Richmond council adopts resolution asking Merit Commission to review officers placed on Brady/Giglio list

The Richmond Common Council on Sept. 2 approved Resolution 6‑20‑25 requesting that the Police Merit Commission review the circumstances surrounding any Richmond Police Department officer placed on the Brady/Giglio list.

Councilor Doug Goss, who introduced the resolution, said the measure is intended to protect “the community’s confidence in the integrity of the Richmond Police Department.” Goss told the council the resolution would ask the Merit Commission to “consider policy regarding the Brady Giglio list” and to apply “due process as established by their rules and procedures and state law.”

The city attorney explained to the council that the Merit Commission already follows its established rules and state statute in disciplinary hearings and that recent state legislation limits discipline based solely on placement on a Brady/Giglio list. The attorney said the resolution “simply requests a review of the circumstances surrounding placement on the list.”

Opponents called the resolution an overreach. One council member said the council “was not created to pursue punitive actions against individuals or departments through symbolic votes” and said they would abstain from voting on the resolution to avoid perceived conflicts of interest. Councilor Jerry Purcell stated on the record that he would abstain because of a family relationship with a law-enforcement officer.

After discussion, the resolution passed with seven votes in favor and two abstentions. The roll call recorded the following yes votes: Doug Goss, Lucinda Wright, Bill Engel, Gary Turner, Jane Bumbalow, Justin Burkhart and Larry Parker. Two council members abstained (one identified in the record as Jerry Purcell; the other abstention was recorded but not explicitly tied to a name in the roll call transcript).

Councilors and the city attorney repeatedly distinguished between the council’s intent to express expectations and the Merit Commission’s independent statutory role in hiring, discipline and termination. The city attorney also reminded the council that any Merit Commission action would follow state statute and Merit Commission rules and procedures.

The council’s action was limited to expressing its intent and asking the Merit Commission to consider a review; it did not direct personnel action by the council itself.

The resolution drew extended discussion on the limits of council authority, the role of prosecutorial decisions in creating Brady/Giglio lists, and the need to preserve due process while addressing community trust in policing.

A final procedural note: the resolution was brought for a vote at the Sept. 2 council meeting and, following the roll call, was recorded as carried.