This is the FCB Podcast Network. Great Jaw boot change at top Daw. We don't listen to Y'ALLU jaw, We don't listen to y'all. This the out Daw make the scream out loud. I got Sonda because the rockets in the crowd. I got Paul Tune in the Charge for the Outlaw. Tune in the Charge for the Outlaw. Welcome to a special edition of the Outlaws. This is dary Oda Kingpan Marrow. Don't forget to. Like us on Facebook at Facebook dot com, slash the Outlaws Radio, follow us on x and Instagram at the Outlaws Radio. It's a very special episode. We're covering a very important topic. Uh. It is the consent decree in the city of Cleveland. We have two guests. One is William Tarter, who is the president of the Cleveland branch of the NAACP and as well as a professor Ausha bille Hardaway to talk about this issue. So we're going to get into it right now. All right, we have two very special guests on the show today. We're going to be talking about something called the consent decree and we'll explain what that is and get into it in a little bit, in just a second. But first, Professor Asha Belle Hardaway and Will Tarter, the president of the Cleveland Branch of the NAACP, welcome to the show. To both of you. Appreciate it, thank thank you for having me. All right, so let's start here, a professor for people who may not be aware or not fully understand, can you explain what the consent decree is? Let's start there. Yeah. The consent Decree is a settlement in federal court between the City of Cleveland and the United States Department of Justice following the Department of Justices findings that the City of Cleveland engaged in or treated individuals that the police encountered with illegal policing. To keep it as simple as possible, right, that they did things that violated the constitution, not just once or twice, but in a pattern that was the pattern or practice of the Cleveland Police Department to violate individuals constitutional rights. As a result of those findings, the parties, the Department of Justice and the city entered into an agreement an enumerated like over four hundred paragraphs. The agreement is detailing what the city had to do in order to demonstrate that it had improved its practices and that the citizens and the community members that visit, work, and play in the city of Cleveland are in fact safe from illegal police practices. The consent decree came about as a result of activism folks from the NAACP and other local leaders calling attention to some of the most horrific and egregious acts of police and that the community was aware of. But the Department of Justices investigation found out even more than what community had known. And that's actually where I was going to Right after that, we'll talk a little bit about the NAACP's involvement in this process and what led up to the consent decree, and just talk about your the NAACP's role in this general. Well, thank you so much, Darbiel for having me on and I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. For the NACP, I want to take you back to two thousand and twelve and the then president of the Cleveland Branch NACP, the late Reverend Hilton O. Smith, wrote a letter to the Department of Justice asking for them to come to Cleveland to investigate the Cleveland Division of Police that was in twenty twelve, and the investigation was in twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, and so ultimately led to the consent degree in twenty fifteen. And so this is something that the NACP has been falling for many years since the consent decreased inception, and over the years have done a series of different commune engagement activities to be able to educate the community about the consent Decree as well as to follow the progress of the implementation of the Consent degree over the years. And so let's fast forward to now where we're at now, which is what's bringing this conversation today. So just tell people, like where we are now in that process the consent decree. There are folks who want the consent decree to go away, So just kind of catch folks up on where we are today. So today I want to take you back to February of this year, there was a joint filing with the Department of Justice and the City of Cleveland requesting to be released from the consent Decree. So it was a motion to terminate and that is something that was a surprise to the Cleveland branch and ACP, and we were very concerned about that request, and so for us, we released a statement that expresses our concern in terms of the issues that we have in terms of things that are yet to be accomplished with the consent decrease implementation. And so for the NACP, we release that statement. There were other organizations who released statements expressing their concern as well. That is before the judge currently, and he has not made a decision on that. The monitoring team who is overseeing the implementation of the Consent Degree has made a request to the community if they are interested in providing input on the joint motion to terminate that they can email the Cleveland Consent Decree monitor by Monday, April sixth, and they will take that input by Monday. And so that's where we stand at this moment. So if you can touch on a little bit about what some of your concerns, what the NAACP's concerns are about the potential removal of the consent Decree, I think that would be very helpful for people