Citizen Appeal Board refers proposed member-training bylaw back to subcommittee

The Grand Rapids Citizen Appeal Board voted March 19, 2025, to send a proposed amendment to Bylaw 2.1 — a provision that would formalize member training — back to the board's subcommittee for redrafting after members raised questions about ambiguous language on who decides what training is “relevant” and whether staff should be explicitly involved.

The proposed text was read aloud at the meeting: “New board members upon appointment shall receive training in areas relevant to their service to this board. These training include but are not limited to civil rights, law enforcement use of force policies, city policies, internal affairs policies and procedures, and public service employment law. This list is neither exhaustive nor mandated as to what training must be performed. Existing members shall receive remedial training as deemed necessary by the board.” Chair Jason Osborne (Citizen Appeal Board) read the provision to the group.

Board members and the city attorney debated whether the last sentence — which says remedial training is “deemed necessary by the board” — could be read to exclude staff or the Office of Police Accountability (OPA) from helping to define or deliver training. “I would suggest that we include language that says either the board and staff or something to that effect,” a board member said during discussion. Board member Sofia Brewer also asked the board to consider substituting “constitutional rights” for “civil rights,” saying the phrase “has been weaponized” in public discussion and that the alternative would be “stronger.”

Phil Straum, the city attorney, reviewed relevant background and arbitration history for the board. He noted an earlier arbitration decision involving an ICE-related investigation that observed the CAB did not receive ICE-specific training in that case and said the arbitration ruled “the CAB report did not provide evidence justifying overturning the IAU exoneration conclusion.” Straum advised that clarifying how trainings are identified and provided could strengthen the board’s work and reduce risk in future arbitration challenges.

Multiple board members urged clearer drafting to reflect how training has operated in practice: with OPA and city staff developing and delivering trainings and the board participating. Several speakers proposed adding language making the training-selection process collaborative — for example, that the board “work with city staff” or the board liaison to identify and deliver trainings. Others argued the current draft is intentionally permissive so the board can remain flexible as policing policy and technology change.

After extended discussion, a board member moved to send the proposed bylaw back to subcommittee for redrafting; another member seconded. The motion passed on a verbal vote with a single recorded opposition. The chair said the board will ask the subcommittee to return a revised version addressing the concerns raised, including clearer language about who defines training relevance and how staff or the liaison will be involved.

The meeting also included routine items and announcements: the board liaison noted there are currently no appeals pending; the OPA is seeking volunteers for an expungement fair in May at the Kroc Center; and the Grand Rapids Neighborhood Summit is scheduled for May 17 at the GVSU Pew campus downtown. The board approved the meeting minutes for March 19, 2025, with a correction to a date typo earlier in the draft minutes.

The subcommittee is expected to draft revised language and return it to the full board for consideration at a future meeting.