FAQS
What is the Burlington City Charter and why are we trying to change the City Charter?
The Burlington City Charter is the law granted through the Vermont State Legislature that specifies the rights and privileges of the city. It grants the city, its officials, and its individual bodies their authority and power, and outlines local government processes, rules and regulations.
As of right now, the Burlington City Charter grants the chief of police the sole authority to fire officers on the Burlington Police Department (BPD). It is partially because of this provision that our city has faced systemic barriers preventing the removal of violent police officers Corey Campbell and Joseph Corrow. This profound injustice has brought public attention to the reality that we currently have a system in which our police department investigates its own officer’s misconduct, through internal processes that are largely shielded from the public. Through a Charter change we can begin the work of restructuring our flawed and harmful system, and ensure the right of our community to remove violent officers in the future. The contract between the Burlington Police Officer’s Association the City dictates investigatory, disciplinary, and record retention procedures in cases of officer misconduct. A change to the City Charter would over rule those sections of the contract that prevent accountability and transparency.
Why did we need a petition?
The people of Burlington can get a change to the city charter on the ballot by petitioning 5% of registered Burlington voters. During 2020, we showed up repeatedly at City Council and in conversations with elected officials, to give input on and show support for Community Control of Police. The Council actually voted to put an almost identical version of the Community Oversight Board question on the March 2021 ballot, but then the mayor vetoed this City Council decision. This petition, signed by 2000+ registered Burlington voters, allowed us to put this proposal on the ballot through people power.
Won’t this “undermine the successful rebuilding of the Burlington Police Department”?
This oversight board would not hold the police department to a *higher* standard—it would help ensure we are holding them to the current standard. There *must* be “just cause” for any discipline. (see lines 11-14)
Why are we implying Burlington has to choose between (a) trust that the police department is held to standard behavioral protocols OR (b) a staffed police department? We can have both. Let’s remember that use of force incidents increased by 18% from 2020-2021 and use of force is wildly disproportionately affecting Black folks in our community (see city of burlington dashboard). We can have safety for everyone AND accountability for everyone. As James Lyall from ACLU-VT wrote recently, “It is a cynical argument and a false choice, and Vermonters should reject it. The fact is, we can have both safer communities and more accountable police.”
This provides *more support* for officers—not less. The Police Commission is designed to make sure officers are well-supported, through training, research, and innovation. While it is charged with trying to investigate complaints, it not only is structured in a way that makes this difficult, but focusing on these investigations reduces the Commission’s capacity to focus on the elements of its role that are designed to support officers. Shifting the roles of investigation and discipline to the Oversight Board ensures that the Police Commission can focus its energy on efforts that ultimately support the police force. As Police Commissioner Melo Grant said in the second public hearing, “I have changed my mind and I support this ballot item strongly as a way to not only protect the citizens of Burlington but to protect the officers. To make sure that they get the support they need, to make sure that they get the training that they need. Sometimes discussing complaints is not about wanting punishment. Often it is not that at all. It is about saying, can we take a look at training and if training was provided before, what needs to be reviewed again, what additional coaching can help.” This isn’t anti-cop–it’s about providing the appropriate level of support and oversight. Other professionals in high stakes fields—doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so many others—have external oversight.
Despite all the narratives about “defunding” the police, the BPD was the only department that did not see a reduction in its budget during COVID and it has carried forward significant reserve funds to improve its operations.
Police retention was a problem during del Pozo’s tenure and long before. “Back in 2019, they had already had an extended period of time, maybe going back almost a decade… they had high high turnover in that department.” - Police Commissioner Melo Grant
Is it true that “the public, City Council and the Mayor will have no ability to check or limit the actions of the board”?
