CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD
                                MINUTES

Date: June 10, 2021

Scheduled Time: 6:30 p.m.

Location: Virtual/Electronic Meeting

Board Members Attending: Bellamy Brown, Nancy Carpenter, Jeff Fracher, William Mendez
Staff: Brian Wheeler, Maxicelia Robinson

Guests: Deputy City Manager Ashley Marshall, Cynthia Hudson (CRB counsel)

Chair Bellamy Brown called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.

Agenda Adoption –The Board unanimously adopted the agenda as proposed

Adoption of Minutes – The Minutes from the May 8 board meeting were approved unanimously.

Public Comment Session I

Ms. Carpenter asked if any City Council candidates were in attendance. Mr. Wheeler indicated
that there were not.

Adrienne Dent – Ms. Dent asked if it was appropriate for the CPD to memorialize the 1917
death of a CPD officer in a case that clearly involved grave injustice to Black defendants. Chair
Bellamy indicated that the Board had no input into social media posts by the Charlottesville
Police and she should contact the Tyler Hawn, the CPD Public Information Officer.

Status of Complaints
Chair Brown reported that this year that 18 citizen complaints had been filed, 11 sent to us by
complainants; eight were closed and three remained open as of this meeting. The Board has
forwarded two complaints to CPD, and nine complaints were forwarded by CPD to the board
within the required timeframe. Mr. Brown then gave a brief summary of the nature of the
allegations in the complaints. Vice Chair Mendez asked if the file containing the information on
complaints could be shared with the Board. Chair Bellamy indicated that he would forward it to
all Board members but noted that it could not yet be released to the Public.
Update on Executive Director Process

Chair Bellamy stated that he was recusing himself from this discussion and from any Board
activities associated with the selection of an Executive Director because he is a candidate for the
position. He called on Vice Chair Mendez to preside over this item of business. Mr. Mendez
noted that the first round of interviews had been scheduled for June 23 or 25, and that candidates
were currently being screened. Deputy City Manager Marshall reported that screening of the 64
candidates was in progress with the objective of identifying those who best met the Board’s
requirements. She cited the interview procedure sent to Mr. Mendez and Dr. Fracher; there
would be three rounds of interviews with PCRB members involved in all rounds. Dr. Fracher
was currently scheduled to participate in the first round, Members Gilmore and Watson in the
second round and all three Board members in the final round, which would be a closed session.
She stated that she had sent the procedures to only two members of the Board (Mendez and
Fracher) to maintain confidentiality under FOIA but that the procedure could be sent to the rest
of the Board (except Mr. Brown) if we understood that doing so would render the document
subject to FOIA requests. She noted that the FOIA concern applied to interview meetings as
well, which was why two or fewer Board members were invited to participate except in the last
closed meeting. Vice Chair Mendez agreed to send the interview procedure to all the Board
members except Chair Brown. There being no further questions related to Executive Director
hiring process, Mr. Brown resumed the Chair.

Public Comment Period #2 –

Molly Conger – Ms. Conger pointed out that sharing the case tracking file with the other Board
members merely makes it harder for the public to obtain access it, owing to the costs of pursuing
a FOIA request. Chair Bellamy noted that the public release is still under review and a final
decision will be made by the Executive Director when hired. Ms. Hudson noted that we should
consider whether we wish to claim FOIA exemptions for specific elements of the file (personal
data) before release. Ms. Conger stated that the Board’s reluctance to share information affects
our credibility and commitment to transparency. Mr. Brown and Dr. Fracher noted that the Board
is balancing the desire for openness with privacy concerns.

Update on Hearing Procedures

Chair Bellamy reported that the latest draft of the hearing procedures had be received from the
Board’s independent counsel. Ms. Hudson reported that she had reviewed the previous draft,
incorporating edits from the City Attorney and addressed comments from the People’s Coalition.
She noted that transparency issues were among the matters being considered, stating that some
specific types of information are legally required to remain confidential. She indicated that the
next draft would be available in the next day or so. Mr. Mendez asked about next steps and time
to completion. Chair Brown stated that the Board should be able to discuss the procedures and
vote at the next meeting. The revised draft will be posted on the Board website giving the public
another opportunity to comment. Vice Chair Mendez asked if the procedure is an update to the
2019 bylaws. Chair Brown indicated that it is was not but merely specifies hearing procedures
under the existing bylaws. He noted that the current draft will provide the baseline to which we
can add the new powers under our revised oversight Model.

