Cop Commission Considers Community Commenting

The Board of Police Commissioners wants to hear what the community has to say about community policing. It’s just not sure quite how.

The commissioners — the ultimate bosses of the NHPD — agreed at their monthly meeting Tuesday night at 1 Union Ave. to explore adding a regular public comment agenda item.

They then debated questions such as:

• How many minutes should be allotted in total on the otherwise busy agenda? How much time per speaker? And what if issues a member of the public brings up are inappropriate for the commissioners to discuss — like, for example, an ongoing Internal Affairs investigation?

• Should there be a written form, submitted before the meeting, signed by a possible discussant with his or her topic in order to pre-empt disappointment or excessive expectation? Or might this be construed as prior restraint?

The regular meetings are open to the public — except when personnel issues, or drafts of documents, and other matters are discussed in either executive or special closed sessions. (There has also been some recent controversy as to what is appropriately public and what not — like details of police hiring policies.)

Commission Chair Anthony Dawson has long spoken of the desire for his group’s monthly meetings to be as transparent as possible. At times he gives members of the public a chance to speak at his discretion.

On their regular monthly meeting Tuesday night at 1 Union Ave., Dawson led the commissioners in a discussion on whether and how to formalize public participation.

“In the spirit of transparency, it would be appropriate for public comment,” said Commissioner Evelise Ribeiro. ​“But give the community the courtesy to see if [an issue] is appropriate in this forum, or elsewhere. It might be important to get a list of speakers beforehand. And also the amount of [speaking] time. And to let speakers know if we can take action at that time.”

Commissioner Stephen Garcia concurred but added in addition to guidelines or rules, maybe a written form could be developed with speaker and topic indicated. The idea, he said, was ​“not to limit but to keep it manageable.”

“What do we do if we get 20 people?” asked Commissioner Kevin Diaz.

“Three to five minutes per person,” said Ribeiro.

Dawson and the commissioners reached a consensus to proceed to work on an approach.

However, whatever they come up with would first have to be okayed by the city’s lawyers. (Click here and here to read about positions the city attorney attorney assigned to the commission, Michael Wolak, has taken on public accountability, transparency and First Amendment questions.)

Local activist Melinda Tuhus — who is also a reporter — said the ultimate public comment forum’s usefulness would ​“depend on how restrictive it ends up being.”

Local lawyer Patricia Kane, who has been attending meetings out of general interest in police issues, offered a caution. Though no constitutional lawyer, she averred that asking people to write name and topic in advance might be problematical and not permissible. ​“Once they provide a public forum, then they cannot have prior restraint on what to speak about. That’s First Amendment [implications],”

“They’ll have to refine it,” she added.

Also at Tuesday night’s meeting, Anthony Dawson was re-elected to chair the commission, with Greg Smith as vice chair.