A report issued in early January by the city Integrity and Accountability Office -- a body that is charged with monitoring police discipline -- questioned the effectiveness of the disciplinary procedures, or lack thereof, in the Philadelphia Police Department.
According to the report, "the Department lacks uniform and rational standards for assessing penalties and therefore penalties are imposed in a haphazard and inscrutable manner."
The report also states that "excessive and unexplained delays in resolving disciplinary actions are commonplace" and that "high-ranking officials allow disciplinary actions to languish, sometimes for years without resolution."
The report concludes with the recommendation that the city establish a separate entity from the Philadelphia Police that has the authority to determine and enforce punishments on disciplinary matters.
The report on the city police, however, should not significantly affect the University Police Department, which as a private police force, operates its own disciplinary system.
Soon after the report was issued, the criticisms began. Critics, including both Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and Mayor John Street, attacked it for its accuracy.
In a written response to the document, Johnson said that the report is "a clear attempt to mislead the public regarding the present status of the disciplinary system in place within the Police Department."
In his response, Johnson questioned the "integrity and motives" of the integrity officer Ellen Green-Ceisler, calling the conclusions reached by the report "sweeping and baseless" and adding that "to date, numerous errors remain" in the report.
Christine Ottow, a spokeswoman for Philadelphia Mayor John Street, said that the report "does not discuss the reforms that have been implemented" and that it "seems to be politically motivated."
Street is in support of Johnson and believes that many reforms have been instituted in recent years, Ottow added.
"I stand by [the report] 150 percent" Ceisler said. I am "very comfortable with the accuracy of the findings and the legitimacy of the recommendation."
Ceisler added that the "report speaks for itself," but that she felt compelled to speak out as she never expected a "personal attack."
"Apparently the commissioner was working off an original draft [made] in November," Ceisler said in response to the claim of errors within the report. According to Ceisler, corrections were made to the November draft before the final report was released Jan. 6.
"No one has shown that there are errors and inaccuracies," Ceisler said.
The report cites 50 alleged mishandlings of police discipline.
"If [the report] is accurate, then it is troubling," said David Rudovsky, a Penn law professor, emphasizing the "if." However, he would not speculate on the likelihood of the accuracy of the report.
"We must wait to see the findings of an independent team of lawyers on the legitimacy of the claims," Rudovsky said.
Rudovsky also represented the plaintiff in a 1996 lawsuit brought against the city by victims of a police scandal . As part of the settlement, the IAO was created as an independent, civilian auditor with the power to monitor changes in police disciplinary activity.
In 2001, the IAO issued a report raising similar concerns about police discipline.
Vice President of Public Safety at Penn and former Penn Chief of Police Maureen Rush said that this report is not a reflection of disciplinary problems within the University of Pennsylvania Police Department.
"There is very little interaction in this area, quite frankly," Rush said. "We always have a standard within the Penn Police."
All citizen complaints against the UPPD are immediately put in a database and followed by a full investigation.
Rush said that students with complaints are welcome to file them at the UPPD headquarters at 4040 Chestnut St.
