Decatur work session erupts over redacted third‑party review of police; public, council press for hearings and accountability

Dozens of residents pressed Decatur City officials during a council work session to hold hearings and take personnel action after the city released a redacted third‑party review of the Decatur Police Department.

The council heard sustained public comment about the report prepared by Green Research. Chief Todd Pinion urged calm, defended his officers and said the review did not substantiate claims of widespread corruption or systemic racism. “This report gave no indication that any of those things were a significant or legitimate concern,” Pinion said, and added the department would implement recommendations from the Office of Professional Standards and report progress to the council.

Residents who spoke at the podium described the redacted sections as the most troubling element. Dr. Christy Love, an educator who signed up for public comment, said the redactions concealed “deliberate actions, intentional choices made to conceal department misconduct” and called for Pinion to resign: “This leader of yours, chief Pinion, continues to evade responsibility and accountability, and that must stop. It is time for him to go.”

Mayor’s office and legal staff described why material was redacted. City legal counsel Herman said redactions were made for several reasons, including personal privacy, pending or potential litigation and personnel matters, and that the city worked with Green Research on the redaction process. “There are redactions of instance which describe both positive and negative, whereby personal interest, property rights, pending and potential action, including personnel matters, and the city's interest would be impacted by the release of those terms,” Herman said.

Council members and other officials repeatedly declined to promise immediate removals or a vote to remove the chief; instead several council members said they expected more public reporting and that the mayor and legal and HR offices should pursue performance measures. One council member said the council should press the mayor to produce a performance improvement plan with “clear and measurable objectives for the chief and the department” and publish it if possible.

Speakers raised specific operational concerns cited in the Green Research review: failures to document complaints in IAPro (the department’s complaint/tracking software), unexplained premature deletion or misclassification of body‑worn camera footage, inconsistent documentation of incident dates, and gaps in how internal investigations were recorded. The review’s methodology covered a sample of body‑worn camera footage and complaints from 2023 and 2024; those limitations were acknowledged repeatedly during discussion.

Council members and staff described procedural limits on action. Several council members noted that the city attorney and Green Research reviewed redaction choices before the redacted report was provided to council and the public; some public speakers said that process undercut transparency and questioned whether the city had protected the department’s interests over the public’s.

Public commenters described fear of retaliation inside the department and said many officers they know would not file complaints. Multiple residents and commentators urged the council to call formal hearings where the chief and staff would answer questions in public.

The council did not take a formal vote on the report or on personnel actions during the session. City officials said the redacted report would be discussed further at upcoming meetings and that additional recommendations from Green Research would be implemented or addressed by the chief and staff. Several council members asked the chief to provide concrete, time‑bound measures of progress at the next public meeting.