During a hearing in federal court, Cleveland officials and the monitor assessing the city’s progress on the police consent decree continued their years-long dispute over the city’s work on police reform and the monitor’s role.
The city, monitor and attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice were in federal court Tuesday for a hearing on the monitor’s 16th Semiannual Report on the consent decree.
The report includes 15 areas where the city made progress, including expansion of the community and problem-oriented policing program and the hiring of a civilian superintendent of internal affairs and an inspector general.
But the monitor wrote that the city has “doubled down on its disputes with the monitoring team.”
“It is our sincere hope that the City does that which the residents of Cleveland expect: focus solely on achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, rather than pursuing a strategy of litigation against this settlement,” wrote the monitor, Karl Racine.
Judge Solomon Oliver is considering two recent disputes between the city and monitor.
Starting in 2023, almost immediately after Racine took over as monitor, the law department began delaying payment of the monitor’s bills.
In August 22, 2023, Cleveland's Law Director Mark Griffin sent an email that appeared to question one team member’s activities in Cleveland, including time spent observing a police department Force Review Board meeting.
“As with the April 28, 2023, bill by Abby Jae Wilhelm for 6.00 hours for 'Monitor Force Review Board,' the issue would be whether the City should pay either the expenses or the hourly rate of a MT member for pure observation time,” wrote Griffin.
The many disputed invoices have resulted in multiple meetings with Judge Oliver, who said during Tuesday’s hearing he plans to reach a decision soon.
More recently, the city filed a motion demanding the monitor turn over the “methodology” it uses to determine whether the city is meeting consent decree requirements.
The city argues that this step is required under the consent decree. The monitor disagrees, arguing the requirement only applies to certain types of in-depth, data-heavy assessments, like ongoing use of force and search and seizure assessments.
“Put simply, the City’s new protest about the process for arriving at ratings for the Semiannual Report seems to be part of its new strategy to focus on the work of the Monitor, rather than devote all resources on compliance,” said Racine.
The monitor also mentioned in its report that it had requested details on the city’s handling of internal complaints filed by Cleveland police officers following the Community Police Commission’s release of open human resources cases dating back to 2015.
“The city has made claims that in order for us to receive such documents and data it must first receive a methodology related to the inquiry,” said monitoring team member Abby Wilhelm.
The monitor also downgraded the city's progress on work at the Office of Professional Standards, which investigates civilian complaints against police.
The office was interfered with by the city, despite its status as an independent agency, and it remains unclear whether former Administrator Marcus Perez, who left OPS earlier this month, resigned or fired, said Racine.
City officials disputed there is any doubt about how Perez left his position, saying he submitted a verbal resignation to the Civilian Police Review Board.
“I stand here to report the state of the police accountability system in Cleveland is strong, moreover, it’s resilient,” said Police Accountability Team Executive Director Leigh Anderson.
Oliver said he plans to act more quickly in the future to resolve disputes between the monitor and the city.
In apparent response to complaints from some members of the public and Cleveland City Council about the cost of the consent decree, Oliver said no one should be surprised it’s been an expensive process.
“Most consent decrees take a long time across the United States. There’s a lot in them. It's important work,” said Oliver, adding that the city committed to the reforms when it entered into the agreement with the Department of Justice in 2015.
