State College group presents final report on community board overseeing police. Here’s what to expect
If the final recommendations of a study committee are approved, State College could soon move ahead with a community board overseeing borough police at an initial cost of about $165,000 a year, or about 1-2% of the annual police budget, based on a presentation given Monday to the borough council.
The potential Community Oversight Board could look into complaints about the State College Police Department, go over quarterly policy reviews with police on use-of-force complaints and other issues, independently review closed cases, and make formal recommendations to council about police practices and procedures, among other actions.
The final report was posted publicly Tuesday morning, and the borough council will continue its discussion of the board’s creation next month. It is not yet known when a formal vote will take place, although a spokesperson said it’s safe to assume one will occur between January and March, after the public has a chance to comment.
“One of the things we heard from the community is the community was wanting a seat at the table,” said Dan McKenrick, a member of the ad hoc study committee. “And the Community Oversight Board would be just that, a seat at the table.”
The idea of a Community Oversight Board came in the form of Council’s detailed resolution over the summer, shortly after the start of large-scale State College marches and the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died begging for air under the restraint of Minneapolis police. And, for the last four months, the study committee has looked into the prospect of an oversight board — before sharing its conclusions Monday night with the borough council.
After holding 15 committee meetings and four public meetings, in addition to offering three council presentations, the study committee recommended a hybrid model of oversight fashioned after a monitoring/auditing-focused model. That falls short of the full-investigative model some community members championed, but “significant legal constraints” prevented the committee from seriously considering that.
(One early legal issue, for example, was whether the COB should be allowed to discipline officers. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that boroughs such as State College could not do that, as state law requires officers to go through the collective bargaining process.)
“We wanted to make sure we weren’t presenting something to Council that was going to fail from the start because it was getting into those kinds of roadblocks or difficulties,” said Mark Bergstrom, chair of the study committee. “So we did try to work through some of those things looking at case law.”
The study committee also recommended the board undergo an official review after two years, to make tweaks and adjustments as necessary.
Among the other details of the potential board, which would be just the third such board in Pennsylvania, alongside those in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh:
- Board membership: A nine-member board was proposed with staggered three-year terms and, for a potential Penn State student, the term would be two years. No board members can be employed by the municipalities served by borough police, or can be elected officials, and a chairperson will be selected by board members. The Council will appoint the members — who “should reflect the broadest possible diversity” — and all members must live within the police service area.
- Staffing/cost: The position of executive director would be budgeted for $110,000, including salary and benefits; the COB would recommend a pool of candidates and the borough manager would choose one. Contracted services would be budgeted for $25,000, and another $30,000 should be set aside for operating expenses in the first year (i.e. office space, equipment, training, etc.).
- Coverage: Because the State College Police Department also serves College and Harris townships, COB services would also be available to residents in those townships.
- Scope of oversight: The goal here, according to the final report, is “to provide independent analysis of problems and underlying issues and causes to ensure that SCPD policies and practices support human and civil rights, reduce or eliminate systemic bias, reduce and prevent misconduct, and build partnerships that promote trust and understanding between law enforcement and the community.”
- Authority and power: Actions not yet addressed include auditing, or real-time observation by the executive director of ongoing investigations of community complaints and use-of-force incidents; recommending strategies to provide education and training in the community; developing a communications plan to promote transparency while forming an annual report documenting the COB’s activities and findings; and coordinating with other boards and organizations, including Penn State, to draw on their expertise.
Council President Jesse Barlow thanked the COB for its work at the end of the presentation, lauding the group for its comprehensiveness.
“I am astonished by how thorough you all were in putting these recommendations together,” he said. “The price tag, at least at first, does not seem as challenging as I might have feared. And you really more than fulfilled by my expectations that I had from this committee.”
