Cleveland Public Safety Committee Meeting: Tanisha's Law Discussion (Dec 4, 2025)

The Cleveland City Council Public Safety Committee convened on December 4, 2025, to hear public testimony and debate Ordinance 1198-2024, known as "Tanisha's Law." The legislation proposes the creation of a standalone Department of Community Crisis Response to codify unarmed care response teams and integrate mental health dispatch. A significant divide emerged between the ordinance sponsors (Council Members House Jones, Slife, and Mauer), who advocate for an immediate, city-housed department to ensure accountability and dedicated funding, and the Administration (Director of Public Safety Wayne Drummond and Assistant Director Jason Shachner), who supports the intent of care response but opposes creating a new department, citing a need for further data analysis and structural efficiency. The meeting concluded with the committee chair directing the Administration to provide proposed amendments and relevant data before a final vote is scheduled.

Consent Calendar

• No specific consent calendar items were individually detailed or voted upon in this transcript excerpt; the focus remained entirely on the public hearing for Ordinance 1198-2024.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Michael Anderson (Tanisha Anderson's uncle): Expressed that his family was not in agreement with previous responses to the tragic death of Tanisha Anderson. He stated a desire to listen to the proceedings and find "common ground" regarding Tanisha's Law.
• Pete Van Lear (Concerned resident and former Policy Matters advocate): Expressed full support for Tanisha's Law, arguing that police are understaffed and better suited for violent crime. He criticized the current pilot program for being limited to 988 calls (which he noted people do not know) rather than 911 calls, and argued that outsourcing the program makes it unaccountable to the city.
• Stephanie Ash (Licensed Social Worker and NASW board member): Expressed full support for codifying the new department to ensure sustainable infrastructure, dedicated funding, and accountability to the people, rather than relying on third-party providers.
• Josiah Quarrels (Director of Organizing at Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless): Expressed full support for the legislation, arguing that the current Adams Board pilot operates as a "black box" without community control. He emphasized the need to integrate care response with 911 dispatch to meet residents where they are conditioned to call, and stated that waiting for a call-type analysis is unnecessary and delays action.
• Administration Submission (Read by Chair): The Administration expressed support for the intent of the legislation but stated opposition to the creation of a new department and the immediate advancement of the legislation before a call-type analysis is completed. They argued that no other city has codified such a department and that the current structure allows for necessary flexibility.

Discussion Items

• Legislative Goals and Structure: Council Members House Jones, Slife, and Mauer explained that the legislation aims to create a Department of Community Crisis Response to ensure dedicated funding, accountability, and integration with 911 dispatch. They noted that while they support a call-type analysis, they believe it should run concurrently with staffing the department, not delay it.
• Administration's Position: Director Drummond and Assistant Director Shachner stated that the current Co-Response Program (CIT officers paired with licensed clinicians) is the "gold standard" and that the department is not under their current management. They proposed that any future care response should likely be housed under EMS or existing divisions to avoid duplicative bureaucracy, insisting on the necessity of a call-type analysis before structural changes.
• Consent Decree Clarification: Councilwoman Moore presented a letter from the Department of Justice clarifying that the consent decree does not prevent the use of non-police responses when appropriate, contradicting earlier administrative concerns. However, Councilman Slife noted that diverting away from police entirely could create compliance metrics issues requiring years of new data.
• Program Limitations and Training: Questions were raised regarding the current capacity of the seven Co-Response teams, with Director Drummond stating they respond to approximately 15.6% of CIT calls live, while the majority of their time is spent on follow-ups. Council Member Casey and others questioned whether current training hours (24 hours at academy, 4-8 hours annually) are sufficient, noting the tragic history of cases like Juan Ortiz in 2010.
• Disagreement on Amendments: Councilman Starr and others expressed frustration that the Administration had drafted amendments but refused to share them in writing, hindering potential compromise. Director of Public Safety acknowledged they had ideas but stated they were not legally objectionable, only structurally different.
• Financials and Personnel: The Administration confirmed the seven clinicians are third-party employees (not City staff) of Murta Saylor and Frontline Services. The sponsors proposed a first-year budget of approximately $800,000, funded by repurposing vacancies and future general fund allocations.

Key Outcomes

• Administrative Directive: The Committee Chair directed the Administration to formally submit the proposed amendments they had drafted in writing to the three sponsors for review.
• Data Request: The Committee requested the Administration provide detailed documentation including: the budget and salary bands for the seven clinicians, job descriptions for the clinicians, assignment data of co-response teams by district, and the total cost of the current contract with the Adams Board.
• Timeline for Action: The Chair declared that the legislation would not be delayed until the first quarter of 2026 and stated that the committee would take action sooner, giving the Administration the choice to collaborate on amendments or face the legislation as drafted.
• Sponsorship: Ordinance 1198-2024 remains sponsored by Council Members House Jones, Slife, and Mauer, with the Committee moving to finalize the process in early 2026.