Not that the same boat as being in court, but being able to continue with our full CRB if they had done what they would have done the first time.

So I don't, I mean, I am on board with what you're saying because had they had they taken away the penalty part, none of this would be happening, and we don't have penalty.

Had they restored the right to bend out discipline either to the mayor or the police chief.

Yeah, and amended their their ordinance accordingly.

That's exactly right.

I don't know.

I wanna I want to thank you for taking your time to be here with us.

I want to also thank uh counselor Moore for pulling you here.

Finally I agreed to come.

Um I appreciate it.

And before I get going, I just want to say your choice of fashion today.

It's really nice.

Okay.

Um that's my weak point.

Yeah.

Um so as you can see here, Alan.

Um, many of us want CRB to survive and to continue to do the work.

Uh, when we heard this, it's it's it was very troubling to us because what it meant for many of us is that the 30 years over 30 years of progress that has been made is is getting pushed back, sending us back into the 90s.

And because when you look at CRB, the investigative ability of CRB, it's at the center of it.

Um, and and for many of us, we we felt that not only is it a tool for citizen to be heard, it was CRB is also a tool for building community engagement and community relationship for the police, which I thought that the police was going to how our uh PBA was going to fight hard to keep CRB because it it make their work easier.

Uh the other piece is that rather than going after it and getting rid of it, fight for it to keep it because it reduces your workload.

It does your work for you.

But beside all of that, I want to thank you for elaborating all of this.

I guess my question is you had said earlier about declaratory judgment that instead of saying today, you go ahead and resume your duties as you have been doing.

And obviously, many of us here cannot wait for the court of appeal to come back.

It's too long.

Right.

How long does it take for declaratory judgment on average to it it it's a relatively um it's a much quicker procedure than the appeal, but um depend it it it realistically would fall in the three to six month range.

Six months, so at least okay.

I think I want to just piggyback on that chill, because I think one of the problems with that in my mind is the fact that they may lose based on how their law was written, they may not even get the appeal.

So for us to wait even for that process to play out, in my mind isn't the right way to go, but I've made my opinions very clear.

Um Alan, I want to thank you very much for taking the time um today to fill us in on the law and how it differs.

I appreciate it very much.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael, you're up next.

Michael from the NYCLU.

Great, thank you so much.

Uh so my name is Michael Sudetsky, I'm the assistant policy director with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today and for facilitating my remote participation.

Um I think Alan laid out really nicely some of the the history and the context here.

Um so I'll keep my remarks uh pretty brief.

Um but I'll provide the N my C's assessment of our take on the landscape here.

Um, but I want to start with two primary recommendations.

First and foremost, um, and important for this body, we want to urge that the common council not advance any legislation that preemptively weakens or removes powers from the CRB while this litigation in the Locust 2 case is still ongoing, the pending appeal.

Um there's no need to preemptively act to advance anything that would weaken the board uh in this current moment.

Uh and second, and we know that we have a major disagreement with the administration here, but we call on the administration in the city of Syracuse to reverse course, allow the CRB's work to resume, and to actually mount a vigorous defense of the board's investigative powers rather than preemptively abandoning the board as it has done so far here.

The NYCLU was deeply alarmed by the hasty decision to dispat to suspend the CRB's investigations in the wake of the fourth department's ruling in LOCUS II.

Nowhere in that opinion was there any language speaking to the impact on any civilian oversight bodies outside of Rochester.

That decision looks specifically at the local legislation and procedures in Rochester to determine whether investigations by the Rochester Police Accountability Board could continue.

It was very fact-specific, very localized analysis.

It only looked to what had been established in Rochester itself.

No other facts beyond those in Rochester were before the court.

There was no consideration in that case of the local statutory framework in Syracuse, the ways in which the Syracuse CRB is differently constituted versus the PAB in Rochester, as we just heard.

There was no review of the details or relevance of the existing provisions in collective bargaining agreements, no analysis of the statutorily limited and carefully constrained investigatory powers of the Syracuse CRB, which do not intrude on or in any way limit the authority of the Syracuse police department to make disciplinary outcomes.

And there was no consideration of the much longer history of the CRB operating as a firmly and soundly established part of the police oversight system in Syracuse.

And to be clear, the NYCLU disagrees with the ruling in LOCUS 2 on the merits.

But even setting that aside, that ruling did not, by its own language, divest the Syracuse CRB of its ability to continue operating the way that it always has.

And what's more, and as we've heard, Rochester has sought leave from the court the state court of appeals to challenge the fourth department's ruling.

And while we can't predict what the court will do, I admit I have a bit more optimism than Alan on this point.

I think that there is a strong reason to believe that viewing the importance of this issue, the court will want to take up and clarify this case.

