Is Boston's Office of Police Accountability and Transparency (OPAT) Providing a Return on Investment?
Share:
The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, sparked a chaotically partisan debate regarding policing in America. While some hit the streets to the chant of “ACAB (all cops are bastards),” others hoisted thin blue line flags in front of their homes.
Despite being nearly 1,400 miles away from the spot where Floyd died, Boston was not spared from this ideological confrontation. For better or worse, it was a moment in our city’s history when a group of people were criticized, ostracized, and “othered” solely for their chosen profession.
Yet one seemingly positive development arose in this post-Floyd era: a call for increased accountability and transparency, especially in the way we conduct community policing.
In Boston specifically, Floyd prompted the creation of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency (OPAT) – an agency many saw as a way to balance the power scale by increasing civilian oversight.
But did Boston need it?
Formally established by City Ordinance in December 2020, OPAT is almost three years into its work. Has policing in the city changed for the better as a result of its creation? What impact has OPAT had on the BPD? Has OPAT “solved” any problems?
According to American economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs” as it applies to political and social change.
If you adhere to Sowell’s teachings, the question then becomes: What has Boston traded off to satiate its anti-police outlook post-Floyd?
For starters, the Boston Police Department is now facing unprecedented staffing and manpower issues.
In a political culture that welcomes the repudiation of an entire profession over the actions of a few geographically dispersed offenders, this is arguably the most basic and devastating trade-off for city residents.
Put more simply: no one wants to be a cop anymore.
But rather than focus on the negative, this article seeks to analyze the objective. The fact remains that, through the dust of the anti-police rhetoric of 2020 and 2021, OPAT emerged.
To truly understand the work of OPAT, it is first important to understand how it functions as a multi-layered bureaucracy.
While there does exist an official OPAT department that is staffed by salaried City of Boston employees, OPAT is also comprised of three separate entities whose membership is determined by the Mayor:
The OPAT Commission – 3 members
The Civilian Review Board (CRB) – 9 members
The Internal Affairs Oversight Panel (IAOP) – 5 members
Whereas OPAT is the actual city department, the OPAT Commission differs in that it is a 3-member body comprised of the Executive Director of OPAT, the Chair of the Civilian Review Board (CRB), and the Chair of the Internal Affairs Oversight Panel (IAOP).
The following organizational chart may help to make sense of this multi-layered bureaucracy:
1. Structure
Both the CRB and IAOP are comprised of “civilians” that are selected by the Mayor.
For the 9-person CRB, each City Councilor recommends 3 individuals to serve and the Mayor must fill 3 of the 9 seats based on these recommendations.
The remaining 6 seats are selected by the Mayor based upon referrals from “civil rights advocacy groups, youth organizations, neighborhood associations, and those with past experience and knowledge of law enforcement.”
The IAOP has a similar selection process. Each Councilor gets to submit 3 names, and the Mayor fills 2 of the 5 seats from them.
The remaining 3 members are solely filled at the Mayor’s discretion. The Mayor is also responsible for selecting who will head these three bodies.
2. Attendance
As such, the entirety of OPAT’s structure places considerable power and, as an inherent result, responsibility upon the Mayor of Boston.
Perhaps more importantly, it also places considerable power and responsibility in the hands of the people filling its ranks.
To date, it would appear that many of the appointees to each layer of the OPAT hierarchy fail to take that responsibility seriously.
For example, of the four public meetings held by the Civilian Review Board, only one had all members present. Two-thirds of the CRB has been absent for at least one session.
Perhaps it is this lack of attendance that has made both meetings of 2023 so short. On March 14, 2023, the CRB meeting lasted for 24 minutes; on March 29, 2023, just 6 minutes.
Despite these brief and sparsely attended meetings, however, the CRB has managed to release five public reports detailing the results of different citizen complaints toward the Boston Police Department.
Of these, four have been found to be “not sustained” and one was determined to have “insufficient evidence.”
In the case of “insufficient evidence,” investigators state that they were hindered by the fact that the citizen involved was “incarcerated in multiple states” throughout the duration of their investigation.
In another particularly interesting case, a complaint arose from a citizen who tried to “conduct an audio audit” at the police station located at 40 New Sudbury Street.
The stated goal of the complainant was to determine how well Boston Police “adhere to their policy of staying respectful and professional at all times.”
In this instance, the unnamed individual walked into the station and addressed the duty officer by saying: “What’s going on motherf*****?” When the officer did not return the same response, this individual became confrontational and refused to give the officer his name.
This prompted the officer to simply refer to the unnamed citizen as “George.” The latter part of this complaint is predicated upon the “audio auditor” alleging that the officer had profiled him because George was a “slave name.”
The Internal Affairs Oversight Panel (IAOP) has somewhat better attendance, with only 40% of that panel’s membership missing at least one meeting.
The two meetings in 2023 of the IAOP lasted 14 minutes and 18 minutes respectively.
