Baltimore finds itself trailing many other cities when it comes to transparent handling of police brutality settlements.
If you win a cash settlement from the city in a police brutality matter, you must enter the cone of silence. This came to light in The Baltimore Sun's reporting last fall. Breathe a word of the matter – save for the settlement itself – and risk loss all or a portion of that amount. In one recent case, half of a $63,000 settlement was being withheld after the complaining party made comments on the internet.
So much for transparency. So much for building rapport between the police and city residents.
City officials, including Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake, say the policy is being reconsidered. Well it should be. As a result of the hush-hush approach even members of the city council were unaware of many cases that were settled over the last year or so, or the cost – a total of $5.7 million in 102 cases. Silence was ordered, it was said, because the facts were disputed even after the settlements.
Seems like a flimsy rationale – particularly when so much is at stake. The public’s trust depends to a large extent, it would seem, on the city’s willingness to come clean. The police themselves, moreover, would be more careful if misbehavior were to be made public.
Other cities have rejected the so-called confidentiality requirement. Among them: Washington, D.C.; Columbus, Ohio; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Philadelphia. PA. In Ohio, such clauses would simply be illegal under the state’s open records law. “People need to see a pattern. Keeping it all hidden creates a sense of distrust,” said Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, head of Common Cause Maryland. Mayor Rawlings Blake’s study of the matter is due this month. Meanwhile, some of Baltimore’s legislators say they are considering legislation to ban the confidentiality clause. Transparency, said state Sen. Bill Ferguson, is the best “disinfectant.”