And if they do, and if they rule as sound legal and policy considerations should compel them to rule to overturn the lower court's decision and restore the full scope of the Rochester board's investigative powers, this current suspension of the Syracuse CRB's powers will have been for nothing.

We clearly have a different read on this than corporation counsel and the administration, which ordered this pause.

But the main point I want to impress upon you all as common council members is that you do not need to be complicit complicit in their attempts to weaken the CRB further, especially with the pending effort to challenge the lower courts' ruling.

There's no reason at all for the council to pass any legislation now that seeks to codify the corporation council's interpretation here.

Waiting on the courts to resolve these questions, whether it's in other litigation, whether it's in an outcome from the LOCUS 2 appeal, it can be frustrating, it can be time consuming, but it would be so much worse if there's actual legislative action here that further guts the CRB with respect to its investigatory powers, only for the courts to hopefully in the near future, render this entire debate move.

It's really critical that the council hold firm on this because clearly the administration is uninterested in putting up a vigorous defense of police oversight.

The CRB has a more than 30-year history of serving a really vital function on behalf of the residents of Syracuse.

It was the result of years of tireless advocacy by residents who, after a series of instances of excessive force, police killings, and other misconduct by the Syracuse police department, recognized that civilian-led oversight of the SPD was actually necessary for public safety.

Rather than immediately throwing in the towel and letting the police go back to the failed approach of policing themselves, the city of Syracuse should be exploring every avenue it has to argue in support of its CRB.

Rochester has been fighting tooth and nail in defense of its police accountability board since its inception, expending every effort to preserve that body because its residents worked so tirelessly to create it, recognizing how important it was for community safety and police oversight in Rochester.

And we're not aware of any other locality that has taken this extreme step in the wake of Locus II of halting investigations.

Indeed, earlier this year, we saw places like Albany reaffirm that they are committed to fighting for ongoing civilian-led investigations.

That's the kind of fight that the city of Syracuse should be putting up here.

It's really disappointing that the administration officials here are simply not willing to go to the map to defend an institution that serves such an important function for Syracuse residents.

So I'll close by saying the NYCLU is really encouraged that this hearing is happening.

We're encouraged that you all are taking an interest in this.

Michael, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for Michael?

Michael, I appreciate the opinion and uh NYCLU's uh proactive defense of uh oversight and accountability for New York state.

Um the CRB is an independent entity, and but it is overseen by the council.

This is an interesting and convoluted chain of uh custody, essentially for me, trying to disentangle.

So, in terms of defending the CRB and its operations, would that require a lawsuit uh filed either on behalf of the council or the CRB?

Would that require a lawsuit filed by the people who are denied CRB processes?

What what effective methodology would it require to get the CRB back into operation?

There are, I think a few.

Okay, hang on one second.

Hang on one second.

Um I don't think we can ask legal advice from the table.

Yeah, okay.

Um so I I guess you can't answer that for us, Michael, because we can't ask for legal advice.

Sorry.

As I would say, there are a few options here, but I would encourage you to consult directly with council on the best way to actually get that moving.

But what I will just underscore again is I think this is a real failure of corporation council and the mayor to recognize that it is their responsibility to exercise bold leadership on behalf of the people of Syracuse.

They should be coming to the table here with their best arguments, their best ideas for why they want to vindicate the powers of the CRB, why they want to preserve it.

Um so uh but yeah, again, I encourage you all to consult with council on the the best way forward.

Um, but really do want to underscore that there was a real failure of leadership here from corp council.

Thank you, Michael.

Michael, just for the sake of what we are doing here.

What's are you aware of any other uh municipal uh entity that that is that is doing what we are doing?

As in as in pausing CRB investigation that is within nobody else.

Yeah, not aware of any other place that has acted so quickly and rashly.

Uh every other jurisdiction seems to be looking to defend their existing oversight bodies.

To our knowledge, Syracuse is the only locality that has reacted to the Locus 2 ruling by imposing this kind of suspension on investigations.

So the business is as usual with them.

Right?

The business as usual.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

No.

Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate taking the time today.

And for all you do for people in New York.

Um, next, I'd like to invite up um Misa Hare.

Did I say it right, Misa?

Um, she's in charge of she's the chair of the um NAACP legal redress committee.

Do you want to sit at the table with us?

I'd appreciate that.

Yeah, please do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I did just uh write a few things, and as you guys bear with me because I wrote a lot as well.

You don't have to be there.

Thank you.

Uh so good evening.

I appreciate this time and being in front of you all.

So my name is Mizahir Kayla, and I'm speaking really on behalf of the NAACP today.

Um, our president um is away and could not be here.

Um, but luckily I sit as the legal redress chair committee and I can kind of talk a little bit about some of the reports that I received from the from the community regarding um, you know, encounters they have with the police officers here.

