The latest proposal in Burlington's multi-year effort to strengthen civilian oversight of the city's police department will be on the ballot this November. The measure received broad support in the City Council, but the police chief and the police union have spoken out against the measure.

Burlington residents are being urged to enshrine new powers in the city's charter for the Police Commission, a governing body appointed by the City Council to oversee the police department. If passed, the measure would allow the commission to convene an independent panel to investigate officer misconduct and decide on disciplinary action – removing sole authority from the police chief.

Under the charter change, an independent panel of three to five community members would make police disciplinary decisions. The composition of this body and who would appoint its members has not yet been decided. If residents approve the change, the Vermont Legislature would have to approve it.

The Burlington City Council voted unanimously in July to place the charter change on the ballot, although not all councilors support the measure. In a joint statement last week, Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a Progressive, Council President Ben Traverse, a Democrat, and Progressive Councilman Gene Bergman called it “the result of years of effort to respond to community interest and strengthen community input.” .” the police review.”

“This is a chance to really implement the type of role that our existing police commission should have and codify it now, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be part of the law,” Bergman said in an interview.

But even though his boss supports the idea, police chief Jon Murad opposes the proposal. Referring to existing regulations within the ministry, he described the change in the statutes as unnecessary in a written statement. In an interview on Town Meeting TV, Murad and Joseph Corrow, president of the Burlington Police Officers Association, suggested it could stifle efforts to recruit officers for the understaffed department.

“We're constantly under the microscope and this just puts us under the microscope and I don't want to see any more cops leaving and I don't want to see more cops not coming and working for us,” Corrow said.

Corrow said he's never heard of potential recruits who “look so deep – usually it's just, 'I want to be a police officer, I want to work here.'” Now it's: 'I want to be a police officer, but I don't want to have so much control and so much liability and I don't want to feel unsupported.'”

Efforts to enshrine greater civilian oversight began in 2020 after two use-of-force cases in 2019 embroiled the department in litigation.

The city has since paid out nearly $1 million from the two separate excessive force lawsuits — one settled in August for $215,000 and another settled last year for $750,000. A third excessive force lawsuit was filed in court this year and is still ongoing.

The cases intensified after the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota sparked nationwide protests in the summer of 2020.

“This charter change helps ensure fair and impartial policing practices and is the result of critical community discussions about racial justice in 2020,” Mulvaney-Stanak said in a written statement.

The November vote marks the first time in recent memory that progressives and Democrats on the council have agreed to put at least one police oversight measure before voters.

Traverse said in an interview that the council's unanimous approval in July to place the question on the ballot was “a vote of confidence that it is a measure that has gone through the appropriate process, received important public feedback and comes into effect.” where voters deserve an opportunity to have their say.”

The Progressive-led council approved a measure in December 2020 that would have given a community control board full authority to hire and fire police officers, including the police chief. But then-Mayor Miro Weinberger vetoed the proposal the following month.

Traverse said he believes the proposal for this year's ballot “is not too far removed from what Weinberger proposed after rejecting the original attempt.”

A similar proposal was rejected in 2023, this time by voters, after residents petitioned to put it on the Town Meeting Day ballot.

The current version, written by a bipartisan council committee, differs from the current statute by giving the Police Commission more authority and requiring the police chief to provide the commission with information about internal investigations.

Mulvaney-Stanak said in her statement that the charter change “would make clear that the police chief, like all other department heads, is subject to the authority of the mayor as the city's chief executive.”

But while the city's Democrats and progressives appear to have found a balance to the measure, Chief Murad continues to oppose it, instead citing existing regulations.

This policy, known as DD40, was passed this summer. In an email, Murad said the policy was the result of coordination with the independent Burlington Police Commission, the city attorney's office, the city's human resources department and the Burlington Police Officers Association.

That policy directs the chief to consult with commissioners and, for example, give them access to body camera footage.

“Uncertainty and instability are not good for our police force, which is why the DD40 process avoids these in favor of clear rules and cooperation,” Murad said.

The current policy directive, he continued, “shows that we already have a functioning, fair, transparent and thorough complaints, discipline and oversight practice. It ensures accountability, fairness and public participation (through the Police Commission).”

Bergman said in an interview that he believed the boss was “totally wrong.” DD40 was recently implemented and could be changed at any time, he said. In contrast, the charter amendment would “restrict the power to simply amend them.”

“That’s an important part of it,” he said.

Additionally, the charter amendment specifies that review and oversight is a commission responsibility and that commission members are required to receive important information from the chief and the department – something Bergman said is missing from the department's directive.

“He seems, again, to think that he should have full control over everything,” Bergman said. “It increases uncertainty and instability if he rejects something that was unanimously supported by the city council and put to a vote.”

Traverse agreed that efforts to enshrine these policies in a charter rather than an ordinance will benefit the city.

“Who's to say that the next police chief or the next mayor wouldn't be interested in undoing some of these best practices that have been exposed?” Traverse said. “If anything, I view this ballot question as an opportunity for the community to support the good work that the chief and commission and the former mayor have done in this area.”

Correction: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that while the Burlington City Council unanimously voted to place the police oversight measure on the ballot, not all councilors support it.