Citing “animosity” and a “historical lack of cooperation” from Cleveland City Hall, the Community Police Commission has asked the judge who oversees the consent decree to grant it a voice as he decides whether to end 11 years of federal oversight of police reform efforts.

The commission filed a motion in U.S. District Court Tuesday night asking Judge Solomon Oliver to let it weigh in before he makes a decision on a request from Mayor Justin Bibb to end the consent decree. Oliver has presided over the process since the city and the U.S. Department of Justice signed the agreement in 2015.

The commission’s motion asks Oliver to allow it to participate in future court proceedings related to the city’s request and to consider its “unique perspective about the state of police reform in Cleveland.”

At a court hearing on Wednesday, Oliver sounded undecided about whether he would allow the commission file a brief in the case, stating its position. He acknowledged the commission’s dissatisfaction with Cleveland’s push to end the consent decree and noted that the city’s work was unfinished. But it was a “very unusual posture” to permit one part of the city to disagree with the legal position of another, he said. 

Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin asked Oliver for a week to file a response to the CPC’s motion. Griffin did not indicate whether he would support or oppose the commission’s request.

Stay up to date: Read our latest coverage on police oversight, Cleveland police remain under federal oversight as judge reviews reform progress.

The consent decree required the city to form the commission. It was an advisory body only until 2021, when voters passed Issue 24 and amended the city charter to give it more independence from city hall. The commission is the final authority over police policy and discipline.

In its request to end the consent decree, the city cited the commission’s power as proof of its ability to take over when federal monitoring ends. But the commission was not told in advance about the city’s plans or invited to the press conference to announce them. (The members of the Civilian Police Review Board, another oversight body, weren’t told either, according to Chair Brandon Brown.) The commission argued in its motion that it is not ready to function as a standalone watchdog agency outside of the structure that the consent decree provides.

The filing pointed to what the commission sees as a “pattern and practice of noncompliance” in its motion. It referred to recurring difficulties obtaining records from the city and adopting a new police promotion policy without input from the commission.

Such “calculated decisions” to marginalize the commission undermine its ability to serve as a check against backsliding if the consent decree is no longer in place, the motion states.

“Regrettably, the City and [police] have been reluctant to cooperate with the Commission,” the motion stated, “leaving the Commission with little recourse but to warn this Court that early termination of the Consent Decree will adversely affect the Commission and its mandate.”

Cleveland’s consent decree
The consent decree is an agreement between Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice that requires police reforms. It came after a federal investigation that found a “pattern and practice” of police officers violating the rights of residents and using excessive force. The city and the federal government signed the agreement in 2015. 

Work remains in community policing reporting use-of-force

Citing a recent report from a federal team that monitors the city’s progress for the court, the commission said important work remains to be done.

The city is not compliant or only partially compliant in seven of the 18 categories related to community engagement and building trust, according to the monitor’s report. Progress is also lacking in community and bias-free policing, the commission’s motion said. 

The commission also argued that there are still too many instances of officers not reporting when they drew their firearms, especially when multiple officers are at a scene; supervisors not properly investigating use-of-force allegations; and police leadership not disciplining supervisors who fail to follow policies.

The consent decree followed “the death of two individuals at the hands of police with poor weapons training and control, and with a lack of intervention from supervisors who should have known better,” the motion says in a reference to the 2012 incident in which officers fired 137 shots at two unarmed people after a chase.

“Many terms of the Consent Decree were designed to address exactly these issues,” the motion says, “and terminating the Decree before those provisions are met would be contradictory to its very purpose and intent.”

Follow the full story: See all of our reporting on Cleveland’s police oversight in one place.