Post News . Share Ideas . Inspire Innovation . Get Informed . Get Involved



Sunday, November 10, 2013

CRB (Citizens Review Board) Reform on City Council Agenda



CRB (Citizens Review Board) Reform will be the subject of a Charlotte City Council discussion Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 at the regular meeting.  Prior to that, City Manager Ron Carlee at 5 p.m. in room 267 of the Government Center, open to the public.

Citizens are encouraged to attend this presentation and demonstrate your desire for a fair process and better police/citizen relations.  Even if all requested changes pass, there will be need for additional reform.  To date, much of the information presented by the CRB has been deemed useless, and much has been incorrect.  


Citizens brought up some relevant points at the October 28thCouncil Meeting

Corinne Mack asked: 1) Who appoints members? 2) What is the criteria to be on board? and 3) Does the Board membership reflect membership of the City and County?
She likened a weak reform to a guard dog with no bite and called for including access to the IA files, and presenting Officers to the board.

Dick Hester, President of the Charlotte Chapter of the ACLU spoke on behalf of himself and the ACLU Board.  He acknowledged that police have a difficult and dangerous task, working under stressful and dangerous conditions.  He called for the CRB raising the level of trust between police and citizens.  He also called for CRB to be an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIVE board, allowing fairness dealing with grievances. 

Rodney Sadler expressed concerns about the proposed changes: 1) They appear very modest and even if they get through Council, would there even be real change?  2) He wants the CRB to have influence over the internal police policy changes, and for that influence/those changes be binding, 3) that the CRB include members who are “most often victims” of police misconduct, and 4) that CRB receive full un-redacted, unedited versions of the IA files in order to have actual oversight.

Sadler asked for actual power to adjudicate, not just appellate power.


If you watch the video, at just before 24 minutes in, Councilman John Autry asked City Attorney Hagemann: “Does the Citizen’s Review Board not see the Internal Affairs file?” 
City Attorney Robert Hagemann answered, “Yes, it does.”
Autry replied, “It does (repeating Hagemann’s answer)?  Already?”

Hagemann said, “Yes. That will be more explicit in the recommendations I will be making to you.”  (Is that what you say to cover that your “yes” answer is false?)
Autry continued: “So, is there some difference between the Internal Affairs file and the Case File?”
Hagemann said, “I think there’s a misunderstanding.”

Kinsey then moved the meeting forward, avoiding clarification of “the misunderstanding.” This “misunderstanding” is that Hagemann’s direct answer to Autry’s direct question was not true.
Outgoing Council Member Warren Cooksey interjected about updates that had come to the Council Manager Relations Committee he is on which has dealt with the Reform Proposals, then said “… We did meet.  We approved recommendations to council today.  What you should be expecting to see on your future schedules is a dinner briefing on November 11th and a request for Council action on November 25th.”
 
That didn’t answer the question, either.  Cooksey and Hagemann know the fact that the full IA file is NOT provided to the CRB.  For the City Attorney to seemingly misrepresent the facts about the law or legal process to the public, and for Mayor Kinsey, Cooksey, and others on the committee to encourage and allow this, is wrong.

Various City of Charlotte staff and Council/Mayor committee members have also tried to state that making changes to the CRB would require action from the State Legislature.  This does not appear to be true since the CRB is formed by City Ordinance (Ordinance Book 48, page 104, has Ordinance849 establishing the entire functioning of the CRB) .  City Council has the full power to change City Ordinance.  True, there is a state statute which addresses only the personnel records involved in the Board decisions.  There is no need for legislative action to cause a 2-year delay in action. 

The original establishment of CRB, in Ordinance 849, begins:
ORDINANCE NO. 849
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE BY THE ADDITION OF A
NEW ORDINANCE CREATING A CITIZENS REMEW BOARD.
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the citizens of the City of Charlotte
have an interest in ensuring the thoroughness and fairness of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department disciplinary process; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the City has broad authority to adopt
such an ordinance and that a Citizens Review Board Ordinance is consistent with the broad authority that the City has to execute the powers, duties, and privileges conferred upon it by Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes and confirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Homebuilders Association of Charlotte v. City of Charlotte, 336 NC 37 (1994); and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that under the authority of N.C.G.S. 160A- 168(c)(7), the City Manager may, with the concurrence of City Council, release information concerning the employment or nonemployment, promotion, demotion, suspension or other disciplinary action, reinstatement, transfer, or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action provided that before releasing the information, the City Manager or Council shall determine in writing that the release is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of city services or to maintaining the level and quality of city services;

Note the reference to N.C.G.S. 160A- 168(c)(7) which does not only apply to CRB issues.

