community when police officers are interacting with the public. Like CCRB, the CCPC also releases annual reports that are rich in statistical data. And, since 2015, the OIG-NYPD has issued annual reports that provide further data and insights. Its first report, for example, it reviewed 10 NYPD chokehold cases and recommended policy changes. These reports do not identify any officer, but are invaluable resources and possible catalysts for reform.
None of this reporting was forbidden by § 50–a. Data compilations are not personnel records, even under the most restrictive interpretation of existing law. The fact that CCRB, the CCPC, OIG-NYPD, and the federal monitor issue regular reports on Department discipline, while the Department does not, helps create the impression that the Department has something to hide. The Panel recommends that the Department join these agencies in publishing an annual report on police discipline to provide meaningful transparency about its disciplinary process and outcomes.
One model to consider for such a report is IAB’s annual report, issued every year from 1996 to 2006, but then discontinued. Like that publication, the report recommended here would include a comprehensive statistical overview of discipline initiated and concluded during the calendar year, broken down by precinct to the extent feasible. It should show Commissioner variance rates (i.e., the number of times the Commissioner varied up or down from a recommendation) and the penalties imposed by offense. In addition, the report should also include the Commissioner’s personal observations about the strength and efficiency of the disciplinary process, his views on where and what type of training and policies are or should be considered by the Department (including changes in approach to penalties for specific offenses), and the status of implementing the recommendations from the Panel and other stakeholders such as the CCPC and OIG-NYPD. The Commissioner could also consider presenting a high-level summary of the annual report’s findings and conclusions at a publicly held “town hall” meeting where citizens could pose questions.
The Panel also recommends that the Department release trial room calendars, which would apprise the public of when particular officers’ cases may be observed. To avoid any § 50‑a concerns, such calendars need not include the Charges and Specifications at issue, but merely the officer’s name, the date, and the trial room number. That Legal Aid interns must now
 CCRB’s reports also provide anonymized synopses of noteworthy incidents. In March 2018, the Department attempted to publish such summaries, but at present cannot do so, due to the temporary restraining order in Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc. v. de Blasio, No. 153231/2018, slip op. 32839 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2018). In the event of a favorable resolution of that case, the Panel urges the NYPD to immediately resume publication of such synopses.
 The Panel notes that, since the court in Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n. v. de Blasio ordered the Department to discontinue publication of anonymized synopses, the only disciplinary data the NYPD currently makes available are those required to be disclosed under local law. Pursuant to Administrative Code § 14-160, the Department also publishes an annual list setting forth the number of officers at each command who meet any of four particular disciplinary categories (two substantiated CCRB complaints over the past three years; any IAB investigations resulting in suspension over the past five years; any finding of use of excessive force over the past three years; or any arrest related to job function in the past 10 years). Pursuant to Administrative Code § 14-158, the Department publishes an annual summary and statistical analysis of all use of force incidents. This Use of Force Report, however, does not provide information on the disciplinary outcomes of such incidents.