Update on the Revised Ordinance

Mr. Mendez reported on 2:2 meetings that had been held with members of the City Council
regarding the revised ordinance. Mr. Mendez and Dr. Fracher had met with Councilors Snook
and Payne to review the working draft ordinance wherein the Board was granted investigatory
power and the power to make disciplinary recommendations. Comments received from
Councilor Snook indicated discomfort with the investigative model; among other concerns was
how criminal activity would be addressed. In his written comments, he proposed something like
an auditor review model. He also suggested that having multiple organizations (the Board and
the CPD) conducting investigations would be confusing and duplicative. His more recent
comments indicate that his primary reservations about the investigative model relate to specific
practical issues.

Mr. Mendez and Dr. Fracher also met with Councilors Hill and Magill earlier in the week before
this meeting. Councilor Hill expressed strong in-principle and practical reservations about the
Board having investigatory power. Councilor Magill also had concerns about the practicality of
the investigative model. She shared her past professional experiences with complex, poorly
planned administrative structures that couldn’t be made to work. Councilor Hill expressed
worries that the Board could be dominated by anti-police activists who would be unfair to police.
She asked that members, especially the Chair, should be well-trained. Mr. Mendez referred the
Councilors to the Board’s April NACOLE training on investigations.

Mr. Mendez stated that he and Chair Brown would be meeting with Mayor Walker on Friday
June 11 to discuss the proposed oversight model and ordinance. He expressed the concern that
we have not yet found a champion on the Council who will move forward and get beyond the
repeated cycle of responding to multiple sets of comments. Dr. Fracher added that he thought
Councilor Hill’s concern (about potential bias and lack of training) applied strong to the
Executive Director, as well as to Board members. He stressed that the interactions with the
Council are an educational exercise; they are not experts in police oversight and are very busy.
Ms. Hudson agreed to meet with Board members to refine strategies for providing information to
the Council. She suggested that having a clean draft ordinance that the Board all agreed on
would be a good tool.

Mr. Mendez stressed how much in common we have with experiences of other Boards. Many of
the practical and policy concerns we have heard from stakeholders are routinely raised whenever
new police oversight is proposed. Ms. Carpenter stated that people are tired of waiting; we need
to move forward as quickly as possible. She suggested that we should put ordinance out now
and let the Council debate it. She also expressed concern about whether we can get support from
City Council candidates. Mr. Mendez noted that Councilor Snook still thought we could send a
draft Ordinance to the Council in July and have the Operating Procedures on the Council agenda
in early fall. He suggested that the Board make an effort to get a council-ready draft by first
week of July, incorporating all the powers we want, accompanied by annotations supporting the
various measures.

Chair Brown noted that two Council Candidates had made negative comments about giving the
Board investigatory and disciplinary input, without ever contacting the CRB and informing
themselves about the issues. He plans to discuss these concerns with them and hopes that their
opinions may change. He cited past experience wherein politicians were reluctant to act in the
face of public campaigns against oversight authority by police and suggested that the Council
needed to take the issue of police oversight more seriously to address the needs of all sectors of
the community.

Mr. Mendez agreed to move forward on a final revision to the ordinance in concert with the work
group, in preparation for having a document for discussion and voting at the Board’s next
meeting.
Public Comment Period 3

Harold Folley – Mr. Folley expressed thanks for the Board’s work and recommended we “keep
the pressure on.” He stated that the Board needs to provide leadership to Council. He cited the
Board’s history wherein 2019 ordinance was flawed which has greatly limited the Board’s ability
to move forward. He suggested we should not be “afraid to go first” (on oversight.)

Upcoming Training Events

Chair Bellamy announced that the last NACOLE training would be presented on June 30; the
session being geared toward the City Council.

The Board voted to adjourn at approximately 7:40.

Next Meeting: July 8, 2021 at 6:30