Another misleading item from the CRB Committee’s last presentation to the Council-Manager Relations committee—and to the public—was the statement the CRB would “Promote the availability of advocates who would assist citizens through the Internal Affairs investigative process and the CRB appeal process, including legal representation, if requested, from organizations such as the Mecklenburg County Bar Volunteer Lawyer Program” which was placed in an article from the October 27th Charlotte Observer article “Committee to vote on Citizens Review Board.”   
  
In reality, there’s currently no such Volunteer Lawyer Program in existence, and it was never available for direct citizen help.  While it would be nice, putting out such misinformation as another pipe dream concerning citizens’ rights in this situation is irresponsible at best.  Citizens should have guaranteed access to legal counsel, provided by the City, in order to be a fair process. 
CRB Board Members are not required to have any legal background or assured understanding of the law.  Even if they did, they should act as fair and impartial so the police officers would also receive fair hearings.  Police have taxpayer-funded free legal help from the City Attorneys, and from outside counsel hired at the discretion of city staff when they feel it’s necessary.  Citizens should have no less. 


When speaker Henry Gunn brought the topic back to CRB, he asked for “transparency and fairness for everybody, including the police officer and the citizen.”  He stated that he had been advocating for the open release of the Internal Affairs files—which is not currently happening—to the CRB Board.  See the detailed explanation contained within a proposed letter CRB Reform Now has supplied to send to council members, shown below.

Another big issue not covered by speakers on October 28th is why Charlotte’s CRB standard of review is excessively high, having produced NOT ONE RULING IN FAVOR OF A CITIZEN in its existence. 

Various City of Charlotte officials have tried to propagate the myth that it’s a very low standard, based on “preponderance of discretion” wording within the review.  However, that’s not the difficult part:  it’s the rest of the standard which is ridiculously high, “that the Chief of Police is guilty of an ABUSE OF DISCRETION.”  This standard is means a finding not based on the facts of the case, nor even error on the part of the Chief, but that he must have distinctly abused his discretion—that no reasonable chief would ever be able to come to the conclusion exonerating or failing to find any wrongdoing on the part of the officer—in order to move forward.  That fact, combined with the truth that the CRB may only ask for IA files, and have stated they are not allowed to see the whole investigative file, make the current Board completely ineffectual.

See the CRB Reform Now site excellent explanation of the standard of review: 

No other review board has a standard as high as Charlotte’s Citizens Review Board.  Our Board must ask: “whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the chief of police abused his discretion.”  This “abuse of discretion” language forces the Board to go well beyond a simple “preponderance of the evidence” inquiry and requires them to practically accuse the Chief of Police of misconduct before finding in favor of a citizen.  Our Board’s “abuse of discretion” standard of review is unprecedented in any other similarly situated review board ordinance across the country. In fact, no other city, within the top 20 most populous cities in the United States, has a review board ordinance even containing the term "abuse of discretion.”

See the coalition group’s call to action posted here www.CRBreform.com :

Contact your Representatives
by E-mail and Mail as instructed below




Patsy Kinsey- pkinsey@charlottenc.gov
Patrick Cannon- mayorprotemcannon@gmail.com
David Howard- info@davidhowardclt.com
Claire Fallon- cfallon@charlottenc.gov
Beth Pickering- bpickering@charlottenc.gov
LaWana Mayfield- lmayfield@charlottenc.gov
Michael Barnes- barnesdistrict4@aol.com
Billy Maddalon- bmaddalon@charlottenc.gov
James Mitchell- jamesdistrict2@aol.com
John Autry- jautry@charlottenc.gov
Andy Dulin- adulin1@carolina.rr.com
Warren Cooksey- warren@warrencooksey.com


Dear Council Person:

Please ensure that any new Citizens Review Board law require that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department give the Citizens Review Board a copy of the applicable internal affairs file, in its entirety, at the very beginning of each new case the CRB reviews.  I have been following the progress of the Citizens Review Board issue and feel that this is the only way to currently guarantee that the CRB has all the facts before making a decision.

