Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rule 16 Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Review Board escalates Rule 16 dispute with Metro Legal, schedules June 16 meeting
Summary
The Nashville Community Review Board said Metro Legal is refusing to include a Rule 16 confidentiality provision in a new memorandum of understanding with the police department and scheduled a June 16 meeting with Metro Legal to press the issue and seek resolution.
The Nashville Community Review Board said Metro Legal declined to sign a provision tied to Rule 16 into the board's memorandum of understanding with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, and the board scheduled a meeting with Metro Legal for June 16 at the Historic Courthouse to press for access to records.
Board attorneys and staff described the dispute as a threat to the board’s ability to review cases that overlap with criminal prosecutions. Attorney Brazil told the board, “I believe it's June 16 at 03:00. Historic courthouse. Myself and Jill will meet with Cindy Gross and potentially chief Drake…,” and urged the board to approve follow-up discussions with Cindy Gross of Metro Legal.
The board said Metro Legal now contends the Rule 16 provision is “not relevant” to the MOU and will not sign it, though participants in earlier negotiations — including board representatives — said Metro Legal previously indicated it would not oppose a separate Rule 16 MOU. Attorney Brazil summarized the legal issue: “Rule 16 is a rule of procedure that, keeps confidential files that are involved in an ongoing criminal prosecution.” That confidentiality, the board said, can block the review of investigative files the board uses to recommend administrative steps.
Why it matters: the board’s work sometimes overlaps with active criminal prosecutions. Without agreed access to materials covered by Rule 16, the board said it can be prevented from reviewing incident reports, supplemental reports and witness statements that inform administrative recommendations. Board members argued that a refusal to honor prior assurances represents a breach of good faith in negotiations.
Board members discussed who should attend the June 16 meeting. Former board member Drew Goddard was recommended because he participated in the original MOU negotiations and could recall prior representations; Attorney Brazil and executive staff will attend from the board’s side. The chair said the board will consider having a board member attend and discussed member Haddock as a potential representative if her schedule allows.
Board members also discussed elevating the issue to higher officials if Metro Legal persists in the position. “It looks like Metro Legal is walking back a good faith gesture,” one board speaker said in describing recent correspondence. The board requested that staff and counsel begin preparatory conversations with Metro Legal and Cindy Gross before the June 16 meeting so that the session could be “fruitful.”
The board framed the immediate next steps as preparatory legal work and a face-to-face meeting with Metro Legal and potential MNPD representatives on June 16. Board members said they will seek clarity on the scope of the MOU, the status of their past agreements, and whether the board can regain the access it says is necessary to review certain cases.
The board did not vote on a change to policy at the meeting; it set the meeting date and discussed representation and legal strategy going forward.
