Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board flags public‑records delays, body‑worn camera backlog; seeks MOU clarifications with police and TBI
Summary
Board staff reported delays receiving requested public records and said body‑worn camera footage commonly takes four to five months to be produced. The board circulated a case‑status log to the police chief, is awaiting a response from Metro Legal, and is revising memoranda of understanding, including a District Attorney Rule 16 MOU.
At the May 24 meeting the Community Review Board pressed for faster public‑records production and flagged a continued backlog for body‑worn camera footage that staff said averages four to five months after case closure.
Staff told the board it had circulated a case‑status report that tracks each complaint’s dates — received by the board, forwarded to OPA, records requests, body‑camera requests and presentation dates — and that the goal is to send that chart directly to the police chief so the department sees the timetables for each case. Staff said they are uploading final case documents to a public portal without signatures and adding columns to show board recommendations.
Board counsel and staff said they sent a letter to Cindy Gross at Metro Legal because identical record requests made by ordinary citizens were fulfilled more quickly than the board’s requests, and they asked Metro Legal to explain the difference. Staff said rolling productions of administrative closures have begun, but bottlenecks persist for body‑worn camera and dash‑cam footage.
On memoranda of understanding, the board reported two parallel efforts. The district attorney’s office circulated a District Attorney Rule 16 MOU language that Glenn Funk (District Attorney) approved for transmission to the police department; staff said that version should mirror prior protections. By contrast, staff said the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s redline removed language that would give the board priority handling; TBI’s suggested wording would limit the board to routine response timelines, and staff advised the board not to accept that language because it does not preserve priority for oversight requests.
Board members asked about a planned meeting with the police chief to discuss records exchange. Staff said a meeting with the chief had been rescheduled and was set for the coming Thursday; the board also described a transition from Commander Lara to Captain Cantrell as the department liaison and said they expect the liaison to help resolve records issues.
The board requested that staff continue pursuing records through open‑records channels and report back; board counsel said if defense counsel objects to production the city will have an opportunity to respond in the usual legal process.
No formal vote or new MOU was adopted at the May 24 meeting; the board said staff will follow up with Metro Legal, the police chief and the TBI on outstanding language and production timelines.
