This official statement comes from the Elect.Rauterkus.com campaign. Please post comments on the associated "discussion" page. Only campaign workers should edit this page.
Put wind in the sails of the Citizen Police Review Board.Edit
The board should have a full slate of members.
The board could have deputy members who are given extra insights into the board's process and meetings, but who are not of voting status. These interested individuals can be self-selecting.
Like the other authorities, some measure of democracy needs to be injected into the board's sustained operation. Members might need to be put up for an election to continue service on the board after being appointed and serving for a period of a year or two.
The board meetings need to be put onto cable television, webcast and with open as much as possible.
An ethics policy for the board needs to be evalutated, debated and made public. That can be an internal process among the board and its staffers. Matters such as conflict of interest in terms of who should be on the board, and not, need more clarifications.
A best practice document need to be created and illustrated to the general community. This PR campaign, of sorts, can educate as to powers, responsibilities and duties without getting into specific cases and personalities. Most in Pittsburgh are clueless as to the operations and vibrancy of the board and its role in our public safety process.
None of the members on city council have any ownership in terms of committee oversight of the board. It has not been an assignment that any wanted, perhaps. When everyone is in charge, then nothing gets done and accountability is less. One person on council should be assigned to be a stewart. Perhaps this stewart should be the domain of the City Council President if none others are assigned to the role. Furthermore, it might be in the public's best interest to have someone other than the chair of the public safety committee be the watchdog on this board so as to have a division of powers.