Uh so first and foremost, the NAACP does strongly support the Syracuse Citizen Review Board and urges the city council to take all necessary steps to preserve and restore the authority granted to it the CRB under the enabling legislation.

Um, like Mr.

Sasitski mentioned, it's not the fourth department's ruling is not necessary that the CRB could be in entirely stripped, but this is an opportunity for the city of Syracuse to be strategic with how they're going to have that independent oversight, whether that be uh through some sort of uh public um route to where you know certain issues and concerns are being put out or you know, stripping the criminal investigation aspect of it and the recommendation part.

I think this is a uh uh really an opportunity to be creative in how the CRB can move forward.

Um similarly, like others said, it was created nearly 30 years ago in the wake of serious incidents involving Syracuse police that resulted in deaths and injuries of community members, um, injuries still ongoing to this day from the reports we receive, uh particularly from uh communities of color and mainly uh black citizens here, um, whether actually citizens or not, um mainly from the black community here.

Um it's established that the public recognize the need for it then and the oversight for it, and that need entirely has not disappeared, judging from the many complaints we received.

I think to date this year, we've received about a little over 30, and then they all involve the police officers here to some regard.

Um saying that again, my role in with the NAACP is that I I routinely hear these complaints from community members.

I get individual reports, and some of those complaints uh regard things that's like investigations were not fully completed, um, they were improperly documented, right?

You you go and you follow up on a police complaint, you go get your police report in, it's a bare bone complaint, there isn't anything about it.

And those positions, what do you do if you were attacked by a random random person, you're attacked by a random person, you call 911, 911 appears but fails to report what's occurred to you accurately because for what we know they the lack of care possibly, right?

Then the lack of wanting to assist that person or feeling the need to, um, maybe judgments, right?

Um, I think that uh the police here hold a lot of power to where um they they get to decide who and what is important to them, but that's the problem that we're facing because every single person that lives within the city of Syracuse is important and deserves to be heard on any complaint, every 911 complaint.

And so um I just want to say that a lot of those complaints that the legal redress committee receives, um they leave our the people of Syracuse feeling uh dismissed and not heard, at least particularly from communities of color.

Um whether those complaints are fully correct or not, it's up to we investigate and we determine different ways we can refer them to different help and resources.

Um and I think whether they're correct or not, uh I don't think that really matters.

I think there's a lack of trust that exists, and that's what those complaints mainly show that there's a lack of trust that exists.

And because there's a lack of trust, there needs to be some sort of independent review board that allows the people to feel heard to some capacity or to regain that trust.

And I think it's up for the city to kind of um take over and assist with those things.

Um so again, the NAACP continues to hear concerns from residents about police accountability, transparency, and trust through those reports, community feedback and matters brought before our committee over the years, it's very clear that uh the need remains for the independent body where residents can continue to bring the complaints where we can continue to refer them to the CRB so they can be reviewed to some sort of capacity.

Um, for many residents, um again, the existence of it just helps build trust between the community and law enforcement, and that authority should not be um weakened in any capacity.

Um the NAAC does want to call upon the city council to fight for the full implementation of the legislation that uh created the CRB and to restore any suspended authority to investigate complaints of police misconduct to the capacity that they could.

Um if that action results in legal challenges, then the NAACP believes that this should the city should vigorously defend the CRB and the authority granted to it by its law.

And if corporation council believes that it cannot effectively do so, because it's interpretation of the existing case law or any potential conflict, and the council should seek multi-branch authority, you know, uh multi-branch authorizations necessary to be able to authorize and fund independent counsel.

We recognize they may not be able to do that on their own.

They may have to get some sort of permission from whether that be this uh this board or the mayor itself.

Um either way, uh, some sort of authorization to seek independent counsel to be able to defend the CRB and its legislation for the people of Syracuse should be established.

Um and we heard earlier from Alan Rosenthal that the CRB in the past has also hired independent counsel.

So considering that there really shouldn't be a conflict.

Um there should be avenues for any potential conflicts.

Um we also urge the members of the common council to stand along with the Syracuse community most affected by the issues of police accountability.

Uh this is not simply a procedural issue at all.

Um it's a matter of public trust, civil rights, transparency, and equal justice.

Um we ask that you guys hold off on any legislation for the reasons that again, Mr.

Sasitsky mentioned, right?

Um, this legislation, you know, the case is more than likely going to continue to be ongoing, and uh it's it's gonna draw a lot of um public feedback in a way that that you we don't know what will result from any appeal.

Um, and so um deciding on any legislation right now, I think would be a direct harm to the people of Syracuse.

Will you uh meet with the mayor and the administration?

I'd be happy to.

I think you should.

I think that would be very important.

We're doing what we can, but I believe we should speak with uh with the mayor, Amers and Administration.

