Residents press Decatur City council to release Green report, press for police accountability after Steve Perkins' death

Decatur City residents used the council's work session to press elected officials to make public an outside review known in the meeting as the "Green report" and to demand steps on police accountability following the death of Steve Perkins.

Members of the public demanded an immediate release and called for hearings, while council members and staff said the report had been received by the city and was being reviewed with legal counsel before public release. "We got it on Thursday," public commenter Lisa Bradley said. Council member Jacob Ladner said his anticipation was that "when that is made public, there will be discussions about it in on this [dais] with the law." City Attorney Herman Marks said he has handled many redactions in his career and that redactions happen "quite often."

The exchange focused on three issues: when the report will be made public, whether redactions are needed because of pending criminal proceedings, and what formal actions the council will take after the report is released. Several speakers linked the report to the community's loss of trust in city institutions and urged prompt, transparent steps. "We need and deserve accountability of the mayor and his administration," one commenter said during public remarks. Others described targeted harassment on social media and alleged fake Facebook pages tied to police staffers; speakers asked whether the city or the district attorney could investigate those pages.

Why it matters: the Green report is an outside review of Decatur Police Department practices that residents say bears on public safety and city accountability. Speakers argued that timely public release and clear next steps from council are necessary to rebuild trust after months of protests and public concern following Perkins' death.

What officials said: council leadership acknowledged receipt of the report but said they were working with the city attorney and other advisers to determine what to redact before public release. Herman Marks, identified in the session as the city attorney, said he had frequently handled redactions in his career and that the complexity of this review requires careful handling. Council statements also noted there are legal and criminal proceedings that could be affected by unredacted public disclosure.

Public comments named specific grievances and evidence residents want disclosed, including body-worn camera footage and social-media activity. Sarah French and other speakers described continuing online harassment and questioned the pace of any administrative response; Billy Kennedy and other commenters called for leadership changes if the report substantiates misconduct. Commenters also referenced training and personnel spending listed in the city's checks, and asked whether those expenditures matched public safety priorities.

City context and next steps: speakers cited an approximately $300,000 cost for the outside review and questioned a check number the public identified in discussion. Council members said they expect to discuss the report publicly after the city's legal review is complete; one council representative said the goal was to release the report "by the end of next week," though no exact date was committed to during the work session. No formal motions or votes about the report were recorded during the work session.

Ending: Councilmembers and the city attorney said they will continue the legal review and hold public discussion after redactions are finalized. Residents said they will continue to press for immediate release and follow-up actions, including possible hearings and consideration of changes to department leadership.