Kent County administrative charging committee discusses outside counsel, trial board vacancies and annual report

The Kent County Administrative Charging Committee discussed hiring outside legal counsel for PABACC legal questions, recruiting additional trial board members and finalizing its annual report during a meeting in January 2025, and a member moved to go into executive session near the meeting's end.

The committee chair called the meeting to order and the committee approved last month’s minutes by voice vote. The committee then listed “obtaining a lawyer for PABACC legal questions” as old business and discussed whether to retain outside counsel in addition to the county attorney.

Pete (ACC member) said he had renewed contact with an attorney he previously reached out to but that the lawyer had changed firms and had not yet provided a clear cost estimate. Pete said, “So I rekindled that. I just wanna see exactly what, what it what it's gonna cost for his services.” He and other members discussed the possibility of hiring counsel with criminal-law experience rather than relying only on the county’s civil attorney. Pete said hiring criminal-law–oriented counsel “would be appropriate and be in our best interest for not only the county, but the ACC and the police accountability board.”

Committee members noted that counsel would be needed not only to review the committee’s policies and procedures but also potentially to assist on specific cases. A member confirmed the county’s approval is required before policies can be adopted, and that policy and procedure review remains pending legal review.

Recruiting for trial board members drew sustained attention. The committee said it currently has only one available trial board member and that the shortage could create scheduling problems if the designated member is unavailable when a trial is needed. The committee discussed identifying additional candidates and training; Dobby Dunlop was suggested as a possible candidate, though members noted he practices much of his work in Louisiana and may not routinely appear locally. Members also noted there is a two-day training class for trial board members and discussed ensuring candidates have appropriate training.

The committee discussed its annual report, which the chair described as a compilation of statistics, cases reviewed, outreach activities and other data the county commissioners should see. Members agreed the report should highlight outreach such as community events and board ride-alongs in addition to complaint statistics. Committee members counted six completed case reviews for the reporting period and noted one additional complaint the department received in October that remains open and therefore will be included in next year’s report rather than this year’s finalized report.

Members reviewed the schedule for required training. The committee recorded a newly appointed training scheduled for March 24–28 (five days) and discussed a second offering of the newly appointed training in May (date not specified in the transcript). Members also mentioned a separate two-day training option; specific attendee lists and costs were not provided.

Near the meeting’s close the chair moved that the committee “close to go into executive session.” A second was recorded but the transcript does not record a vote or the result of that motion.

No formal procurement decisions, contract awards or final agreements with outside counsel were recorded in the transcript. Committee members agreed to continue seeking counsel cost estimates and to pursue recruitment and training for trial board candidates. The committee indicated the annual report will include only completed reviews for the reporting year and that the outstanding October complaint will appear in next year’s report.