I understand that the Citizens Review Board presently has “access” to the internal affairs file and may therefore obtain internal affairs information upon request.  However, I believe that this is not enough.  Only allowing “access” perpetuates the risks that:

1)     The Citizens Review Board will not request relevant information because it is unaware of the information’s existence;
2)   Confusion will occur due to imperfect or misunderstood requests;
3)   The Citizens Review Board will run out of time to make a decision before obtaining relevant information;
4)   Internal affairs file information will not be distributed uniformly among different administrations of City Officials and Councils; and
5)   The Citizens Review Board will not have all the facts to make a fully educated and fully informed decision.

On the other hand, giving the Citizens Review Board the entire internal affairs file from the beginning will be a simple fix that promises to make the CRB process run more efficiently, by eliminating the time and expenses associated with retrievals of requested information. 

Citizens Review Board members undergo Citizens Academy training and sign confidentiality agreements before becoming members.  I trust their ability to manage confidential information and their judgment in making sound decisions, so long as they have all the facts.  Please ensure that they do have all the facts by requiring that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department give them the applicable internal affairs file, in its entirety, at the beginning of each new case they review.   

Sincerely,





DIVISION 2. CITIZENS REVIEW BOARDpermanent link to this piece of content


Sec. 16-56. Creation; composition; terms; compensation; appointments; vacancies; quorum; removal.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  There is hereby established a citizens review board to be composed of 11 members: five members to be appointed by the city council, three members to be appointed by the mayor and three to be appointed by the city manager. The appointing authorities shall ensure that the members of the board are representative of the community.
(b)  Members must be continually domiciled within the county and must be registered to vote within the county.
(c)  Board members shall attend and successfully complete the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's Citizens' Academy and receive training on relevant legal and policy issues as required by the city manager. This training must be completed prior to any board appointee serving as a member of the board.
(d)  Individuals with a felony conviction or a class A1 misdemeanor conviction shall not be eligible to serve on theboard. In addition, individuals with a class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor conviction within three years of their nomination for appointment shall be ineligible to serve. Further, conviction of or a plea of nolo contendere to a felony, a class A1 misdemeanor, a class 1 misdemeanor, or a class 2 misdemeanor during the term of office shall automatically terminate membership on the board, irrespective of any appeals. Board members charged with a felony, a class A1 misdemeanor, a class 1 misdemeanor, or a class 2 misdemeanor during a term of office shall be automatically suspended until disposition of the charge, and a quorum shall be established from the remaining membership.
(e)  Prior to serving, each board member must sign a confidentiality agreement that is satisfactory to the city and which shall require that members maintain as confidential any information classified as confidential by state law or otherwise classified as confidential by the city.
(f)  The members shall serve staggered terms of office for three years, with no member serving more than two consecutive terms.
(g)  The board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from the membership.
(h)  When a vacancy occurs, the original appointing authority shall appoint a person to serve for the unexpired term of the vacant position.
(i)  Six members shall constitute a quorum in order to hold business meetings and hearings. Members are required to attend all business meetings and hearings in accordance with the attendance policies promulgated by the city council. Vacancies resulting from a member's failure to attend the required number of meetings shall be filled as provided in this section.
(j)  All members shall serve without compensation.
(k)  Members of the board shall be subject to removal from office by a two-thirds vote of the city council.
(Code 1985, § 16-34)
Sec. 16-57. Meetings.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  The citizens review board shall hold regular meetings as scheduled by resolution of the board. The affirmative vote of a majority, a quorum being present, shall be required before any recommendation is made on any matter considered. A majority vote shall be required for any decision made by the board.
(b)  Special meetings may be called by the chairperson to carry out any duties described in section 16-58 by giving each member notice in writing, by providing personal notice, or by leaving notice at the member's residence not less than 72 hours prior to the time set for the meeting.
(Code 1985, § 16-35; Ord. No. 2344, § 1, 7-28-2003)
Sec. 16-58. Duties and responsibilities.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  The citizens review board shall:
(1)  Serve as an advisory board to the chief of police, the city manager, and the city council.
(2)  Review appeals by the citizens who filed complaints of disciplinary dispositions imposed by the chief of police or his designee relating to allegations of misconduct against a sworn police officer. The board may hear appeals of complaints regarding alleged violations of the following rules: use of force, unbecoming conduct, and arrest, search and seizure. In addition, the disposition of the review of any discharge of a firearm by an officer which results in the death or injury of a person may be appealed to this board by the person injured or the next of kin if death occurs. When a death results and there is no next of kin, any member of the city council or the chairperson of the community relations committee may file an appeal pursuant to section 16-59. The disciplinary actions that may be reviewed shall include the findings of the chief of police that an allegation has been categorized as: sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. The dispositions that may be reviewed for the discharge of firearms shall include: justified, not justified, or accidental. The board may review only appeals of citizen complaints arising from incidents that occur after the effective date of the ordinance from which this section derives. The board may not reviewappeals of decisions of the city manager or the civil service board.
(3)  Determine whether to hold an appeal hearing. The board may hold an appeal hearing only when it appears, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the disposition of the disciplinary charges entered by the chief of police constituted an abuse of discretion by the chief of police.
(4) Conduct appeal hearings, which include receiving and evaluating testimony and issuing findings of fact and recommendations to the chief of police and the city manager. The duty and power of the board is to conduct an appeal hearing and to determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the chief of police abused his discretion by:
