§ 115 General Provisions
§ 115-1 Office of Professional Standards
§ 115-2 Civilian Police Review Board
§ 115-3 Board's Powers and Duties
§ 115-4 Investigation and Disposition of Complaints
§ 115-5 Community Police Commission
§ 116 Police Force; Control by Chief
§ 117 Special Policemen
§ 118 Fire Force; Control by Chief
§ 119 Suspension of Police and Firemen
§ 119-1 Discipline of Police
§ 120 Suspension of Fire Chief
§ 121 Appeal to Civil Service Commission
§ 122 Classification of Police and Fire Service
§ 123 Relief of Policemen and Firemen
The City shall maintain a Police Force and Fire Force, and the Mayor shall be executive head of both forces. If these Forces are or shall be placed in a department in accordance with the provisions of Section 77 of this Charter, the director of this department shall be their executive head under the direction of the Mayor.
(Effective November 9, 1931)
There will be within and report to the Civilian Police Review Board an Office of Professional Standards, consisting of investigators appointed by the Board. The Board may appoint the Office's Administrator, in conformity with the Charter's civil-service provisions. The Office's Administrator may not be a current or former Cleveland police officer or Division of Police employee.
The Office of Professional Standards will not be under the direction and control of the executive head of the police force and the Chief of Police, and will report to the Board. The Chief, police force, and executive head of the police force must provide all assistance that the Board and Office of Professional Standards request to enable the Board and Office to carry out their duties. This includes prompt production of all information and records requested, in no case in more than 30 days.
(Effective November 2, 2021)
The Civilian Police Review Board shall consist of nine members who represent Cleveland's diverse communities. The Mayor will appoint five members. Council will appoint four members. The Mayor and Council must fill vacancies within 60 days of when they arise. No more than one Board member may be a resident of the same police district, unless the City establishes fewer than nine districts. At least two members should be attorneys with experience representing victims of police misconduct or criminally prosecuting police misconduct. At least one Board member should, where reasonably feasible, be between the ages of 18 and 30 at the time of appointment. No Board member may be employed currently as a law-enforcement officer and no member may be a current or former employee of the Cleveland Division of Police. Vacancies during a term will be filled in the same manner as original appointments for the unexpired term. Within 30 days of any Board vacancy, including vacancies caused by the end of a term, the City must post an announcement of any vacancy and a request for applications to fill any vacancy. Members must be chosen from among the applicants.
Board members holding the office as of this Section's effective date may continue in office for the remainder of their terms, and those and previous terms will count toward term limits established in this section. Board members' terms of office will be four years. No member may serve for more than two four-year terms when the second term begins less than four years after the end of the first term. But a person may be eligible for appointment four years after the end date of the second term. Time spent fulfilling an unexpired term of two years or less will not be considered part of the two consecutive terms.
The Mayor may remove any Board member, upon notice and hearing, for malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or gross neglect of duty.
All Board members must participate in initial and annual training on topics relevant to Board duties.
Board members will receive compensation as Council must establish.
The Board and its Office of Professional Standards will have its own budget separate from the Department of Public Safety's budget. The Board and its Office of Professional Standards must receive a budget totaling at least 1.0% of the budget allocated to the police force. The Professional Standards Administrator will oversee the budget on behalf of, and with guidance from, the Board.
The Board will designate annually one of its members to serve as chair and one to serve as vice chair. No person will serve more than two consecutive one-year terms in each position, but, except as further provided, may be eligible for appointment two years after the end date of the second term. A person may be eligible to serve in one of the positions for up to two consecutive one-year terms consecutive to service in the other position, but then may not serve in either position for two years after the end date of the term for the second position even if service in the first or second position was less than two years.
The Board shall appoint personnel as its staff as it deems necessary.
(Effective November 2, 2021)
The Civilian Police Review Board will receive, cause investigation of, and recommend resolution of complaints filed with it, or on its own complaint based on information that comes to its attention, alleging misconduct by Cleveland police officers or Division of Police employees, when such misconduct is directed toward any person who is not a police officer or Division of Police employee. The misconduct alleged may include, but need not be limited to, the use of excessive or deadly force. The Board will perform such other duties not inconsistent with this Charter's other provisions, as the executive head of the police force may request.
It is not a proper consideration for the Board and its Office of Professional Standards to choose not to investigate particular allegations of police officer or Division of Police employee misconduct based on the fact or belief that another investigative agency, including the Division of Police's Office of Internal Affairs, or that some other non-federal law-enforcement agency, is investigating, or has already investigated and concluded that no misconduct or something less serious than the misconduct a complainant alleged took place. The Board and its Office of Professional Standards must never defer to the Division of Police or outside, non-federal law-enforcement authorities in investigating allegations of police misconduct and must act independently, consistent with their mission of exercising civilian control and accountability over the police force.
To carry out its functions, the Board or any person authorized by it may compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and other evidence, and for that purpose may issue subpoenas or attachments, to be signed by the Board's chair, which will be served and executed by any officer authorized to serve subpoenas and other processes. The Council will provide by ordinance the penalty or penalties for contempt in refusing to obey any such subpoenas or to produce such books, papers, and other evidence. If the Council does not do so, the Board may establish such penalties.
