Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Response to Additional Community Questions provided by the Campaign for Justice, Safety & Jobs on July 14, 2017 Pursuant to Consent Decree Entered April 7, 2017 Regarding the Police Department of Baltimore City

Submitted by: Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr., Partner Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP 7 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202-1636 Phone: 410.347.9453 [email protected]

1. Are you willing to fully respect and include BALTIMORE victims of police brutality and their families in your process by having them be active members of your process, not just “community meetups?” Yes. The Consent Decree details numerous provisions to prevent police from harming individuals, to protect individuals who have been harmed by a police officer as they seek due process and justice, to ensure that the Baltimore Police Department impartially and thoroughly investigates allegations of misconduct by police officers, and to ensure that effective civilian oversight of the Baltimore Police Department is institutionalized to prevent and address police misconduct, including but not limited to improper use of force and other actions that may cause physical harm, violate human rights or otherwise constitute "police brutality." As Monitor, the Whiteford Taylor Preston team will work with BPD, its union and fraternal organizations, the Community Oversight Task Force and community organizations and individuals to ensure that BPD implements the training, policies and actions that will prevent all prohibited forms of police misconduct and brutality. We will help BPD and all stakeholder organizations ensure that individuals who allege police misconduct and/or brutality know their rights, know how to effectively file a complaint and know that such complaints are addressed in the thorough, impartial and professional manner required by the Consent Decree. We will work with BPD, DOJ and the community to ensure that the Monitoring Plan approved by the Parties and Court seeks and includes the active participation of victims of crimes committed by police, with all the due process and inclusion afforded to every individual and group willing to inform and advance the goals and objectives of the Consent Decree. As such our Monitoring Plan will propose the following key elements for consideration, feedback and acceptance from the Parties, Community and Court: •

Full access of the Monitor to all complaints of police misconduct (including but not limited to police brutality), internal affairs case management systems, databases and information (to include BPD's early intervention system), case folders, recorded interviews, disciplinary reports and outcomes and analyses, as well as all documentation submitted to, reviewed by and created for or by the civilian review board;

•

Routing of all allegations of police misconduct or other complaints involving BPD that may be made by an individual to the Monitor to the appropriate units and/or individuals within BPD, the State’s Attorney's Office or otherwise as required by law;

•

An Open Door Policy and Outreach Program where community members – to include victims of police misconduct and brutality – may interact with the Monitor's team to give their perspectives, proposed strategies, actions and resources to build BPD's capabilities to prevent and address police misconduct and brutality, with coordinated efforts to connect those individuals who wish to engage with BPD with representatives of BPD who are and/or will be trained, equipped and otherwise prepared to engage the community as required by the Consent Decree;

•

Proactive public disclosure of BPD Internal Affairs, External Affairs and Supervision policies, practices and performance in coordination with the COTF, Maryland law and federal law. We will encourage BPD to be proactive and legally compliant in making such disclosures and may include such lawful public disclosures that are appropriate to our work as Monitor in our Real Time Compliance Dashboard, through our open door and scheduled meetings with individual community members and groups, and in our reports. All such efforts will be with the intent of building these capabilities and transferring the technology, practices and techniques developed in our role as Monitor to BPD for use by BPD both during the Consent Decree and to support continuous Civilian Oversight of BPD after the Consent Decree terminates.

