IOWA NEBRASKA NAACP/IOWA JUSTICE ALLIANCE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017
2:30 P.M.
Participants:
Betty C. Andrews; Anthony Arrington; Ron Corbett;Dedric Doolin; Shelby Humbles; Wayne Jerman; Jason Robinson; Circe Stumbo; Jerry Vander Sanden; Stacey Walker;and Reggie Ward
Guests and Observers:
Derryck Dean, US Department of Justice CRS; Makayla Tendall, Gazette reporter; and Gazette photographer
Notes by:
Circe Stumbo, community member
Homework review:
After discussion on the invitation for participating entities to submit several sentences regarding their involvement with this group and the progress made for the end of October press release, the group agreed to a new deadline for statements of October 18.
Doolin provided information to Chief Judge Grady re: sections offered by the County Attorney. Chief Judge Grady was asked if he could be a part of the process. He said he could not be an ongoing participant, but he could come to a meeting and speak to the group.
Old Business:
Robinson handed out Iowa Code Chapter 801, Iowa Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that in a previous meeting Vander Sanden was mentioning the term “special prosecutor” or “substitute prosecutor.” Robinson pointed to section 801.4, which defines “prosecuting attorney.” This is where he found the term “substitute attorney.” Vander Sanden pointed to Chapter 331.754, which describes the procedure to follow to have someone assume the powers of the county attorney. Paragraph 2 refers a desire to take the County Attorney entirely out of the equation and paragraph 7 refers to a desire to supplement the County Attorney. Robinson also discussed grand jury section. Vander Sanden pointed to Iowa Code section 331.756 that lays out duties of the county attorney. After some back and forth, Walker noted this was not on the agenda and the group continued on.
Walker was to try to secure funding for someone to provide implicit bias trainings for law enforcement and the justice system. He reported that he identified funds in the Linn County budget and an expert to bring in to provide trainings, Dr. Evelyn Carter, UCLA. Dr. Carter works with the Ventura County and Los Angeles County County Attorneys Offices. She will cover her travel expenses as part of the agreement. Vander Sanden indicated that he has an alternativeway to receive implicit bias trainings. He recalled that he was agreeable to his office undergoing implicit bias training on September 13. On September 15, he learned that the agenda of his professional association’s November fall conference includes implicit bias training. Two presenters will be sharing the time on that agenda: Bill Stetzer, Assistant District Attorney in Charlotte, NC, and Rachel Godsil, Professor of Law at Seton Hall (Vander Sanden had stated she was at Rutgers). The two presentations are specifically designed for prosecutors. Both presentation have been reviewed and approved by Iowa Supreme Court on continuing legal education. Fifteen hours of continuing education are required every year; three hours every-other year are required to be on the topic of ethics. This training would count toward those requirements. They were selected by Prosecuting Attorney Training Coordinator, which is the state entity responsible for continuing education. Vander Sanden generally participates in the spring conference but is considering attending the fall conference because of these training opportunities. Vander Sanden indicated he did not know of the work Walker was doing to arrange for Dr. Carter to provide a training. He first learned of it on October 2 from an email by Walker. On October 3, he learned the Carter training was on the Board of Supervisors agenda for consideration and approval. Vander Sanden also stated he believed an online training is better for him and his staff if they are unable to attend the conference training. Walker indicated the research demonstrates online trainings are not as effective and that this particular training has significant problems.
Walker apologized to Vander Sanden for his initial reaction to Vander Sanden’s messages about the trainings. He indicated that he had understood Vander Sanden to be stating that he would not agree to a training and was trying to scuttle the effort after Walker had reported to this group twice about the progress on securing funds. The training being proposed was not ideal, while Dr. Carter’s work is supported by the National Science Foundation. Walker indicated that if Vander Sanden was still open to having Dr. Carter come, the Board is still interested in funding it.
The group deliberated the merits of different types of trainings, with concern expressed about the effectiveness of trainings.
Walker asked if Vander Sanden has any idea how many staff will be able to attend the conference. Vander Sanden responded he is confident a majority of criminal prosecutors will be available.
Walker offered a compromise to Vander Sanden: For staff and attorneys unable to attend the conference, instead of taking the online training module, would you be open to having Dr. Carter do an in-person training for those who cannot attend in November—and anyone else who wants to—by a renowned expert?
Vander Sanden replied that he wants to wait to see how the training goes at the November conference and to see if it will be offered again in the spring or sometime throughout the year.
Andrews offered to get Dr. Carter’s training approved for continuing education credits. Vander replied that it’s not just the subject matter, but they already are there at the conference. Walker indicated that is okay if the training is superior; participants expressed concern that short presentations at a conference do not constitute powerful training.
Andrews expressed concern about the quality of the implicit bias trainings being offered.
The discussion was closed with no resolution.
Mr. Darryck Dean, Conciliation Specialist, Community Relations Services (CRS), US Department of Justice, then spoke to the group. CRS is a service to mediate community disputes. One of the outcomes of their service is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). He described their process and shared example MOUs. If we worked with CRS, the process would need to be confidential; media cannot be present. There is no single timeline for a process like this; sometimes it can take 1-3 meetings and other times it can be an extended process. Though Dean does not know this particular group well, it seems like it probably would not be done in 30 days, but maybe by December or January. Andrews expressed a concern with the term “mediate,” concerned that it signals different sides. Dean offered that the process should be seen as a celebration of coming together; the spirit is one of working together.
The next step would be to meet with members of the group, identify agreements, draft them, draft an agenda for the 25th, talk about priorities, and work through them. Dean would be working behind the scenes to get everyone in the right mindset to reach agreements and prepare so meetings themselves are as productive as possible.
Dean has a scheduling conflict on November 8.
The group discussed the need for statements from participants for an October 25 press release. The deadline to submit statements is October 18. Andrews and Walkers will pull together statements into a draft document and share it to the group for approval. Chief McHale already submitted a statement, which was shared with participants. Other institutions were asked if they would submit statements. It was reiterated that the group had previously agreed this is a check-in of the process the group has undertaken. We would craft one document with all the statements married together, on NAACP letterhead. The group had not yet decided how to distribute the press release; this would be decided at the October 25 meeting. The group discussed whether individual entities should put out their own individual statements or whether we would agree to one, unified statement, with agreement that a common statement would be ideal.
The group discussed the schedule for upcoming meetings and whether to engage Mr. Dean. Concerns about transparency were addressed.
The group agreed they would finalize a press statement at the October 25, which will be from 2:30-4:30 pm. The group also will vote at that time on when to have meetings moving forward. The goal is that the press release would be out on October 26.
1