The Maneater is again on hiatus until our
next summer issue July 9. Until then, check
themaneater.com for online-only updates.

Committee discusses review board options


Feb. 29, 2008

Jeff Williams, assistant to the provost, passes out agendas to the Citizen Oversight Committee Thursday evening at Daniel Boone City Building. The committee discussed developing a civilian review board.

Jeff Williams, assistant to the provost, passes out agendas to the Citizen Oversight Committee Thursday evening at Daniel Boone City Building. The committee discussed developing a civilian review board.

Planning a series of community engagement meetings to discuss the possibility of a civilian review board, the Columbia Police Department Citizen Oversight Committee met Thursday in the Daniel Boone Building.

A citizen review board would be a body to mediate complaints between citizens and CPD.

The Community Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee has planned six community engagement meetings at which community members will be able to voice their concerns about a review board. Three of the meetings have been confirmed, and the final three are awaiting confirmation from the locations.

According to the subcommittee, the purpose of the meetings is to gain knowledge about the public’s opinion.

“We are going to get this out to as many people as possible,” Chairwoman Ellen Lo-Curto Martinez said.

A main concern of the subcommittee is how to gain the public’s attendance at the meetings. Some strategies discussed included fliers, news releases and television and radio advertising.

The COC plants to discuss details of the community engagement meetings at length at their next meeting. Either committee member Jeff Wilson or Oversight Committee Chairman Rex Campbell will moderate while the rest of the committee members will be available to answer questions. At the start of each meeting, the mediator will give a brief description of the purpose of the COC. Campbell and Wilson are also MU professors.

“We need to establish a level of openness and transparency of this process,” Wilson said.

Citizens will be allowed three minutes each to make comments regarding their opinions about a review board. After about an hour, a 30-minute open forum discussion will take place. Those who do not feel comfortable approaching the microphone will be able to write comments on a sheet of paper, which will be read in front of the committee.

The location and time of the meetings were debated at length. Attendees wanted all citizens to have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Discussion on locations focusing in black communities in Columbia led the committee to choose locations in the central city or at churches on weekends and weeknights in order to accommodate church and work schedules.

“Part of the reason why we’re here is the longstanding tensions between the African-American community and the police,” Wilson said. “I’m not sure they’re the only group we need to look at though.”

Comment sheets will be available in public places such as libraries and on the city Web site around the time of the first engagement meeting.

Committee Member Chris Egbert of the Model Subcommittee gave a brief overview of four types of review boards.

Before describing each, Egbert said though his committee has researched types of review boards, they have not come to a decision to endorse a civilian review board.

The first method is a fully external civilian review board, and according to the description Egbert gave, it would be external to the police department, and would investigate complaints against the police, then make a recommendation for discipline. It would report to someone other than the chief of police.

The second method is a police investigation with a civilian review board review. This form would review and approve or reject the internal affairs report of the incident.

The third type presented was a civilian review board monitor or auditor. This type would determine if the internal affairs process is complete and effective through audits quarterly or annually.

The final option presented was a model that would be a hybrid of the former three.

“This would be more community specific,” committee member David Smith said.

He said it is clear every city that has a review board is different.

“There is no ‘one size fits all,’” Smith said.

Share on Facebook

More Feb. 29, 2008 Outlook Stories

Most recent Outlook Stories