who who are listening who don't know where they are on this. Because you hear things about the consent decree. It's been around for a long time. You hear about the. Expenses and stuff like that. So talk a little bit about what the NAACP's concerns are with the potential removal. So there's a few things. One of the things that we believe is very important is understanding what's happening at the local level, but also what's happening at the national level. So there's two mantage points for us as organization. One is the tracking of the consent decree itself and the sustained compliance and some of the things that we're looking for in terms of the compliance with the consent Decree, but also the structures that are in place that will make sure that the reforms are accountable and sustainable. So this is something that we want to see the reforms in place for the long term, and the consent Decree allows us to see the progress of those reforms over time, and so that at the local level some of the specifics we can talk about, and Professor Hardaway also is a subject matter expert on this in terms of some of the specifics, but seeing additional progress is something that our branch is looking for, and so that's at the local level. Then there's also at the national level. This is happening against the backdrop of pushes and consent decreased nationwide, and so we look at what the consent decree was put into place for in order to try and restore public trust in the relationship between law enforcement and the community. This is something that we feel is a vehicle to bring about those changes, and that's something that nationally we're seeing a desire to modify or end consent to crease nationwide. So that also was a cause for concern for us, both at the national level and at the local level. Professor, give us your thoughts on where we are and your concerns if you have any about the potential lover of the consent to create as well. For sure, I think we need to level set this conversation. Unfortunately, I have grown a bit disheartened by the idea that we've been in it for a while, and so perhaps that's the reason why we have to get out to tackle that issue first and foremost. Right, as I mentioned to you at the top of the conversation, of the top of my remarks, right, this is a multi paragraph, multi multiple peer pillars, multiple provisions that the city has already agreed previously agreed to fulfill. Right, and everyone knew at that time that it would take a lot of work and a lot of time. So that's that's just an important thing that we have to be clear on in terms of work that remains. You know, if you look at the at the time that the motion was filed, between the press conference and then I attended as a community member, I sat in the gallery and listened at the status conference that the judge held in the middle of February when, as he mentioned, he was also surprised by this filing. Right Will said that the branch was surprised. The judge mentioned multiple times that he was also surprised by the filing and listened to the monitor at that time explain explain how much needed to be done and based on the information that was shared, the city's position essentially is that because they made great progress on community I'm sorry, on a crisis intervention training that's c T for individuals that are experienced in mental health crises and how officers respond to those individuals, they also made great progress on the use of force, meaning that they had gotten a series of multiple positive reviews and how officers were using force throughout the city. That that should be a reason enough for them to be let out of the decree. Well, for a whole host of reasons we should understand and recognize, well on two areas was never what the city agreed upon and said that they were committed to doing in order to fulfill the requirements of the consent decree. Instead, we know that there's still multiple areas that require the cities at ten. Those areas involve oversight, meaning UH, if and when the city does use force, how will they evaluate that use of force? And how will those officers be held accountable both to their employer and to the citizen that has been harmed? Right? Uh? The the provisions related to oversight UH still remain undone. UH. We also know that the provisions related to community engagement, like the community problem oriented policing UH and building trust with the community still have a long way to go. And so with and and then also let me also say search and seizure. While the city has contracted with an independent entity who has quite frankly a specious record, I would say in his evaluation of whether or not isn't in UH stops of black and brown people, the monitor has not reached that same conclusion and instead says that there does appear to be biased in the stops and searches conducted by police, racial bias conducted by Cleveland police. And so with those outstanding at least those three outstanding areas. They're more, but those are the three highlights, right that I think it's really important for the community to be aware of. While Cleveland has made some progress, they are far from done and it's critically important that they I would say, it's critically important that they continue to do the work that they started. Right. The fact that this current Department of Justice is of the opinion that the consent