Meeting of the Citizens Police Review Board to um order.

Um we usually start with I don't know that I see it on the agenda, but we uh we will assume that we're gonna start with uh introductions as we so often do.

So uh we'll start down at uh Stephanie's end of the room.

Shake it up a little bit, right?

Stephanie Brown, City Manager's office, Staff Liaison.

Uh Payne Oliver, City Manager Fellow.

Stephanie Colman, board member.

Denise Flazek, board member.

Lynn Bergen, board member.

Steve Jeffery, board member.

Doug Hunt, board chair.

Charles Zug, board member.

Ed Robinson, board member.

Harry Castellow board member.

Steph Yochum, human rights liaison.

And Richard Hurrell, Columbia Police Department.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the uh agenda.

All those in favor say aye.

Any corrections that people see necessary.

The minutes of the January 14th meeting.

So where are we on this?

Um in the past, we've submitted the annual report to council before that was included, and then we can do a supplement if need be.

Um but the annual report was presented to council on February 2nd during the council meeting.

I'll I was uh at the meeting, uh made comments at the beginning and then saw how the council responded, and I did want to say something about that.

I have actually been concerned for some time uh several years really, uh, and especially since the council voted on September 3, 2024 to limit our powers, which was the subject of the discussion at the council meeting.

Um I've had some concerns about how the board is designed and how the ordinance direct its operations.

It was interesting at the meeting on uh February 2 that some of the members, including the mayor, expressed a willingness to revisit and perhaps revise those ordinances.

So we now seem to have an opportunity for a robust community discussion of how the CPRB system might be improved.

I had hopes that the CPRB might be able to take the lead in that discussion since several of us have had years of experience dealing with this nuts and bolts of the system and what seems to work well and what doesn't seem to work well.

Umfortunately, for reasons that Earl can articulate more fully than I, the CPRB is not allowed to take up the matter in an official way or have any substantive discussion of it during our meetings.

So what I think we might do at this point is first listen to Earl's explanation of the ground rules we're operating under, after we hear from Earl, we can discuss the best way forward.

So thanks, Doug.

Yeah, the I I think the key part of that is taking it up at this time.

Uh of course, the board has duties set out uh in city ordinance in section 21-49 of City Code, you know, as passed by City Council that sets out the very the duties of the board, you know, which as you know includes reviewing appeals, jurisdictional reviews, reviewing complaints of alleged misconduct, and your annual report.

And that's the sum total of the duties as directed by City Council through uh City Code.

Uh or of course, if the City Council asks you to do something.

Um they did express interest in some of the members in taking this up again at some point in the future.

They didn't specify when or how they were going to do that, um, but they did express interest in doing that.

So I think if in the future uh city council asks the board to provide advice or feedback on this topic, then you could take it up.

Um or if they have some other kind of directive or request for the board, that would then come to the board, and we can put it on the agenda.

You can have discussion and proceed as appropriate.

We haven't gotten that yet, though.

Um so I don't think uh I don't see what we would point to at this time to say here's how the board is taking this on when it's not in your duties.

To clarify that, I I I thought when we were exchanging some emails about this earlier, it was necessary both for the um ordinance to be changed so that we can discuss such things and for the city council to ask us to discuss such things.

Is that is it just their asking would be enough?

I think if the board if the city council took a vote that they would like to ask the board or direct the board to do something, then I think you can do it.

Yeah.

Meanwhile, however, um, and this is kind of what I meant about ground rules.

I think, Earl, um, I would love to have a robust community discussion of limitations that we've been under, both in terms of the limitations that were imposed on September 3rd.

But we have had discussions at other times about imp imperfections in the design of other sorts, you know.

So, with some interest on the city council in considering what the ordinances should be, it would be a tremendous time for a community discussion what citizens and the police would like to see in terms of our regulation.

But if I understand it right, here's what we need to talk about the sunshine law uh limitation.

If I were to sit here tonight and say, I think we should change the things this way, what do you think?

I think we were not allowed to do that.

Is that right?

I think that's right, because to the extent you are discussing it as a board, then you are subject to the restrictions that you have with your duties.

So that's the dilemma that we need to talk about.

And I think it would be useful if we just thought about that for a little bit and see whether we have some notions about how we can proceed.

How do we encourage a public discussion of the duties of the board under these limitations?