Council committees vet mayor’s 9 nominees to Cleveland’s Community Police Commission amid questions about process and representation

Cleveland City Council’s joint Public Safety and Mayor’s Appointment Committee hearing on the mayor’s slate of nominees for the Community Police Commission focused on whether the nominations meet the charter’s category and residency rules and whether the appointment process was sufficiently transparent.

Council members pressed administration staff and the mayor’s advisers for numbers and documents: Delonte Spencer Thomas, the city’s chief ethics officer, told the committee “there were just under 50 applicants” and that the administration extended roughly 15–20 interviews. Acting Mayor’s Appointment Committee chair Councilman Chris Harsh reminded the committee that “the Cleveland Police Commission was created by the will of the people in 2021” and that the charter sets category requirements the committee must verify.

Why it matters: the Community Police Commission (CPC) now has final authority over discipline, policy, recruitment and training under the charter amendment voters approved, making the composition of the 13‑member body a matter of public accountability. Several council members said they are concerned that the slate before them does not adequately reflect groups the charter lists—clergy, community organizations and certain police associations—and that at least one locally recommended candidate was not forwarded.

Most important facts

- Administration staff said roughly 50 people applied, about 40–46 met basic eligibility and roughly 15–20 were interviewed; committee staff later confirmed the committee had received interviews for 17 applicants for this cycle. Council members requested the full list of applications and the interview roster for review.

- The mayor submitted a package that would leave the CPC with a mix of incumbent commissioners and new members; committee discussion named current commissioners who will remain in mid‑term (John Adams, James Chura, Pete Van Leer, Adriana Rodriguez), those who have resigned (Charles Donaldson, Alana Garrett Ferguson, Janice Ridgeway), and several whose two‑year terms were expiring (including Kyle Early, Kate Kennedy, Gregory Reeves, Terry Wang, Chandra Marrero Benito).

- Several council members and public commenters urged the committee to reconsider at least one locally recommended nominee, Richard Jackson (a Black Shield recommendation), saying an address issue and communications with staff affected his consideration. Council members asked administration to explain why Jackson’s recommendation was not advanced.

- The committee repeatedly requested clearer category breakdowns showing how each nominee fulfills the charter’s required categories (faith, youth, civil‑rights organizations, limited‑English speakers, survivors/family members of those affected by police action, attorney experience, and up to three police‑association representatives). City staff said the administration believes the proposed slate satisfies the charter’s requirements but agreed to provide a more detailed breakdown to council.

Discussion and directions

Committee members spent most of the hearing vetting nominees who appeared in person and asking administration officials for documentary evidence of the screening process. Key lines of inquiry included: how many applicants were eligible; how many interviews were completed and by whom; whether outgoing commissioners reapplied and why some were not reappointed; and whether representatives from police associations (including Black Shield, the Fraternal Order of Police and others) had been consulted.

The committee directed staff to provide several items to council for further review: the full set of applications (the administration agreed), the list of applicants who were interviewed, and attendance records for current CPC commissioners. Chair Harsh and Council President Blaine Griffin said the joint committee will forward recommendations to the council’s finance committee and the final ratification will occur at a council floor vote; the committee did not ratify or reject nominees at this meeting.

Points of contention and context

- Residency requirement: Committee members asked whether police‑association nominees could be nonresidents. Administration counsel said the city charter requires that board and commission members be Cleveland residents; however the charter also allows up to three police‑association representatives and does not explicitly list which associations qualify. Staff said the administration consulted the associations, and that Noble (a national organization with a local chapter) offered a nominee (retired Chief Sheila Mason) who the mayor included on the slate.

- Police‑association representation: Several council members and public commenters raised a specific concern that Black Shield, an organization representing some Black officers, was not named among the mayor’s nominations while other associations were consulted. The administration said it had engaged multiple associations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, and that Black Shield had made a recommendation that was considered, but that the mayor’s final nominations reflected a broader assessment of candidate fit.

- Past CPC conduct and executive‑director search: Multiple elected officials and commissioners referenced the CPC’s recent history of contentious public meetings and asked whether new nominees could help steady the panel. Commissioners and staff described a delayed executive‑director search (staff said recruiting work began with HR months after the mayor declined the commission’s earlier recommendation) and told council they had collected about 30 applications for that position.

- Surveillance policy and drones: Several nominees, staff and council members discussed the commission’s prior work on drone and surveillance policies. Some council members said they want a separate safety committee hearing on drone use by police; nominees gave mixed answers but many said drone use should be constrained by policy and constitutional protections or supported use only when it demonstrably improves public safety.

Public testimony

Community members attending the hearing used three‑minute public‑comment slots to press the committee on transparency and to ask that locally recommended candidates be reconsidered. Multiple speakers urged the council to insist that the mayor’s process be open and to circulate the applicant files and interview lists to the joint committee for review.

Next steps and what the committee did not decide

The committee did not vote to confirm or reject any nominees. Council members said the next step is for the joint committee to make recommendations to the finance committee, which will have a later hearing and the full council will vote on ratification at a floor meeting. The committee specifically asked administration to deliver the full applicant list, interview roster, a detailed mapping of nominees to charter categories, and attendance records for current commissioners before final votes. Council members also said they may ask the administration to reconsider one or more nominees if the documentation does not satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the charter.

Ending

Chairing council members emphasized that the committee’s work is a vetting process, not final ratification, and that the goal is to assemble a CPC that can carry out voter intent and reduce friction between residents and the police. Council members said they plan additional oversight, including a joint finance/safety review and budgetary attention to CPC staffing and operations.