This commentary is by Stuart Hurd, the Bennington town manager.
I write in response to the VTDigger commentary March 2 by James Lyall. In his opinion piece, he chastises those of us who do not share his opinion on the elimination of qualified immunity for police officers.
He states that those of us who disagree are part of an effort to “block further progress” on a commitment to reimagine public safety in Vermont.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Bennington has undertaken a community effort to reimagine our policing efforts that has included a public process to thoroughly review and revise major policing policies, and a just-completed task force effort to help determine what a police advisory and review board should look like and how it should function.
The selectboard, the management staff and the police department have been heavily involved in this effort.
My opposition to the end of qualified immunity is based on more than 49 years in municipal government. At the present time, persons aggrieved by the actions of officer(s) can sue the municipality. This has been done successfully here in Vermont many times.
Further, qualified immunity already does not shield officers from suit where their actions violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. The idea that opening individual officers to personal liability for their actions, no matter how well done and how well-meaning, will somehow bring about a more collaborative and well-balanced community policing effort is misguided.
Litigation does not create collaboration. It does not eliminate biases. Working together to find common ground and ease unseen tensions is the only successful way to improve our policing efforts.
Ending qualified immunity, as it has been proposed in Vermont, will increase municipal and law enforcement insurance premiums; it will cost the property taxpayer more. It will increase opportunities for litigation. It may discourage well-qualified individuals from staying in policing or from deciding to take up a law enforcement career.
Fortunately, there are much more effective ways to ensure officer accountability and continuous improvement that do not rely on wasteful litigation. One such approach has been proposed by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. The League, working with a number of communities and police agencies, has suggested increasing funding and staffing for Vermont’s Criminal Justice Council, empowering it to work with police agencies to improve officer training opportunities, and allow it to work with police agencies and municipalities to address the question of officer accountability.
And finally, Mr. Lyall’s remarks about the Bennington Police Department are way off base and insulting to the men and women who work hard to serve us all. One can only wonder why the executive director of ACLU of Vermont would find it necessary to denigrate those who serve simply because there is disagreement with respect to a controversial public policy question.