One of the first things the board will need to do is establish rules and regulations for its operation and it is very clearly stated that those rules and regulations will be deliberated on and must be approved by the City Council. (see line 149)
City Council can remove board members. The city charter includes a provision that a two-thirds majority of the City Council can vote to remove any "city officer or department head" who is "no longer effectively serving the city." This would apply to this board. (see section 129 of the city charter)
The City Council and the Mayor have tremendous control over the selection process. They select the organizations who pick the board. (These organizations are folks who have an interest in civil rights, immigrant rights, disability rights/mental health, racial equity, or social justice and also have an interest in the safety of the city and criminal justice reform–a large pool of potential community groups across the political spectrum. Think YMCA, the various youth centers, the ACLU-VT, the Vermont Racial Justice alliance, the Burlington Business Association, etc.) (see lines 84-88)
At its heart, this is a very misleading statement. NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement) is a premier expert on citizen oversight boards. NACOLE poses 8 values that define “meaningful” civilian oversight and the first value is *independence.* That means having independence from the police department they are overseeing as well as politicians–independence is a strength, not a flaw. They write, “In its broadest sense, it refers to an absence of real or perceived influence from law enforcement, political actors, and other special interests looking to affect the operations of the civilian oversight agency. In order to maintain legitimacy, an agency must be able to demonstrate the extent and impact of its independence from the overseen law enforcement agency — especially in the face of high-profile issues or incidents.” The board’s job is to be independent finders of whether or not police misconduct occurred and what the appropriate sanction should be.
The board must find “just cause” to impose discipline and due process is required by the constitution. It is guided by facts and law, not politics. The board’s decisions are reviewable by judges of the Vermont Superior Court and Vermont Supreme Court. This makes the board accountable to the constitution and the requirements of the charter.
Is it true that this board “has little to no public safety precedent” and that “no other American city has given a community board this level of authority”?
NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement) is a premier expert on citizen oversight boards. They state, “A key lesson that can be learned from history of oversight in the U.S. is that there is not necessarily any “best practice” in the creation of a civilian oversight of a law enforcement program. Rather, a jurisdiction should look for a “best-fit” model of oversight… Evidence that any one civilian oversight approach or mechanism is more effective than another other does not yet exist… Given these differences between cities and counties in the U.S., it is unlikely that no single model of oversight is going to work for all jurisdictions.” (Learn More). NACOLE advises communities to look for “best fit” that meets their specific needs and context–rather than looking for a “best practice” used by another city. In other words, any proposal that truly is thoughtful and adhering to the advice of national experts would actually most likely *not* be found in any other city.
There are 150+ cities that are doing versions of this kind of civilian oversight. In all the conversations Burlington has had around police accountability, this is the only proposal that has been put forward that is in alignment with ACLU of VT’s criteria for civilian oversight. This proposal is grounded in 5 pillars of accountability—power to discipline, power to investigate, independence, transparency, and representation.
Is it true that this board structure “has not been well-planned or reviewed or recommended by any city report or professional oversight expert”?
This proposal started in the charter change committee with Joan Shannon, Perri Freeman, and Jane Stromberg in 2020. Hundreds of hours of public forum testimonials happened (including 150+ people calling in to support it on Dec 7th of 2020 alone). It was deliberated on by our City Council and was *passed* by a vote of 7-5. After the Mayor vetoed it, small changes were made in response to feedback, and then neighbors spent over 2 years having conversations with their neighbors and got 2000+ signatures to get this on the ballot.
It has been legally vetted by a former city attorney.
It has the support of local experts like the ACLU of VT.
Why do we need this board if we already have an oversight body through the police commission? And haven’t there been efforts to strengthen the Police Commission in recent years?
The Police Commission is a seven-member volunteer board, appointed by the City Council. The Commission is tasked with exercising “the authority and responsibility for the management of the police department, its services and facilities.” The Police Commission is designed to make sure officers are well-supported, through training, research, and innovation. Focusing on investigations reduces the Commission’s capacity to focus on the elements of its role that are designed to support officers. Shifting the roles of investigation and discipline to the Oversight Board ensures that the Police Commission can focus its energy on efforts that ultimately support the police force.
