����6�Ͽ������

PROVIDENCE – A divided House committee on Tuesday approved a proposed rewrite of the state's police misconduct law, that evolved over several bumpy years out of outrages near and far, including the 2020 murder of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

The" among those voting against the bill which, in their view does not go far enough.

Before the voting began, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns sent the committee members a letter that called the legislation "a significant step forward in addressing longstanding concerns," in that it will "enhance public trust and accountability while providing a framework that respects the rights and responsibilities of our law enforcement professionals."

But Rep. Leonela Felix, D-Pawtucket, told The Journal that while she appreciates "the work that has been done in the last two years to get to where we are right now...it's built on the false premise that this equates to justice and it does not."

"All we want to see in the bill is a carve-out where if an officer is accused of [deadly] force in violation of departmental rules or procedures, that those officers can be fired by their chiefs,'' long before a trial may play out and, after it, a hearing by the newly-expanded "LEOBOR" panels that would be created by the proposed rewrite of the state's "Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights."

"If this bill is passed today and tomorrow, God forbid, something happens to one of our community members, this bill will not save them and this bill will not bring accountability," said Felix, vowing to back a revision to the bill when it hits the House floor on Thursday.

While not a member of the caucus opposing the bill, Rep. Edith Ajello, D-Providence, also voted against it because "I don't think that it would address some of the issues that we've seen in Rhode Island and nationally." She ticked off the names of the Rhode Island police officers accused in one case of shooting an unarmed teenager while off-duty and, in another, of assaulting a handcuffed man.

"My experience is that when we do something like this, we don't come back to it for a decade or more," said Ajello, who was first elected to the House in 1992.

What does the bill do?

The legislation now headed to the full House for a vote is the result of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations between House and Senate leaders, the police unions, the police chiefs and "other interested parties" over proposed fixes to the "Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights" that limits what police chiefs can say or do when their officers are accused of misconduct.

The matching House and Senate bills would:

• expand the so-called LEOBOR hearing panels from three to five members
• extend the length of time a police chief could suspend an officer without pay
• free Rhode Island's police chiefs to comment publicly on evolving cases and release videos of all but the most minor violations, such as not wearing a hat or "tattoos visible.''
• It would also require the termination of any police officer who pleads guilty, no contest or enters what is called an "Alford plea" to a felony charge, including cases "where the officer makes an admission of sufficient facts to sustain a felony charge or charges." The city ultimately agreed to pay the former officer, Enrique Sosa, $500,000 to end a years-long legal battle.

Why does this matter?

In 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder while in the custody of Minneapolis police,  began meeting to look at the Rhode Island law that then-NAACP Providence branch president Jim Vincent called "the most pro-police bill of rights of any bill of rights in the nation.”

But the recommendations of that task force – initiated by the lone Black Senator at the time – went too far for some, not far enough for others.

And that has been the story every year since until now, while a number of high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct put a spotlight on the obstacles R.I.'s police chiefs and mayors face in their efforts to terminate officers accused of wrong-doing.

Reached late Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said the legislation on its way to a vote is the result of two years of hard work.

"And it's important because it's accountability and it's transparency," he said.

Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio also lauded the efforts that went into the compromise.

“Ever since our 2020 Senate commission on reforming the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights completed its work, I have been committed to finding a way forward that improves accountability and transparency while recognizing the uniquely difficult job facing law enforcement officers who keep our communities safe.

"I am extremely pleased we have reached a compromise that achieves these goal," he said.

Bumps along the way

The year began with the Senate approving virtually the same bill it approved last year, while key players in the House introduced a competing bill that was different in several key respects.

The expansion of the so-called LEOBOR hearing panels was part of a compromise embraced last year by the lead lobbyists for both the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association in the wake of a series of local controversies and national scandals over alleged police misconduct.

The question – who would have seats on the panel? As a starting point for this year's debate, the House and Senate both sought to add outsiders – but not the same outsiders – to the hearing panels now dominated by police officers judging the conduct of other police officers.

Specifics of the proposed compromise:

The expanded new hearing panels for each case would be made up of:

• a retired judge
• three active or retired members of law enforcement
• an attorney chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court "in consultation" with the court’s Committee on "Racial and Ethnic Fairness" and the Bar Association’s "Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion."

The proposed compromise would allow suspensions without pay for up to 14 days instead of the current two-day limit, but there would be two categories.

It would allow suspensions of up to five days for relatively minor infractions of department rules, and suspensions of 14 days for more serious complaints, such as use of excessive force, felonious conduct (including felony domestic assault), dishonesty in the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, including one involving another officer.

It would remove any doubt that when a law enforcement officer is charged or indicted for a felony, including a felony domestic violence, a chief can suspend the officer without pay.

It would also require the posting on a public website of "a report reflecting the status of all pending hearings, any decision, order or action taken indicating a guilty finding," with the name of officer, employing agency, and the misconduct alleged or committed but only in cases that resulted in suspensions for more than five days.

Does the compromise have a chance?

Among the political obstacles along the way: some members of the Rhode Island Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian-American and Pacific Islander Caucus wanted total repeal.

At a press conference earlier this year, Sen. Jonathon Acosta, D-Central Falls, cited the four priorities of the caucus. .

His list:

• Mandating the collection and annual reporting of data on cases that end up in LEOBOR hearings
• the removal of the "gag" rule for public comment by the accused and his or her police chief once a LEOBOR hearing has been initiated
• increasing potential suspensions − prior to the hearing − from two to 14 days for more serious allegations
• removing minor infractions entirely from the umbrella of the law.

On lifting the gag rule, he said: "This is an issue of public trust. It's often the case that the leadership [in] police departments wants to speak. In some cases, the accused officers want to speak ... and they're unable to because of the way that the current law is written."

And one more. "Many of us come from the urban core and specifically from Pawtucket and Providence, two communities that have had three very high profile cases of police misconduct in the last few years," Acosta said.

"We believe that it is often the case that someone should and could be fired from their job for conduct unbecoming of someone in that job regardless of whether or not it is criminal conduct," he said.

After seeing the final product, Felix said the caucus voted to oppose the bill.