2



2. How will you ensure that you are truly “independent” and that no member of your team has a “mutually beneficial relationship?” An overarching goal of the Consent Decree is for the Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore community to mutually benefit from the community policing and problem-oriented policing principles and practices that reduce crime and police misconduct, while institutionalizing "lawful and effective" policing in Baltimore. The Consent Decree is not an annuity or jobs program for any person or organization – including the Monitor or any team member – but a comprehensive remedy of limited duration intended to improve the lives of ALL who live in, work in and/or visit Baltimore. As Monitor, Whiteford Taylor Preston will maintain rigorous independence and objectivity through the principles and strategic practices that we have detailed in our proposal. This starts with a team of individuals who each provide decades of specifically relevant problem-solving experience, including experience in creating and reporting on data-driven strategies that contribute to less death, injury, waste and abuse in diverse and challenging urban environments. We are a Baltimore-based team that has worked in the community long before and will continue to work in the community long after the Consent Decree. We believe that our success can and will be measured by the extent to which we achieve compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, and that any conflict, issue or other circumstance that threatens to undermine the objectivity and effectiveness of any team member also threatens our ability to achieve such compliance. As we have stated clearly in our proposal, any team member who violates a policy of the Monitor or Consent Decree – to include misrepresenting the Monitor’s appropriately limited role as defined and governed by the Consent Decree – will be removed from the team. As described in more detail in our proposal, we will be transparent in our work with the Parties and Community, and thus help to ensure that the only "mutually beneficial" aspects of our service as Monitor will be in successful implementation of the Consent Decree. We believe it is highly relevant that our counsel to the Monitor, Harry Johnson, and our team members Erek Barron and Sidney Butcher have held leadership roles in both the Maryland State Bar Association and national Bar Associations with a demonstrated knowledge of the laws of Maryland and ethical legal practices. In addition, as one of the country’s leading Internal Affairs and police corruption experts, with experience earned across decades of leadership and consulting, our Deputy Monitor Charles Campisi has an unparalleled knowledge of how to identify, investigate, discipline and refer for prosecution violations of ethical practices in a police environment.

3) The Community Oversight Task Force has a very important job to do – making critical recommendations on policies including the Civilian Review Board in just 11 months. Will you provide the resources and data they need to make informed recommendations? The Baltimore Police Department's Compliance, Accountability and External Affairs Division (CAEAD) is "responsible for enacting reforms resulting from the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree in a manner that improves working conditions for police officers, increases public safety for communities, and strengthens the relationship between law enforcement and citizens." (see: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/department-justice) As such, the CAEAD is a key organizer of BPD resources and data for all aspects of the Consent Decree. This includes effectively organizing and providing information to the Community, the Monitor and to the Community Oversight Task Force in their work to make critical recommendations on policies including the Civilian Review Board. The development and effectiveness of the CAEAD is a linchpin in the Baltimore Police Department's efforts and ability to comply with the Consent Decree and to institutionalize the lawful and effective policing that will continue to benefit Baltimore after termination of the Consent Decree.

3

As Monitor, Whiteford Taylor will review, validate and supplement as necessary data, information and evidence that is provided to us by the CAEAD. We recognize that there has been recent state legislation – including legislation advocated by CJSJ and others – that has advanced civilian oversight of BPD. We will work with the CAEAD, COTF and BPD Internal Affairs unit to ensure that BPD policies and practices regarding civilian oversight conform with such Maryland State law and the Consent Decree. We will also provide technical assistance as needed to help advance the capabilities of the COTF, the Civilian Review Board and the BPD Internal Affairs Division. Our team includes Phil Lynn, who wrote model polices for over 20 years for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); Charles Campisi, who for nearly 20 years commanded the Internal Affairs Bureau of the NYPD; Frank Dwyer, who is currently on the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board; and Thurman Zollicoffer, Erek Barron and Sidney Butcher – all of whom served in the Baltimore State’s Attorney's office and are highly knowledgeable of the laws and procedures of prosecuting police misconduct. 4)

How will you respond if the BPD does not adhere to the provisions in the consent decree?

The Monitor's job is to objectively review BPD's compliance and assess outcomes while engaging the parties, community and Court in an informed, credible and constructive process that builds capability at BPD to advance its meaningful compliance with and achievement of sustainable outcomes required by the Consent Decree. We recognize that BPD did not wait for approval of the Consent Decree by the U.S. District Court of Maryland on April 7, 2017, to materially advance certain reforms required by the Consent Decree, and is not waiting for appointment of the Monitor to collect, organize, analyze and present data, information and evidence that may eventually be reviewed by the Monitor and further considered by the Community and Court. Likewise, we recognize that community organizations such as those organized through and by the Campaign for Justice, Safety and Jobs, as well as numerous other community stakeholders that include non-profit, academic and civic organizations and also government stakeholder organizations at the city, state and federal level, have made material efforts to ensure that successful implementation of the Consent Decree will yield sustainable outcomes that improve quality of life throughout Baltimore. We further recognize that, while numerous provisions of the Consent Decree will, by definition, not be in technical compliance for some time, the Consent Decree has certain goals that must be measured and achieved even as BPD continues to contend with and address the very harm and waste that the Consent Decree is intended to counter. As described more completely in our proposal, Whiteford Taylor & Preston's Straight A Methodology, Real-Time Compliance Dashboard and Strategic Practices are tools to capture and communicate achievement of intermediate and, eventually, full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree. Our Straight A Methodology assesses the Awareness, Activity and Accountability of individual BPD officers, units and BPD as a whole for each operative section and paragraph of the Consent Decree. Our RealTime Compliance Dashboard will substantively communicate compliance status with all stakeholders. Our Project Management Systems & Practices create efficiencies in document review and project scheduling while greatly reducing wasteful administrative activity, unnecessary procedural conflicts and contingencies that, absent proactive management, can make the cost of a Consent Decree, in terms of both money and time, soar. Where “BPD does not adhere to the provisions in the Consent Decree,” our response will be as follows: •