Yes, there have been many media articles talking about all the improvements city leadership has made to the police department and police commission. Not one of these changes addressed the fundamental problem — the Police Chief has sole authority over discipline and that creates a situation where police are overseeing themselves. The Mayor himself acknowledged the severity of this problem in 2020 when he wrote, “I believe I was the first Burlington elected official to bring attention and concern, a year ago, to the near-absolute power of the Chief to impose discipline under our current system. Such monopoly of important authority is an aberration in our democratic system, it has contributed significantly to community distrust, and we are likely to face continued disputes over future disciplinary actions until this issue is addressed.” When you listen to City Councillors talk, across the political spectrum, everyone knows this is the fundamental problem but there has been no progress made on this issue in 2 years. Why?
The Police Commission has been given more responsibility--not more power. Until we fix the charter so that the Police Chief does not have sole authority, Police Commission decisions are advisory only.
Is it true that this board system “lacks basic protections to ensure the fairness and due process that all city employees deserve”?
The board must find “just cause” (see lines 11-14) to impose discipline and due process is required by the constitution. The board is guided by facts and law, not politics. The board’s decisions are reviewable by judges of the Vermont Superior Court and Vermont Supreme Court. This makes the board accountable to the constitution and the requirements of the charter.
Police officers have a right to due process that is protected and maintained within the proposal. They can appeal the Vermont Superior Court if they believe "just cause" does not exist to warrant discipline or removal (see lines 180-183).
Officers who are disciplined by the chief under the proposal have the same due process rights they currently have; nothing has been changed in that circumstance.
Is it true that the board will not require members to have “expertise in law enforcement, Human Resources, employee training, or any comparable experience” and that “people with any law enforcement experience would be prohibited from serving on the board”?
The proposal clearly says that the board is required “to attend and complete training sufficient to perform its duties.” (see line 191)
Look at our current Police Commission… do any of them have law enforcement experience? No. They are trained—just like this board will be.
While the board members cannot have been employed in law enforcement, staff of the investigative office can. The chief and others in law enforcement will still be consulted and provide guidance in the investigatory and hearing process. The board can still consider their advice and recommendations.
One of the big functions of this board is that it would help to build trust where it is lacking in our community, particularly among folks that have been historically marginalized by the police system. If the board could be made up of current or former officers, it would likely significantly undermine that trust. Imagine if some of the officers (Bellevance, Campbell and Corrow) folks were protesting about could make it onto the board. Furthermore, the board is meant to give the rest of the community a real seat at the table. Current and former officers already have mechanisms for providing input via the police union and current department. This proposal is crafted to include law enforcement voices throughout the investigation, hearing, and even the decision-consideration process.
Is it true that the board “could be filled by non-Burlington residents”?
The proposal clearly says all board members must be Burlington residents in order to qualify to be appointed. If a board member moves during their tenure on the board, they have the option of finishing their term, provided that they still reside in Chittenden County. (see line 81)
Is it true that “the charter change language… includes no cost projections for voters to consider”?
To project a budget, we would want to look at the actual number of complaints and do an assessment of the number of excessive force, etc. cases that exist and that are projected to exist because these are the cases the board would be taking on. (The proposal has the police chief and existing system taking on most of the lower impact cases.) With a better understanding of the projected "case load", we could project what it will take to have a functioning board and investigative office. Unfortunately, it is hard to make these estimates given that, at this time, the police chief and Mayor are the holders of the information necessary to make an estimate and are hostile to this proposal.
Overall, it might be helpful to note that, for the most part, investigations and discipline that the board and investigative office would be taking on are activities the city should be doing anyway--it is just moved to this new oversight body.
Why does the board have requirements around diversity?
The City’s own data shows that Black Burlingtonians are more likely to experience use of force by police: in 2021, the department’s use of force increased, and use of force against Black people accounted for 71% of this increase–while only 6% of Burlington’s population is Black. The proposal ensures that groups most impacted by policing, as in this example, are included in creating transparency and accountability within policing.
Is it true that if voters pass this, the language is not able to be changed?
Yes, the City Council will not be able to change it. But the State Legislature will have a heavy editing hand and it will ultimately need to deliberate on it and approve it.
Why the word “control”?
The word “control” is used to emphasize that the Community Control Board will have actual power and authority over the police department, vs operating in a purely advisory capacity.