Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges protection of Citizens Review Board; city attorney says CRB jurisdiction is limited
Summary
A resident urged the board to protect the Citizens Review Board's independence; City Attorney Tom Carpentry told the board the CRB's remit is limited to excessive-force and police-corruption reviews and suggested the Public Safety Commission for wider policy matters.
Amy Pritchard told the Little Rock City Board of Directors on Jan. 7 that the Citizens Review Board (CRB) must remain independent and able to review police practices and policies, including matters tied to Bradley Blackshire’s death.
"The citizens review board is not only essential to transparency and accountability in this city, it is a reflection of Little Rock's commitment to working with its residents, not against them," Pritchard said during the public comment period, adding the board was created after Blackshire’s death and should not be "insulted" by narrowed interpretations of its jurisdiction.
City Attorney Tom Carpentry later addressed the board at the mayor’s request and described the CRB as having a limited statutory role. Carpentry said the CRB "has a limited jurisdiction that deals with excessive force cases or police corruption cases" and that, in alleged deadly-force cases, the CRB reviews matters before the police chief completes an internal review so the board can identify additional issues for review. Carpentry said broader policy questions — such as the use of license-plate-reading technology and facial-recognition capabilities — are appropriate topics for the Public Safety Commission because that body is organized to take public input on wider public-safety issues.
Pritchard criticized a city-attorney email she described as dismissive and said it threatened the board’s independence. She urged the City of Little Rock to protect the CRB’s authority and allow it to review policies and procedures when complaints are referred by the mayor.
Why it matters: The exchange highlights competing views about the CRB's role: residents who urged expansive oversight and the city attorney’s clarification that the CRB’s authority is limited to certain categories of misconduct and internal-review processes. The board did not take formal action on the CRB during the meeting.
Ending: The board heard public comment and received legal context from the city attorney; no ordinance or resolution modifying the CRB’s authority was proposed or acted on at the Jan. 7 meeting.