Clearly communicate BPD’s shortcomings in failing to adhere to a section or a paragraph of the Consent Decree with credible and objectively presented evidence and expert analysis

•

Provide a clear and objective path – to include appropriate standards and outcome metrics – by which BPD can earn compliance with each section and paragraph of the Consent Decree

4

•

Organize communication channels, tools and protocols where our expert team as well as community and stakeholder experts can provide material Technical Assistance to build capability at BPD to earn compliance with each section and paragraph of the Consent Decree

5) What percentage of your budget is allocated for community engagement and partnerships vs. the percentage allocated for your teams' salaries? Our detailed budget has been developed according to the goals, tasks and requirements of the Consent Decree. It has been organized based on our interrelated Strategic Practices of Proactive Discovery & Stakeholder Engagement, Clear and Consistent Methods, Metrics & Standards, and Constructive Technical Assistance It has been further subdivided by the tasks that our various team members will do to engage the Parties and Community to gather, analyze, report and otherwise communicate evidence of BPD’s compliance status. As such, our work to engage the community and form partnerships is fundamentally included in all the core activities specified in our proposed budget. We have explicitly identified the following tasks that collectively form 21.14% of our overall five-year 1 budget: •

Working collaboratively with BPD, DOJ, the Community & Court to anticipate, avoid & solve problems (4.31% of total 5-year budget)

•

Develop & Maintain Project Management Portal & Real Time Compliance Dashboard (4.33% of total 5-year budget)

•

Working collaboratively with BPD, COTF & DOJ to engage the Community & address their concerns (8.18% of total 5-year budget)

•

Develop & Maintain Monitor Website (and Real Time Compliance Dashboard) (4.3% of total 5year budget)

Our proposed Monitor, Thurman Zollicoffer, Counsel to the Monitor, Harry Johnson, Community Outreach and Communications lead Erek Barron and Advisors Dr. Cheryl Watkins, Dr. Lenneal Henderson and James DeGraffenreidt are based in Baltimore and maintain relationships with non-profit and academic organizations throughout Baltimore. In conjunction with the nationally recognized policing experts on our team, our Baltimore-based professionals will utilize a compliment of unparalleled Baltimore City, State of Maryland and Federal government, economic development, social justice, academic and other capabilities in Baltimore to engage the resources, expertise of individuals and groups who seek to advance and institutionalize the goals and objectives of the Consent Decree. If, how and when any of these parties require financial compensation, we will work with the Parties, and if necessary the Court, to ensure that any such compensation to such Parties that may flow through or

1

All percentages herein include fees and expenses and are calculated based on the Budget Plan’s proactive management of Contingencies/Risks including: a) the Availability of reliable evidence, intelligence and analysis; b) the Availability of the Parties to Engage; c) Material Disputes among the Parties and d) Material Changes in the Consent Decree. The more that the Parties substantively cooperate with each other and efficiently address the numerous technical and organizational challenges presented by the Consent Decree, the more time and money may potentially be spent by the Parties and the Monitor constructively engaging the community. The combined percentages of the four categories listed above range from 18.36% to 25.14% of our yearly budgets based on the substantive requirements and schedules of the Consent Decree where BPD conducts its own Outcome Assessments after Year Three, relative differences in the work of the Monitor related to the Comprehensive Reassessment required by the Consent Decree after Year Two and the application for full and effective compliance in Year Five. While we have made every effort to construct a useful and accurate budget, we recognize that these budgets will be determined and will change based on the substantive priorities of the Parties, Community and Court.

5

otherwise be effected by our firm is approved by the Parties, appropriately calculated and contributes to the effective and efficient advancement of the goals and objectives of the Consent Decree.

6