Community Review Board hears $324,608 billed to mayoral probe; members press for records and status of 61‑page complaint

The Community Review Board on May 24 received an update on the 61‑page complaint that prompted an outside law‑firm probe and were shown redacted invoices that total $324,608 for work that began May 30, 2024 and continued through Feb. 28, 2025.

Board members said the invoices were redacted to protect investigative details and that the board’s request for an itemized hourly accounting — dates of service, party work descriptions, hours and minutes, hourly rates, total payments and payment dates — was not provided in the form requested. The board noted it had previously authorized staff to pursue public‑records requests related to the matter.

Why it matters: the mayor‑commissioned review and the cost of outside counsel have been a recurring community concern for the board; members said they need enough record detail to assess the status and scope of the investigation and whether the board’s oversight responsibilities have been affected.

The board’s staff reported receiving invoices that had been redacted and that the documents do not disclose investigative substance, only service dates and payment totals. The staff update identified a start date of May 30, 2024, continued billing through February 2025 and the total billed amount of $324,608. Board members asked staff to pursue an open‑records request for the subpoena or warrant documents described in public discussion; staff said they can make standard open‑records requests but cautioned that counsel for a criminal defendant could object if disclosure would prejudice an active prosecution.

Members also discussed the indictment of former officer Garrett Davidson in the separate criminal matter and whether public production of investigatory materials could affect that prosecution. Board counsel and other members urged pursuing public records requests while acknowledging defense counsel could seek to block disclosure if it interfered with a defendant’s rights.

Board members repeatedly returned to a common theme voiced by community members at prior meetings: concern that the law firm selected to investigate the 61‑page complaint, Butler Snow, might not be perceived as independent. Several members said the board and community asked for an independent review and have pressed Metro Legal for timely records production; staff circulated a letter asking Metro Legal to explain why similar citizen requests were fulfilled more quickly.

The board concluded the item by keeping the 61‑page complaint on future agendas pending the final report and any additional records returned through open‑records processes. Staff said they would pursue the authorized public‑records requests and the board would review any responsive documents at a future meeting.

The board did not take a recorded roll‑call vote on new formal action at the May 24 meeting; members noted the matter had been authorized for open‑records pursuit at a prior meeting and committed to continued oversight and monthly updates.