No matter.

Thank you.

We are thank you.

I'd be happy to.

So just kind of to to kind of just uh maybe two more minutes here uh to finish off.

Um I do want to say that I think the one part that's extremely important, I think that our officers, and I want to emphasize that they're our officers, the the people of Syracuse, because they're not just the cities, they they are the peoples of Syracuse.

Um they hold a s significant public authority and responsibility.

Um, I recently seen a Syracuse.com article uh not too long ago, um, being that they represent one of the city's largest investments in its workforce in general.

So, according to the city's payroll analysis, they represent 23 out of the 25 top earners for the city's highest paid municipal employees.

I think that is a major investment.

That is a substantial investment provided to them by tax dollars.

Um, and being that they yield that power to to to detain arrest and use a ton of force on people of the city of Syracuse, particularly communities of color and more specifically black people with that power that they hold.

I think that it's I think that it's it's expected for us to hold an expectation that they be held accountable, or at least that the people have some sort of independent review of them.

And um, I guess in saying that, I think uh we urge in general the NAACP urges again for the city council for the mayor to just be strategic with the fourth department's ruling, being that it does not completely erase the CRB.

It doesn't say that all CRBs have to be stripped.

I I read it, I I didn't see any of that.

Um what I seen is it said that it can't overlap uh the investigative aspect of it cannot overlap an independent uh in an independent uh system that already is, you know, they're already ruled and guided by.

Um to me, strategically and creatively thinking, uh, I don't think that limits the scope for high-level advisory role that the CRB has always held.

Um I think that the current legal framework completely uh states and shows that it could still review some sort of police department policies and procedures, right?

Um it can offer recommendations on systemic reform education and other community resources, like bridging that gap, continuing that trust, continuing to build it.

Um past years I've seen that the Syracuse Police Department has wanted that.

That was always a main goal, right?

They're doing a lot of one-on-one things on the South side and different communities to try to build this level of trust.

Well, that's another the CRB being there can help that because the NAACP takes complaints to them, provides it to them, so they'll be able to know what's out there, what they can do, and maybe receive recommendations on that, on that aspect as opposed to investigative and disciplinary actions.

Um again, uh the CRB can also track and pub publish broad trends and data regarding any complaints received and from the from the community.

So there's like a there's so many different ways the CRB can still continue, despite the fourth department's appellate decision.

I think that any vast decisions, any quick um legislation or anything, rulings that are made here, I I think that again um agreeing with Mr.

Sasitski that it's it'd be a failure to the people in the city of Syracuse.

Um having said that, uh again, the NAAC believes that the meaningful civil civilian oversight is essential to maintaining the confidence in our public institutions, and we respectfully ask this council to act decisively to preserve the CRB and to ensure that it continues to fulfill the purpose, and again, that's to build trust.

That is all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you being here.

Does anybody have any questions for her?

No.

I don't have a question.

I just have a comment, right?

Because I know when this was brought to us that a lot of us question, because the question for me was they specifically called out Rochester.

They didn't specifically call out Syracuse.

So what I was my question was how do we keep saying we get lumped in it because we're in the fourth district, which I see a vast difference from what we're doing and from what Rochester is doing.

So that's where my mindset is.

I agree.

Thank you, Helen.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, in the interest of time, I see a couple of activists here that have been involved with the CRB.

If you want to speak for less three minutes or less, um, I'd be happy to have you come up and say something.

Barry, would you like to?

I think you've heard a lot from me in CRB meetings and other forums and in the newspaper.

I think you know where I stand on this.

I agree with Mr.

Sizitzky and I agree with Alan Rosenthal.

I will ask you something else, and that is a lot of the deliberations on this have happened behind closed doors.

A lot of the decision making and the strategy has been discussed behind closed doors.

I praise Council Pearson, Donna Moore, for bringing this into the public scheme, and I ask that there be more transparency about what is going on, re the CRB from the council and also from the CRB.

Um at CRB meetings, there's been an increasing public presence, and the people that have come to public comment have asked questions of the CRB.

And at the last meeting, um, there were no answers to those questions, and I'm not aware of a mechanism by which those questions would be answered in a public forum.

There needs to be some mechanism for the CRB to answer questions the public have about where things are, and there needs to be some mechanism for the council to tell the public what the status of this is.

I ask for that accountability, I ask for that transparency on behalf of everybody in this city.

And I am a resident of the Syracuse, the city of Syracuse, and I have been since 1992.

This is my home, and I want us all to be safe and for things, people to be treated fairly.

That's all that it's about for me.

Appreciate it, Barry.

And I hope this meeting helped with some of that tonight.

Yes, it does.

Peter's still here.

Peter had a Peter had a go.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak real quickly?

No.

All right.

Um, then I would move to close this meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.

Good job.