The Board will make rules providing for its procedure and review of complaints.
(Effective November 2, 2021)
Without interference from the Chief of Police or executive head of the police force, and with the full cooperation of both, the Office of Professional Standards must cause, for the Board's benefit, a full and complete investigation to be made of each complaint. The investigation need not be confined to matters set forth in the complaint and may expand based upon facts and allegations uncovered in the investigation. Upon an investigation's completion, the administrator will prepare a report and submit the report to the Board for its review and disposition.
Before recommending action on a complaint or determining that a complaint warrants no action, the Board may hold a hearing, under its rules. Any decision or deliberation about whether to act or not act on a complaint must take place in an open meeting.
If the Board decides that the facts found in an investigation suggest that the executive head of the police force and Chief of Police should promulgate or amend policies, rules, and regulations, the Board should submit its recommendation and reasoning to the executive head of the police force and Chief, with a copy to the Community Police Commission, and must notify the complainant that it has done so.
If the Board decides that discipline should be imposed on the officers or employees under the Chief of Police's management and control, the Board will submit its fact findings and recommendation to the Chief. The Chief and executive head of the police force must presume to be correct and defer to the Board's fact findings and recommendations, absent affirmative proof by clear-and-convincing evidence that the findings and recommendations are clearly erroneous. Absent such proof, within ten days after receiving the Board's fact findings and recommendation - the Chief or executive head of the police must impose at least the minimum discipline that the Board has recommended.
If the Chief or executive head of the police force believes that clear-and-convincing evidence exists that would justify disregarding or modifying the Board's fact finding and disciplinary recommendations, within ten days after receiving the Board's fact findings and recommendation, the Chief or executive head of the police force must notify the Board in writing of any refusal or lesser, alternative discipline to be imposed, detailing the reasons and providing the Board with the clear-and-convincing evidence justifying the decision. Precedents, patterns or practices, and discipline predating this Section's effective date cannot constitute clear-and-convincing evidence justifying any decision by the Chief or executive head of the police force to impose lesser discipline than what the Board recommends, or no discipline.
If the Board then does not agree with the Chief's or executive head of the police force's refusal or alternative discipline, the Board, notwithstanding any provisions of Section 119 of this Charter to the contrary, may, in its discretion, overrule the Chief or executive head of the police force, and order either of them to discipline the officer or employee, up to and including termination. The Chief or executive head of the police force must then comply. Regardless of whether the Board orders the officer or employee's suspension for ten working days or less, the Board shall forthwith certify in writing the fact, together with the cause of the discipline, to the executive head of the police force, who will proceed as may be required under Charter Section 119, but consistent with this Section.
The Board must promptly notify complainants of the status, progress, and disposition of their complaints. If the Board determines that the complaint warrants no action, the Board shall so notify the complainant. The Board will ensure, through the Department of Law as appropriate, that complainants' viewpoints are heard in any arbitration process following discipline.
Termination will be the presumed discipline for racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigrant, national-origin-based, or otherwise bigoted conduct, slurs, or language used in the course and scope of employment, or, if the officer or Division of Police employee's language is on a matter of public concern, where that officer or Division of Police employee's interest in commenting on matters of public concern does not outweigh the City's interests, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. The pertinent considerations for weighing these interests include whether the language (1) impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, (2) has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, (3) impedes the performance of the officer or employee's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise, or (4) undermines the City or Division of Police's mission.
In assessing the first consideration, City officials must consider the possibility that inaction by the City could be seen as an endorsement of the speech and impair future discipline of similar derogatory statements. In assessing the second consideration, City officials must consider whether the language is reasonably likely to have a detrimental impact on close working relationships within the police force or undermine trust. In assessing the fourth consideration, City officials must consider the need for the City to preserve the appearance of impartiality, the role and responsibilities of the officer or employee, and, when the role is public facing, whether the danger to successful functioning of the Division of Police will increase. This includes making a reasonable prediction about whether the language, when known to the public, would harm the Division of Police's mission; or undermine the community's respect, trust, or perception that the police enforce the law fairly, even-handedly, and without bias.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, consistent with Charter Section 115-5, the Community Police Commission, at its discretion, has the authority to make the final decision for the City about whether to impose officer discipline where it was not imposed, or to increase discipline when the Commission deems it insufficient. The Chief, executive head of the police force, and the Board must notify complainants of their right to seek ultimate review by that Commission.
Nothing in this Section may be interpreted as depriving city employees of due process.
The Chief, the executive head of the police force, the Board, and Community Police Commission must timely and consistently notify complainants about, and afford complainants, the right to be heard in every step of the disciplinary process, without limitation, from investigation, and through hearings, reviews and internal appeals, arbitrations, and court proceedings. Complainants cannot be excluded from being informed about or from being heard during these processes, and have a right to intervene.
The Board, complainants, and any City taxpayer may take legal action to enforce all terms in all Charter sections related to the Board. The Board may opt, if it deems the Director of Law to have a conflict of interest, to engage outside counsel at the Department of Law's expense.
(Effective November 2, 2021)
Loading...