a. Finding in a disciplinary action that allegations were sustained, not sustained, exonerated or unfounded; or
b. Finding in connection with the discharge of a firearm that the officer's action was justified, not justified, or accidental.
(5)  As required by state law, maintain as confidential all personnel information to which the members gain access as a member of the board. In addition, board members shall be required to execute and adhere to a confidentiality agreement that is satisfactory to the city.
(b)  The citizens review board shall promulgate rules and regulations to effect its exercise of authority under this division and shall keep such rules and regulations on file with the city clerk.
(Code 1985, § 16-36)
Sec. 16-59. Appeal procedure.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  Under this division, all complaints will be investigated by the police department. Upon completion of an investigation, the chief of police shall, consistent with state law, notify the complainant by certified letter of the disposition of the complaint. The complainant also shall be informed of his right to appeal the decision of the department to the citizens review board.
(b)  All appeals to the citizens review board must be filed in writing with the city clerk's office. The request must state the reason for the appeal and the nature of the incident. The citizen may seek the assistance of the community relations committee in drafting and filing his appeal. The citizen must file this appeal within seven calendar days of receiving written notice of the disposition of the complaint. The citizen must provide a valid current address for the purpose of all notifications required to be made pursuant to this division.
(c)  Upon receiving a request for an appeal hearing, the chairperson of the board shall direct the chief of police to prepare a summary of the case and forward the summary to the chairperson of the board. A meeting of the boardwill be held to discuss the request for appeal.
(Code 1985, § 16-37)
Sec. 16-60. Necessity for hearing.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  Upon receiving a request for an appeals hearing, a meeting of the board will be held within 30 calendar days of the request.
(b)  In a public session, the chairperson shall indicate whether the board has decided to hold a hearing and, if so, shall announce the date, time and place of the hearing. The chairperson shall notify the complainant and other involved parties in writing of the decision and, if a hearing is to be held, also shall advise all parties in writing of the reasons for the decision to hold a hearing.
(Code 1985, § 16-38; Ord. No. 1779, § 1, 3-26-2001)
Sec. 16-61. Hearing procedures.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  If the citizens review board decides to conduct a hearing, it shall be concluded within 30 calendar days of the date of the decision to hold an appeal hearing. Should the complainant or the department desire a hearing date other than that set by the board, the complainant or the department shall submit a written request for a change of the hearing date, stating the reason for the request. The chairperson shall approve or disapprove such request, provided that such request is received by the board at least seven calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. For good cause, the chairperson may continue the hearing from time to time, but all appeals must be concluded within 30 calendar days from the date of the decision to hold an appeal hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in a closed session, with at least six members of the board present.
(b)  All witnesses must testify under oath.
(c)  All of the proceedings before the board shall be recorded.
(d)  All parties involved shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other person of their choice.
(e)  The complainant shall offer evidence first in support of his appeal. The department and officer shall have the right to cross examine the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, the department and officer shall have the right to offer evidence, and the complainant shall have the right to cross examine the department's and officer's witnesses. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the complainant or his representative, followed by the department and officer, may make a closing statement.
(f)  Members of the board may question witnesses or request additional information or further investigation at any point in the process.
(g)  Members who, in a particular case, have a conflict of interest shall not attend or participate in the hearing and decision-making process.
(h)  Within ten calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall issue its written findings of fact to the chief of police and the city manager along with a recommendation. The findings of fact must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and approved by a majority of the board who were present at the hearing.
(Code 1985, § 16-39)
Sec. 16-62. Action by chief of police and city manager.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)  The chief of police shall review the findings of fact of the citizens review board and any other information at his disposal. The chief of police shall take such action as he deems appropriate, consistent with state law and city policy. The chief of police will then, within seven calendar days of the receipt of the board's recommendations, report his decision to the city manager.
(b)  The city manager shall review the decision of the chief of police and, within seven calendar days of the receipt of the decision of the chief of police, take such action as he deems appropriate, consistent with state law, and shall advise the chief of police of any intended action.
(c)  The city manager shall notify all parties, including the citizens review board, of the decision of the city manager consistent with state law and city policy. The city manager also shall advise the city council of the outcome of the appeal. Notifications made under this subsection must be made within seven calendar days of the date that the decision of the city manager was initially communicated to the chief of police.
(Code 1985, § 16-40)
Sec. 16-63. City clerk's duties; meeting places; staff.permanent link to this piece of content
(a) Under this division the city clerk shall:
(1) Act as secretary to the citizens review board;
(2) Keep the minutes of its meetings;
(3) Be custodian of all papers and records pertaining to the business of the board; and
(4) Perform such other duties as the board may require.
(b) The city council shall provide sufficient and reasonable rooms and use of public buildings for meetings and hearings of the board as may be necessary.
(c) The city manager shall assign staff to support the functions of the citizens review board.
(Code 1985, § 16-41)
Sec. 16-64. Reports.permanent link to this piece of content
The citizens review board shall make a semiannual and an annual report of its actions for each preceding year. These reports shall be kept in the files of the board and a copy delivered to the chief of police, city manager, city council and the community relations committee.
(Code 1985, § 16-42)


