State arbitrator reinstates San Rafael officer; community presses for transparency as PAC sets 2025 priorities

A state arbitrator overturned the termination of San Rafael Police Officer Brandon Nail on Dec. 16 and reinstated him to employment, San Rafael Police Chief Spiller told the Police Accountability Committee at a special meeting on Jan. 11.

The decision — which the city said it learned of on Dec. 21 — prompted extended public comment accusing the city and the San Rafael Police Department of withholding information. Committee members then moved on to develop and prioritize topics for the PAC’s 2025 workplan, listing transparency, police culture, youth and policing and reporting required under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act among the priorities.

Chief Spiller told the committee the arbitration ruling reversed the chief’s prior termination decision. "The arbitrator reversed that termination, reinstating officer Nail to employment with the city of San Rafael," he said, and added that the city will follow the arbitrator’s decision. The chief also said the officer has not returned to duty because criminal charges are pending in Marin County; the department’s policies and Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification requirements prevent an officer from returning to work while under a criminal investigation.

The reinstatement and the timing of public notification drew pointed criticism during the meeting’s public-comment period. Nikki Silverstein, a reporter for the Pacific Sun, said she received a tip that Nail had been reinstated weeks earlier and that the city delayed public disclosure while preparing communications. "I will tell you, and I say this with 100% transparency, that it does not take weeks to write a press release about a police officer being reinstated," Silverstein said. Several other speakers urged the committee to press the city and SRPD for faster, clearer disclosures and to reconsider contract provisions such as binding arbitration that can lead to reinstatements after internal discipline.

Staff told the committee it could discuss general topics but should not make case-specific statements about the Nail matter at this time. Lieutenant Scott, the staff liaison, said he had consulted with the city attorney and relayed that members were asked "to not to make a specific statement regarding the officer Nail case, at this time." Staff also told members the city had been in contact with legal counsel after the arbitration ruling.

After hearing public comment and staff reports, the committee developed and prioritized its 2025 workplan topics. For 2025 the PAC committed to address, in no ranked order here: prostitution and human trafficking; youth and policing; police culture (including training and academy curriculum); homelessness (with a policing/community-education focus); transparency and public communications; immigration and ICE interactions; and reporting and analysis under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). Committee members said the list will be memorialized in the meeting minutes and used to schedule presentations and follow-ups across 2025.

The meeting did not include any formal disciplinary action or changes to labor agreements; the arbitrator’s ruling and the criminal prosecution remain external legal processes. Committee members and many public speakers repeatedly urged the PAC to use its advisory role to seek greater transparency from the city and to bring community voices — including youth and people directly affected by policing — into future meetings.

The PAC said it will return to these topics in scheduled 2025 meetings and will invite presenters and outside experts as needed. No committee vote on disciplinary policy or binding-arbitration changes occurred at this meeting.