PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The chair of the Police Advisory Review Board on Tuesday expressed "discomfort" with the panel using the words "adopt," "accept" or "approve" of policies that it reviews. Ellen Maxon felt this language takes "too much ownership" of police policies.

 

"My concern was that we were taking ownership of these policies, and they're not our policies all we were doing this reviewing and offering advice," she said.

 

"And I'm not looking for motions on this. I'm looking for this to be information for us to discuss and to inform how we make motions regarding policies that we have reviewed and offered advice on."

 

Maxon had corresponded with City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta who suggested that the panel "does nothing" or "acknowledges receipt." Her suggestions — which Pagnotta approved — include preceding motions with "after reviewing and offering advice, the PARB moves to support the PPD's adoption of said policy" and motioning to support the department's implementation of a proposed policy.

 

Pagnotta told Maxon that it is "commendable that Chief [Michael] Wynn is using the PARB as a sounding board and accepting input from the Board."

 

"If you look at the language in the city code in forums, the PR, the word vote does not appear. So technically, we don't even have the authority to vote on anything," member Drew Herzig said, adding that he does not support Pagnotta's recommendations.

 

"I think we have to have language that we adopt recommendations, or we support recommendations, the things you suggest kind of thing, or we support the implementation. We have to do something other than saying we reviewed it because 'review' basically is saying we're just sitting around on our hands and we're not doing anything. We're supposed to advise and review and this really was set up to help inform the policy to be able to vote even though that word isn't in language on these policies and complaints that come before us."

 

The Rev. Sheila Sholes-Ross seconded Herzig's sentiments. She said she is consistently confused month to month about the panel's purpose and effectiveness.

 

"I recognize that it is by the grace of Chief Wynn that we get to preview and review policies and that we have no official ground for, so even if we voted that we abhor it, the chief still maintains the authority to implement it or not," Vice Chair Michael Feldberg said. "And I think that there should be some record of what our advice was to the chief, which would be in the minutes, and some way of saying that a majority or we unanimously either commend this policy to the chief or we don't commend this policy to the chief, which I think still preserves his absolute discretion but also puts us on the record as having officially codified some advice."

 

Exhausted from the discussion, the Rev. Sloan T. Letman IV said the panel should just decide on clear and concise language moving forward so that they get to their intended purpose.

 

"I just want us to be clear and take a stand, I don't know the wording will be but let's take a stand when we need to take a stand with recommendations, advice, whatever we call it," Sholes-Ross added.

 

Wynn clarified that the language that caused the discussion was his own because he sent an internal email stating that he was "awaiting final PARB approval" of a policy.

 

"I clearly think that I'm supposed to solicit your input on policies, now, the reality is because the way policy review occurs, I'm getting these policies to you when they're in their draft form and implementing your suggestions, even your recommendations in real time," Wynn explained.

 

"If you're going to make recommendations to me, I think it's important that be acknowledged in a public meeting that you've sent me suggestions, I either accepted or rejected those suggestions, and the policy has been added. How you choose to do that, I don't have an opinion, but I think it's important that the public understand that you are given the opportunity to weigh in during the policy development process."

 

Herzig said if the board has to do a "weird legal dance" where it votes to endorse a policy rather than approve or accept it, members should do that and "move on."

 

"Committee work is hard and sometimes you've got to work through things guys, and being polite and keeping our tempers and talking nicely to people is greatly appreciated," Maxon said in regard to Herzig's comments.

 

"So again, this was an attempt to try and resolve an issue. We all come with different lenses, one of mine is my legal background, and we all bring different lenses and we want those lenses expressed and not shut down and not being criticized for giving those opinions."

 

The commission did not vote on changing the language but the majority seemed content to do so.