Here is the complete text of the law allowing the CRB to review full personnel files:


GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1997 SESSION


S.L. 1997-305



The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

Section 1.  The first six sentences of Section 4.61 of the Charter of the City of Charlotte, being Chapter 713 of the 1965 Session Laws, as rewritten by Chapter 623 of the 1995 Session Laws, reads as rewritten:
"Sec. 4.61.  There is hereby continued a Civil Service Board for the City of Charlotte, to consist of five members, members and two alternates; three members and one alternate to be appointed by the City Council and two members and one alternate to be appointed by the Mayor. Each member shall serve for a term of three (3) years.  In case of a vacancy on the Board, the City Council or the Mayor, as the case may be, shall fill such vacancy for the unexpired term of said member.  For the purposes of establishing a quorum of the Board, any combination of Board members and alternates totaling three shall constitute a quorum. All board members and alternates shall attend regular meetings for the purposes of meeting attendance policy and familiarity with Board business and procedures.  Alternates shall attend hearings when needed due to scheduling conflicts of regular Board members and shall vote only when serving in the absence of a regular Board member. Attendance at meetings and continued service on the Board shall be governed by the attendance policies established by the City Council. Vacancies resulting from a member's failure to attend the required number of meetings or hearings shall be filled as provided herein."
Section 2.  Section 4.61(7)c. of the Charter of the City of Charlotte, being Chapter 713 of the 1965 Session Laws, as enacted by Chapter 449 of the 1979 Session Laws, reads as rewritten:
"c.      Appeal hearings.  Upon receipt of a citation for termination from either Chief or upon receipt of notice of appeal for a suspension from any Civil Service covered police officer or employee of the Fire or Police Department, or firefighter, the Board shall hold a hearing not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days from the date the notice of appeal, or the citation, is received by the Board, and shall promptly notify the officer of the hearing date. Termination hearings shall be held with a panel of five made up of any combination of available members or alternates, and suspension hearings shall be held with a panel of three made up of any combination of available members or alternates.  In the event an officer desires a hearing at a date other than that set by the Board within the period set forth above, such officer may file a written request for a change of hearing date setting forth the reasons for such request, and the Chairman of the Board is empowered to approve or disapprove such request; provided, that such request must be received by the Board at least seven days prior to the date set for the hearing.  For good cause, the Chairman of the Board may set a hearing date other than within the period set forth above, or may continue the hearing from time to time."
Section 3.  G.S. 160A-168(c) reads as rewritten:
"(c)     All information contained in a city employee's personnel file, other than the information made public by subsection (b) of this section, is confidential and shall be open to inspection only in the following instances:
(1)      The employee or his duly authorized agent may examine all portions of his personnel file except (i) letters of reference solicited prior to employment, and (ii) information concerning a medical disability, mental or physical, that a prudent physician would not divulge to his patient.
(2)      A licensed physician designated in writing by the employee may examine the employee's medical record.
(3)      A city employee having supervisory authority over the employee may examine all material in the employee's personnel file.
(4)      By order of a court of competent jurisdiction, any person may examine such portion of an employee's personnel file as may be ordered by the court.
(5)      An official of an agency of the State or federal government, or any political subdivision of the State, may inspect any portion of a personnel file when such inspection is deemed by the official having custody of such records to be inspected to be necessary and essential to the pursuance of a proper function of the inspecting agency, but no information shall be divulged for the purpose of assisting in a criminal prosecution (of the employee), or for the purpose of assisting in an investigation of (the employee's) tax liability.  However, the official having custody of such records may release the name, address, and telephone number from a personnel file for the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation.
(6)      An employee may sign a written release, to be placed with his personnel file, that permits the person with custody of the file to provide, either in person, by telephone, or by mail, information specified in the release to prospective employers, educational institutions, or other persons specified in the release.
(7)      The city manager, with concurrence of the council, or, in cities not having a manager, the council may inform any person of the employment or nonemployment, promotion, demotion, suspension or other disciplinary action, reinstatement, transfer, or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action.  Before releasing the information, the manager or council shall determine in writing that the release is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of city services or to maintaining the level and quality of city services.  This written determination shall be retained in the office of the manager or the city clerk, and is a record available for public inspection and shall become part of the employee's personnel file.
(8)      In order to facilitate citizen review of the police disciplinary process, the city manager or the chief of police, or their designees, may release the disposition of disciplinary charges against a police officer and the facts relied upon in determining the disposition to the person alleged to have been aggrieved by the officer's actions or to that person's survivor and to members of the citizens' review board.  Board members shall maintain as confidential all personnel information to which they gain access as a member of the Board.  Each member of the Board shall execute and adhere to a Confidentiality Agreement that is satisfactory to the City.  For purposes of this subdivision, the 'disposition of disciplinary charges' includes determinations that the charges are sustained, not sustained, unfounded, exonerated, classified as an information file, or classified as any other disciplinary disposition category subsequently adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department.  In the event that the citizens' review board hears an appeal of a police disciplinary case, the disposition of the case, as defined in this subdivision, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, may be released by the city manager or the chief of police, or their designees, to any person whose presence is necessary to the appeals hearing as determined by the chief of police or his designee.
(9)      That portion of a video or audio tape produced by a mobile video recorder (MVR) in a police department vehicle which recorded an event resulting in a citizen complaint against a police officer may be reviewed by the person alleged to have been aggrieved by the officer's actions."
Section 4.  This act applies only to the City of Charlotte.
Section 5.  This act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 17th day of July, 1997.
s/   Dennis A. Wicker
President of the Senate