degree should end, everyone should understand and recognize that if it were if this Department of Justice was in power at the time of twenty fifteen, the atrocious conduct that led to Melissa Williams and Timothy Russell being shot by one hundred and thirty seven shots and a hal of bullets while backed in a corner in East Cleveland, and that Tamir Rice being gunned down, Tanisha Anderson's life that was killed, that was taken during a mental health crisis, the Department of Justice would have never been moved to address those issues in the first place. This current Department of Justice and so the fact that they are willing and in a place where they're saying they agree that the city should be let out should come as no surprise. They don't believe in making sure that black and brown people are protected from uncon unconstitutional policing in the first place. Right, So I think it's really important for us to level set this conversation. I think I also heard you mentioned cost, and I wish somebody would start to ask the city what costs are they referring to? There is this implication they want everyone to assume that the forty to fifty four million dollars that they've cited over the last few months is money that is spent solely on monitoring. I personally tallied up all of the mo that the monitoring team has made since twenty fifteen, twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, and it doesn't even go beyond ten million dollars. That is the cheapest monitoring that probably has ever occurred in the history of consent decrees. But so the other dollars that the city has spent, right, those dollars are costs incurred to improve policing. If the city is saying that they aren't going to incur those costs anymore. We should all be wondering if that means that they're going back to business as usual, because if you divest in good, robust constitutional policing, right then you'll be right back in the place where you started. The conclusion of our interview, when we come back here on. The Outlaws, Yo, what's up? Bring the noise right here at Chuck Republic Enemy number one. You are tuned in the Outlaws radio show. Fuck true, sir, pray, welcome back, and now to the conclusion of our interview. So, professor, let me ask you this. So, as we know, Mayor Justin Bier, Cleveland mayor is supportive of ending the consent decree, and as a matter of fact, this week he had a community meeting and one of the things that he said was that the city has made progress and reforming the police, but people don't always feel it and quote permanent federal oversight was never the solution. So how do you respond to that? Number one? And number two? What specifically, what is the outcome that you were looking for? What do you want to happen in this in this situation. So you know, I know the mayor, I recruited the mayor to come to my law school where I teach and have a lot of respect for him, and so I want that to be stated. What I'm gonna say is gonna probably indicate the opposite to you, Right, But I need to say that out the outset as it relates to the consent decree. Right. Any assertion that progress has been made but the community doesn't feel it is indicative of a strong misunderstanding of the promise of the consent decree. The community should absolutely feel it. Number one. Number two, this is the argument that it was never meant to be permanent Federal ever site. He's absolutely right. There's nothing permanent about this, right. Instead, what the consent decree requires is that the city be in full and substantial compliance over a period of two years in order for the federal judge and the monitor to be convinced that the city is in fact prepared and capable of conducting its own oversight, of making sure that its officers are properly trained and are held accountable when their actions deviate from that training. Right. So, there's nothing about that was supposed to that. It's never was. He's right, it's never was conceived to be permanent. But instead what it does require is full compliance and then sustain compliance over two years, and any effort to shortcut those requirements is backing out on the original agreement and the promise that was made to the citizens of Cleveland by the prior administration. I would also say that when he ran, he ran on police reform and he ran on Cleveland can't wait. Right. Community members understood that to mean that he was in support of getting the consent decree completed and done it in a very with fidelity, in a way that would in fact allow the citizens to feel like policing had improved. Right. And so now he has in fact back reversed on his promise that he made when he was both campaigning to be in office and when he first took office. So that part is very disappointing and I think is misleading to community members when those conversations, when the conversation is placed in that narrative or posture. And will same question to you from the NAACP's perspective, what like, what's your ideal outcome? What are you all looking for in the situation? What do you want? Well, I think one of the things that is very well, there's two things. One is, as Professor Hardaway mentioned about the need to be able to see and feel the change, and that is a part of community trust, and so I think that that's something is extremely important. I think one of the things that is also important is sustainability