Syracuse police chief must report on complaints

Listen to this article

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court has ruled that Syracuse Police Chief Frank Fowler must tell the city’s Citizen Review Board (CRB) the outcome of complaints filed against officers, even if the CRB doesn’t complete its portion of the complaint review process within the 60 days mandated by a city ordinance.

The CRB went to court in February 2016 after Fowler refused to disclose the outcome of four complaints. The city’s attorney challenged the CRB’s right to sue, but state Supreme Court Justice Spencer J. Ludington sided with the CRB in an April 2016 ruling.

The city appealed Ludington’s decision, but the Fourth Department affirmed his ruling in a five-page decision released Friday, March 24.

“The matters raised in this appeal are issues of first impression in this Department, and we conclude that the CRB has both the capacity and standing to institute this proceeding/action,” according to the Fourth Department decision written by Justice John M. Curran.

Tear down

Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel John A. Sickinger said his office was reviewing the decision and had not yet decided whether to seek leave to the Court of Appeals.

“At this point it’s too early for us to determine exactly what we’re going to do,” he said.

Harrison V. Williams Jr., an attorney at Bousquet Holstein PLLC, who represented the CRB, pointed out that the city of Syracuse is paying for both sides of the legal action.

“Most of the cities around the country are beefing up their CRBs, and it’s unfortunate that you have the city really, in effect, trying to tear down this organization,” he said.

According to the ordinance that established the 11-member CRB, the panel has the power to investigate complaints and recommend action to address police misconduct, such as policy and procedure changes.

The CRB is supposed to complete its investigation, hold a hearing if necessary, and issue findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police and Corporation Counsel within 60 days.

Within 30 days after that, the chief is required to “advise the (CRB) in writing as to what type of actions or sanctions were imposed, and the reasons if none were imposed,” according to the city ordinance.

The CRB also is required to issue public reports on its work, including the number and type of complaints received, the number of cases involving recommendation for sanctions, and how many cases resulted in sanctions.

The city ordinance also gives the CRB subpoena power and, in the event of a conflict with the Corporation Counsel, the authority to retain independent legal counsel, which occurred in this case.

Implied power

In October 2015, after the CRB sent Fowler four complaint findings, Fowler let the CRB know that the findings were not received within the required 60 days and he had proceeded on the complaints without the CRB’s recommendations.

He also refused to provide written information to the CRB about what actions or sanctions were taken, which is required by the ordinance.

Sickinger said the chief’s report to the CRB is contingent on the CRB doing its work within 60 days.

“The intent of the process clearly gets lost when the CRB is taking an inordinate amount of time to respond to these things,” he said.

Williams said that about 30 percent of the complaints are so complicated the CRB needs more than 60 days.

The CRB filed the Article 78 proceeding seeking an order directing Fowler to comply by providing the information about the outcome of the complaints.

The Fourth Department noted that the CRB is mandated to handle grievances filed by citizens against police officers and compel compliance with the empowering ordinance which also endowed the CRB with the power to retain counsel.

“Such factors, together with a lack of legislative intent that negates review, provide a clear indication of an implied power to sue,” according to the decision.

The decision also pointed out that, without the information from Fowler about the outcome of the complaints, the CRB could not fulfill its obligation to publicly report on the results and judge the disciplinary practices of the Police Department.