s/   Harold J. Brubaker
Speaker of the House of Representatives



Here is a link and the text of the CRB Agenda item for tomorrow night:

2. Citizens Review Board Briefing
Committee Chair: Warren Cooksey

Resources: Ron Carlee, City Manager’s Office
Eric Campbell, City Manager’s Office
 Bob Hagemann, City Attorney’s Office
 Chief Rodney Monroe, Police
 Willie Ratchford, City Manager’s Office

Time: 45 minutes

Synopsis
 On April 1, 2013, the City Council requested that the Council-Manager Relations
Committee review the current Citizens Review Board ordinance. As a part of that
review, a task force including members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community
Relations Committee and the Citizens Review Board formed to gather feedback
from the community regarding the Citizens Review Board process.
 On September 23, 2013, the Citizens Review Board Task Force reported its
findings and recommendations, and the Council-Manager Relations Committee
requested the City Manager’s review. The ordinance amendment is drawn from a
review of the task force report and the full record related to their work. The City
Manager’ recommendation was developed in consultation with the Attorney’s
Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Community Relations staff, and
others.
 The Council-Manager Relations Committee voted unanimously (Cooksey, Howard,
and Mitchell) to approve the task force recommendations at their September 23,
2013 meeting.
 The recommended changes are based on the important concept that the Citizens
Review Board appeal process is and should remain an administrative review of
personnel decisions made by the Chief of Police; this is consistent with a
recommendation of the task force that the Citizens Review Board maintain its
appellate structure. Other proceedings, civil, or criminal litigation as well as the
Civil Service Board remain available to the public and to police officers.
 In addition to the substantive proposed amendments, other changes are set forth
in the proposed draft ordinance, which is intended to enhance the procedural
operations of the Citizens Review Board consistent with task force




Bonus note:  City Clerk Stephanie Kelly is now only one month behind publishing the City Council Agendas.  This is a big improvement over the 4 month lag which has plagued the site.  However, it’s still not acceptable.