Town board members discuss adjustments to the structure of the New Paltz Police Commission

New Paltz Town Council members raised some hackles when they decided to call a special meeting for January 5, just to look at the part of the town code that describes and empowers a citizen police commission. While not made immediately clear, it appears that the motivation for this review is to address perceived conflicts between this chapter of code and state law, as well as what’s in the contract with the police union members. 

Several commissioners were present for at least part of the meeting, and were eager to find out why this topic was worthy of a special meeting at all. Gotto did eventually address that question, albeit toward the end of a two-hour review; most members of the public had by that point left. Those residents who spoke during the public comment portion did not have any information about the intent of the meeting, and seem to have been concerned that this could lead to another retrenchment in oversight. To that end, they took that time to remind council members that the point of a citizens’ commission is to provide oversight to a group of individuals who are seen as tending toward secrecy and becoming insular, due to the nature of the work. While officers in New Paltz have not become embroiled in controversy to the extent that these issues have been revealed in some other departments around the country, it was acknowledged, a lack of scrutiny can create an environment for problems. 

Stana Weisburd, who is the liaison to the commission from the village board, asked for an opportunity to be included in some of the executive session discussions at commission meetings.  Most police activity takes place within the village, Weisburd noted.  Town council members seemed open to clarifying when a liaison from the village or town board might be invited to participate.

Commissioners were eager to provide insights about what it’s been like working under this set of rules for three years, but this was not the time for dialogue. Instead, it was noted that any changes to town code must be preceded by a public hearing, and commissioners were promised that a joint meeting of the police commission and the town council would be scheduled as well. 

The history of the town’s police commission reveals shifts in the philosophy of appropriate accountability for those empowered to enforce laws. A commission was first created in the 1990s during the Lent administration, when concerns about the actions of the police chief warranted having a group of volunteers tasked with catching corruption. When Susan Zimet was supervisor in the aughts, council members took on that role, arguing that since they were ultimately responsible as elected officials, they should be the ones reviewing expenditures and officer conduct. Neil Bettez wanted to reinstate the prior commission structure, but with the chief at the time publicly expressing satisfaction with town council members doing that work, instead sought to reintroduce volunteers by creating a citizens’ advisory panel. That scheme collapsed during its first big test, a review of conduct by Robert Knoth during an encounter with Ellenville resident Paul Echols in the wake of an alcohol-fueled fight on Main Street; Knoth retired soon thereafter, and it was determined that the advisory panel’s creation was rife with legal problems. With heightened national scrutiny on police conduct after the killing of George Floyd, the full commission responsibilities were shifted back to citizen volunteers prior to Bettez leaving office. 

With Amanda Gotto now shifting from an appointed to an elected supervisor for the town, going over sections of code to flag practical problems appears to be a priority. During a line-by-line discussion during the meeting, board members discussed ways that the code’s wording is unclear, or may contradict civil service law or the contract with union members — both of which take precedence over town code in this case. The contract, for example, makes numerous references to the “employer” having powers, but some of that authority is given to police commissioners in the code. It’s possible that the final clause of section 34, under which those commissioners “shall also have such additional powers, duties and responsibilities not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter as may lawfully be delegated to it” is enough to cover some of those concerns, but that’s one of several sections that may well be discussed with an attorney to make sure. 

Council members were also of one mind that they were uncomfortable with the fact that this chapter lacks of statement of intent, which is common in town code. A mission statement for the commission was adopted by resolution, but that isn’t seen as carrying the same weight as putting it into the law books. 

In the end, it looks like this special meeting is the first step toward adjusting around the edges of the commission structure, a process that could take some months to complete. Citizens concerned about ongoing relations with town police officers will doubtless watch each step closely.