COLUMBIA, Missouri (KMIZ)
The City of Columbia is working to update its city code to comply with a new law that officially went into effect Wednesday and will limit the power of the Citizens Police Review Board.
Senate Bill 754, signed by Governor Mike Parson in July, focuses on changing some of Missouri’s public safety laws, including raising the minimum age at which a juvenile can be tried as an adult, establishing a Stop Cyberstalking and Harassment Task Force and increasing penalties for a range of crimes.
Section 590.653 of the bill focuses on civilian investigative boards. The law states that “civilian investigative boards established by political subdivisions shall be limited solely to the review, investigation, determination, and recommendation of disciplinary action against police officers.”
Doug Hunt, chairman of the Columbia CPRB, believes this will make it unlawful for the CPRB to perform most of its current duties. City staff is currently working to amend the city code to comply with the law. According to an Aug. 19 City Council memo, proposed changes that will be voted on during a Sept. 3 City Council meeting would limit the powers of a civilian oversight board to:
“ …receiving, investigating, determining and recommending disciplinary action based on complaints from citizens against members of the Police Department alleging misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of power, discourtesy or the use of abusive language… The Act specifically excludes any grant of additional powers to the CPRB.“
“I think the current draft ordinance is appropriate for everything that is going on to ensure that the city complies with state law. The best thing about the draft ordinance is that it 100% retains the mission of the Columbia Citizens Police Review Board, which is essentially set out in the ordinance as hearing appeals of citizen complaints of misconduct,” said Donald Weaver, general counsel for the Columbia Police Officers Association.
Weaver wrote two letters to Mayor Barbra Buffalo and the City Council on August 4 and 8, asking them not to expand the CPRB’s mandate.
“The more radical fringe groups in our community have been vocal in their calls for a fully autonomous unit of city government to receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints against police officers,” Weaver said when asked about the letter. “That same faction continues to exist in Columbia and that same perspective is still represented by a small group of, shall we say, special interest-led activists. I would look for them to try to influence the council, use this as an excuse to push things a little further in the radical direction and introduce civilian oversight and forums like you might see in Chicago or St. Louis.”
Hunt argues that the bill is intended to protect individual state officials from potentially unfair treatment by citizen councils. However, he believes Columbia City Attorney Nancy Thompson interprets the law much more broadly, which prevents the CPRB from soliciting public input on policies and making policy recommendations.
“I don’t think that’s the only possible interpretation of this law. In fact, I think it’s contrary to the intent of the law,” Hunt said. “I have no problem protecting individual officers and am committed to doing that. We don’t want them to be treated unfairly. In any case, we disagree. She has proposed changes to the city ordinance that would limit our ability to comment on policies, procedures and training.”
Under the revised city ordinance, the CPRB is no longer permitted to:
- Host public meetings and educational programs for Columbia residents and police.
- Review police policies, procedures, and training and make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City Manager regarding such policies, procedures, and training (except to the extent such recommendations relate to findings regarding complaints of alleged misconduct “related to excessive use of force, abuse of power, discourtesy, or the use of offensive language,” for which the Board has the authority to review records).
- Conduct audits or reviews of the police department’s records to ensure compliance with the requirements of this article (except to the extent such review, summary, discussion, City of Columbia, 701 East Broadway, Columbia, Missouri 65201, is related to complaints of alleged misconduct “involving excessive use of force, abuse of power, discourtesy, or the use of offensive language” for which the Board has the authority to review records).
- Prepare reports to the Council on all matters not related to the authorized activities of the body that “concern the receipt, investigation, determination and recommendation of disciplinary action on complaints from members of the public against members of the Police Department alleging misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of power, discourtesy or the use of offensive language.”
The CPRB responded with a letter to the city explaining its interpretation of the law and what it would like to see done, including updating the forms to allow citizens to easily check boxes to indicate whether the complaint involves issues such as excessive force, abuse of power, rudeness, offensive language or others.
“Although the city attorney’s interpretation of the law would constrain us much more than ours, it does give us some latitude to continue to operate,” Hunt said. “In my view, it’s a little bit like operating in secret. We can do less and less in public and therefore can represent the public’s views on what they would like to see in terms of police policy less and less effectively.”
Hunt also believes there is a gray area in the amended city ordinance. In the CPRB’s 2023 annual report, the board said it conducted three audits focused on complaints about allegations related to searches and seizures, use of force and discourtesy.
“If you look at the recommendations that are being presented to the council, you won’t find the word ‘audit’ in them. I think this will be one of the battles to come when these changes are made in the city code,” Hunt said.
Weaver disagrees.
“It communicates the role of the CPRB very clearly and unambiguously. It is, in fact, the same task that it has had since its inception, which is to hear appeals. It takes away, I would say, some of the ancillary tasks from the CPRB, turning it into a kind of overtime work that was never intended to be that way and was never part of its stated mission.”
According to the city, 15 complaints have been forwarded to the board since January 2022. Weaver also says that in the past 12 years, only 81 people have requested a review by the CPRB.
Hunt argues, however, that while citizen control can be “a sensitive issue” for the police and society, it is nevertheless important.
“In situations like this, it’s easy for people to portray this as a battle between anti-police and pro-police forces. In fact, policing works better when police officers and citizens have the same view of what’s happening,” Hunt said. “We do everything we can to communicate with everyone involved.”