over the long term, so making sure that the reforms that are in place stay in place over the long term. And I think that was one of the things that was concerning to many members who have been around for a while, is that they remember when reforms were promised years ago and were not put into place, and it led to conditions that put were put this consent degree into place again because we're under consent decree before, and so I think that that's one of the concerns, is that we'll lose the progress that has been made so far and that we will find ourselves in a position again in the future, and so I think that's one of the things that we want to guard against. And so sustainability and anility over the long term is something that is extremely important to us as a branch. So I think the consent decree is a vehicle by which to explore how far along are we in the progress towards that sustainable compliance, and that is something that for us is very important. All right, And professor, what would you say to members of the community who are like me where I've heard obviously, I've heard both sides of this argument. I've heard both perspectives, and I hear, you know, reasonable positions that both sides are making. What would you say to people in the community who are like me, who are hearing both sides and just trying to figure out, like, what's what? Well, I would say what I already said. I mean, I would be happy to answer any questions to the extent that there's clarity that's needed. I mean, this should not be a political issue, and unfortunately it has become one. Right, the fact that our community members are being made to feel like they deserve mediocre outcomes when we absolutely deserve something far greater than that, is quite troubling to me. Our leaders have to do what's in the best interest of everyone, not just government employees, not just for the sake of political expediency. But we cannot forget about the people who are furthest away from power and resources, and when they encounter police officers in the street, right have nothing standing between them and their life or liberty, but that officer's training, right, and if that officer doesn't have what they need, and if we don't have a system that is committed to holding officers accountable when they deviate, right, then that person who is furthest from power and resources does not have a chance. And that just can't be. That just can't be. All right, Well, let everybody know if they want to get more information about the clear branch of the ACP, if they want to see your statement, all that good, stuffy. Well, thank you again. Our website is Cleveland NACB dot org, but we will be launching a brand new website in the next few weeks, so stay tuned for that. On our instagram, you can see our full statement that we release back in late February after the joint filing was made. You can also see a link in the bio of our instagram to link tree where people can sign up for various committees. So no matter what your topic of interest is, there's a committee for you in the NACP, from Education, Health, criminal justice, prison branch, there's labor and industry. There's a lot of opportunity for people to plug in, and there also is a video embedded in that committee sign up form called NA Speed Orientation where people can watch and can learn about the local structure of the branch. If there's issues or causes that they feel strongly about, these waste you can plug in. So that is a short version, but there's lots of opportunities, lots of issues. We were just talking about some of the voting law changes that are going into effect that the NACP is trying to get the word out about, especially on. Can you touch on that real quick before we go? Can you talk? Yeah? Absolutely, Yeah. So basically, as a result of Senate Bill two ninety three, which was a state bill that was recently passed and signed into law, it changes when absentute ballots can be received. They used to be received up to four days after election day. Now they have to be received by election day or else they will not count. So if you request an absentee ballot, you put in the mail and it arrives after election day, it will not count. So we're encouraging people to do if they intend to vote by mail, is to request your absentee ballot now and so next week when the absent of ballots are mailed, you can fill it out. You can put it in the post office, mail it back, maximize and you can track your ballot by the way and mess with the opportunity for to make it back. Or you can take it down to the Board of Elections. You can drop your ballot off in the ballot box, or of course you can vote in person at the Board of Elections or on election day. But we're really trying to get the word out educating people about these changes in the voting laws, encouraging people to have a voting plan and to be able to put that into place to make sure that your voice is heard and your ballot is counted. All right, thank you so much to both of you for coming on the show and taking us time to tackle this issue. I really appreciate it. We appreciate you, Thank you, thank you, Thanks for the opportunity. All right. I want to send a special thank you and shout out to William Tartam and I used to be hardaway for coming on the show. We really appreciate it. We are out of here. We'll see you next time. Peace. This was produced by FCV