According to the reports released by the OPAT Commission, the Internal Affairs Oversight Panel has reviewed four cases since 2021 regarding the Boston Police Internal Affairs Division.
In all four cases, the IAOP has voted (unanimously) to uphold the original determination made by Internal Affairs.
Furthermore, out of the 83 complaints OPAT has reviewed since 2021, only one has been “sustained.”
You can view OPAT’s more detailed list of complaints received by clicking here.
3. Data
According to data that is publicly available on the Analyze Boston website, Boston Police were involved in:
2,809 Incidents in 2020 since OPAT was approved by the Council on Dec. 16
71,721 Incidents in 2021
73,852 Incidents in 2022
42,247 Incidents in 2023 to date
This data shows that the Boston Police Department has reported on a total of 190,629 separate incidents since OPAT’s formal approval by the Boston City Council on December 16, 2020.
Of these 190,629 incidents, the OPAT Commission has opted to review 0.0435% of them.
Therefore, the one complaint the OPAT Commission has found to be “sustained” equates to 0.00052% of total incidents that the Boston Police Department has responded to.
To date, the OPAT Commission has cost the taxpaying residents of Boston a total of $2,206,286.42. For the current fiscal year (2024), the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency is budgeted for $1,452,985.83.
Assuming OPAT stays on track with its spending, this would bring the total cost to $3,659,272.25.
4. Analysis of Cost and Key Players
For a Boston City Council that is persistently plagued with scandal, strife, and division, oversight of wasteful spending should be prioritized in order to regain the trust and respect of Boston’s residents.
Yet as our previous coverage identified, the Boston City Council was highly ineffective in exercising its budgetary discretion this go around, as a divided City Council prioritized cuts to funding for public safety (predominantly the police) and veterans services. To the benefit of Boston residents, the Council’s budget amendments were promptly vetoed by Mayor Michelle Wu.
Was redirecting funding from OPAT ever seriously considered?
Unlikely, as two current Boston City Councilors – Ricardo Arroyo and Julia Mejia – tout themselves as being the main architects of OPAT, in addition to former councilor-turned-Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
Despite having succeeded in pushing OPAT through the Council, however, both Arroyo and Mejia have remained persistently outspoken critics of the Boston Police Department.
Councilor Arroyo, who unsuccessfully campaigned and illegally colluded with disgraced and former U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins to be the next District Attorney for Suffolk County even goes as far as to cite OPAT as a pillar of accomplishment in his most recent campaign video.
Those interested in viewing Arroyo’s full campaign video can do so by clicking here.
Both Arroyo and Mejia are seeking reelection this Fall, though they are not the only anti-police pollsters on the ballot. Other notable opponents of law enforcement vying to keep their seats on the Council and capitalize on the lucrative 20% pay raise that they awarded themselves are Councilors Tania Fernandes Anderson and Kendra Lara.
Councilor Anderson, who married a man while he actively serves a prison sentence for the murder of an immigrant, was recently fined $5,000 by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission for violating their nepotism policy.
The State Ethics Commission determined that Anderson was guilty of not only hiring her sister and son to official government positions (whose salaries totaled nearly $150,000) but also for directly voting on matters that awarded her family members raises and bonuses.
Councilor Lara is also no stranger to scandal. As we have previously covered, on June 30, 2023, Lara operated an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle while driving on a revoked license when she crashed into a residential home at 803 Centre Street.
Police reports indicate that Lara’s young autistic son was in the vehicle with her at the time and was unrestrained. As a result, Lara’s son was rushed to the hospital to be treated for a “severe laceration.”
Lara has since gone before a Magistrate’s Hearing at West Roxbury Municipal Court where charges were recommended against her and a pre-trial criminal hearing was conducted. She is due back in court on August 16, 2023.
More recently, a group of citizens have formally challenged Councilor Lara’s residency and are scheduled to appear at a hearing before the Chief Justice of the Boston Municipal Court on Tuesday, August 1, 2023.
Given the questionable morals of the aforementioned public servants, it is perhaps no surprise that defunding OPAT was not seriously considered by the Boston City Council. However, should Bostonians continue to foot the bill for an agency that produces minimal results?
From a broader perspective, the fact that OPAT has only found cause to investigate 0.435% of incidents that the Boston Police Department has responded to may indicate that we, as a society, were too quick to vilify an entire profession based on the actions of a few.
In light of this, the question before Boston voters is:
"Do you want to elect the same politicians who helped fuel the anti-police rhetoric of 2020 despite our city having a top-notch police department? Or do you want to elect leaders who understand that transparency and accountability, while necessary, aren't achieved by funding an ineffectually bureaucratic organization like OPAT using the taxpayer's dime?"
For Further Research
For those interested in further researching the men and women employed by the departmental Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, the following charts should serve as an organizational guideline.
*Update: June 27, 2023 at 10:45am
Since the publication of our report, OPAT has already begun to update its website to include additional case reviews from its June Meeting. Our team is going through this documentation and will provide an addendum to our report once completed.
Share:
