Hamden — Should police commissioners be able to view civilian complaints against police officers before they have been resolved? And what about complaints that, even when substantiated, do not result in discipline?

According to Hamden's town administration, the legal answer to those questions is no. But that answer is rankling some police commissioners who say it hinders civilian oversight of law enforcement.

The police union's collective bargaining agreement prevents commissioners from reviewing complaints unless they resulted in discipline, according to Mayor Lauren Garrett.

She simultaneously acknowledged that under the Freedom of Information Act, members of the public have a right to see those same documents.

"(Police commissioners) can't view unsubstantiated complaints because they cannot make decisions about hiring off of unsubstantiated complaints," said Garrett. "The public does have a right to see complaints — any and all complaints — but when you have a police commissioner who's making decisions about who to promote, they cannot make that decision based on unsubstantiated complaints."

Asked to clarify the difference between the public's right to view documents and the rights of commissioners, Garrett likened the situation to serving on a jury.

"This would be like if you were on a jury, the jury can only hear certain information," she said. "And when you're on a jury, you're supposed to avoid news."

The practice, which was affirmed after outside counsel reviewed the matter, is meant to prevent the town from getting caught up in arbitration, Garrett said.

"I have a responsibility to follow the CBA (collective bargaining agreement), otherwise ... we are going to wind up with a lot of time and money spent in arbitration," she said.

But the policy has frustrated some police commissioners.

"My understanding of the police commission is that we are an oversight body. We aren't just a glorified extension of human resources or a rubber stamp for the Hamden police," said commission member Daniel Dunn.

Dunn previously has clashed with the town over department transparency and currently is pursuing a Freedom of Information complaint over the release of police records.

"It seems that once again the town is directly trying to undermine police accountability and transparency, and that's extremely disappointing," he said.

Asked to respond, Garrett disagreed.

"That's not true at all," she said. "The most powerful abilities that we have for police accountability in Hamden are granted through the state of Connecticut, with state legislation."

She cited Connecticut's police accountability law, which took effect in 2020. It mandates the use of police-worn body cameras, requires other officers to intervene when witnessing deadly force and established an inspector general's office to investigate cases in which police use fatal force, among many other measures.

"We have CBAs that we need to follow, otherwise we are going to waste a lot of time and money fighting through this in arbitration," Garrett said. "State law is the best thing we have for police accountability."

But Rhonda Caldwell, who chairs the police commission, expressed dissatisfaction over what she sees as a lack of local oversight.

According to Caldwell, the town recently obtained the legal opinion about the complaint-sharing policy because the commission, whose five members are new this year, began asking to view the complaints.

"This is what we inherited," Caldwell said. "It's a shame that ... the civilians don't really have any, you know, representation on their behalf. But again, this is what we inherited."

In the future, Caldwell hopes the town and police union will reconsider the CBA clause limiting complaint sharing. But the current contract remains in effect until 2024, and Caldwell worried the political will may not exist to change it by then.

According to Garrett, Section 35.2 of the CBA informed the town's position that commissioners may not see unsubstantiated complaints against officers.

"All complaints and notations made against an employee for which no disciplinary action is taken by the Police Commission or Chief of Police shall not become a part of any file that may influence or impact in any way upon any employee's career with the Police Department," the clause states.

"The parties further agree that the circumstances relating to such matters shall not be brought to the attention of any individual, Town agency or board whose actions might influence or impact said employees' career with the Police Department," it says.

Even though the clause mentions the possibility of discipline by the police commission, Garrett said that because the police chief has the first say in said discipline, the commission still may be unable to view the complaints.

According to the CBA, the police chief can impose a maximum penalty of five days suspension. The clause outlining disciplinary practices does not appear to explicitly prohibit the commission from being involved in discipline before or at the same time as the chief.

Police commission member Frank LaDore said Chief of Police Tim Wydra is working to be more transparent with the commission by providing a report summarizing how many complaints have been filed against officers and how many are substantiated.

"That report won't have names," LaDore said. "Because of the contract they don't have to tell us what that (complaint) is."

LaDore understands the frustration of his fellow commissioners, he said, but feels the town must follow the contract. He suggested reevaluating the clause when negotiations reopen.

"Obviously everybody wants more transparency, but right now this is what it is," LaDore said.