Community Review Board presses for transparency as outside investigator stays silent; contract terms disclosed

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Community Review Board on Wednesday pressed for transparency in a yearlong investigation handled by an outside law firm, saying the board and the public deserve at least a general update on progress and how much taxpayers are paying.

The board’s discussion centered on Butler Snow attorney Edward Stanton’s refusal to comment and on the engagement terms between the firm and Metro. “There is absolutely nothing new to report because attorney Ed Stanton has very consistently declined to make any comment,” a board representative said during the meeting. Board members said Stanton’s silence has left complainants and board members frustrated and uncertain about the investigation’s status.

Why it matters: The board is the public-facing oversight body that reviews complaints about the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department. Board members said the lack of routine updates has prolonged uncertainty for whistleblowers and families who expect timelier closure on cases.

Board members reviewed the engagement letter terms presented at the meeting and quoted hourly rates. According to the engagement language read into the record, Butler Snow will bill “based on the actual time spent on the engagement by Butler Snow’s attorneys and paraprofessionals at the hourly rate then in effect,” with Edward (Ed) Stanton billed at $535 per hour and Keenan Carter billed at $450 per hour. The letter also states billing rates are subject to annual adjustment and that the firm will bill the Metro Department of Law. The board asked whether the public can obtain the contract and a record of payments to date.

Board member Heather Boyle raised formal questions about public access to the contracting terms and fees and asked whether the contract and payments are public records because the firm is working with a government agency. An attorney advising the board said he had not yet reviewed the contract details but agreed those were “good questions to ask.”

Several board members urged the city to provide at least a non-substantive status statement to confirm the investigation remains active. “It would help to hear at a minimum our investigation is still in progress,” a board member said. Other board members said the investigator’s refusal to comment is similar to a grand jury’s customary secrecy and that there may be no legal mechanism to compel interim disclosures until the work is finished.

Legal context referenced during the meeting included a notice read at the start saying appeals from Community Review Board decisions may be taken to the Chancery Court of Davidson County under a common-law writ of certiorari and must be filed within 60 days of a final board decision, pursuant to section 2.68 0.03 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws.

Board members said they will ask Metro’s law department for the engagement letter, request an accounting of hours billed and payments to date, and consider ways to provide the public with a short procedural update while respecting any legal limits on interim disclosures. No formal motion or vote on a disclosure request was recorded during the meeting.

The discussion closed with repeated calls from board members for care in external communications and for work to continue behind the scenes with Metro’s legal staff to obtain contract and billing information that the board can share publicly without compromising the investigation or legal agreements.