The Public Safety Committee reviewed recommended appointments to the city’s civilian review board and voted to forward the slate to the full City Council for final approval.

Chief McMahonard summarized the complaint and disciplinary review process and described how the civilian-review board (described in the presentation as a 14-member board of seven sworn members and seven civilians) participates in case review and recommendation. He said the board does not itself impose discipline; internal affairs investigates complaints and forwards findings and recommendations through the department chain for final action.

Committee members pressed staff on transparency and the selection process. Several councilmembers asked how many applications were received (staff said 16 applications were submitted and all were interviewed), why the council did not review the full applicant list before recommendation, and whether the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) language or other contract terms constrained public review of applicants. Staff said the current practice is to interview and synthesize applicants to ensure recommended civilians meet criteria (residency, minimum age, no recent convictions, community ties) and to provide a balanced set of nominees; staff offered to provide the full applications and synopses for council review and to bring further detail in November.

Committee members asked for more disclosure about how candidates were screened and which applicants did not meet minimum criteria; staff said follow-up information — including the number of applicants who failed to meet residency requirements — would be provided. Councilmembers asked to observe interviews and expressed interest in earlier involvement to set expectations for future selections.

At the conclusion of discussion, a committee member moved to recommend approval of the nominated members to the full City Council; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The committee chair and staff said council members will have access to the full applications ahead of the council vote, and staff agreed to return in November with supplemental materials and an outline of the selection timeline.

The committee also approved minutes at the start of the meeting by unanimous voice vote; the minutes approval was procedural and recorded at the beginning of the session.