Civilian Review Board accepts most Inspector General findings, sustains several misconduct cases and debates withdrawn-complaint policy

ColumbusCivilian Review Board members voted to accept the Department of Inspector General(IG) findings on a large set of 2024 complaints and sustained findings in several administrative matters, while engaging in a lengthy debate over whether the IG must pursue complaints after an alleged complainant withdraws.

The board accepted the IGfindings on multiple complaints across subcommittees and separately approved sustained findings in cases that the IG said involved improper use of law-enforcement databases and off-duty conduct by an officer. After extended discussion about the public interest in pursuing withdrawn complaints, the board also voted to "agree with the finding" in one contested matter but to recommend no discipline for the officer involved.

Why it matters: The boarddecisions determine whether administrative misconduct findings lead to disciplinary recommendations to the Columbus Division of Police and shape the IG officeapproach to matters where complainants later ask to withdraw.

What the board voted on and key outcomes

- Acceptance of IG findings across multiple subcommittees: The board voted to accept the IGfindings for many cases read by Subcommittees 1, 2 and 3. Subcommittee chairs read summaries and the board moved to accept those findings en bloc; the chair announced the motions carried.

- Sustained findings upheld: The board approved sustained administrative findings in several cases the IG recommended for sustained findings. Notable sustained findings the IG presented and the board accepted included: - An officer who posted a motoristaddress, Social Security number and offense details to a personal dating-account post (IG recommended sustained). - An officerwhose off-duty conduct, including leaving a threatening note referencing SWAT and posting data on a division-issued phone, was found to amount to administrative misconduct (IG recommended sustained; board accepted sustained findings). - An officer who used profanity toward a civilian during an interaction was sustained on that allegation (case referenced by subcommittee 3).

- Contested case and policy debate (case 2024-14134): Subcommittee 1 recommended changing an IG sustained finding to unfounded on a complaint that an officer failed to file a timely report after a citywide network outage; the subcommittee said the complainant had accepted an officerapology and withdrawn the complaint. The IG and legal counsel explained that the IG may still pursue an allegation if its independent investigation shows a policy violation, even when a complainant withdraws. After extended debate about whether the public interest requires continued pursuit of administrative allegations, the board voted to "agree with the finding" (the IGfinding of a policy violation) but to recommend no discipline. The chair announced the motion carried with one opposed.

Quotes from the meeting

- Inspector General (Stephanie): "If they request to withdraw, if they have given us information where we are able to have enough information that shows that a violation of policy occurred, then that's what our finding will always be."

- Board Member Anderson (on the board):"I think our issue is more so whether to exonerate or to unfounded status... if a complaint comes and the person withdraws, it should not stop the process."

How the board handled procedure and recommendations

Board members and board counsel discussed options short of changing the IGfinding: the board can agree with an IG finding and recommend no discipline (or that the apology be considered as mitigation), or the board can formally make an alternative finding. Counsel advised the least legally risky route was to accept the IGfinding and place a recommendation regarding discipline (or lack of discipline) in the board's action.

What this means next

The boardwill forward its accepted findings and recommendations, including the recommendation of no discipline in the contested case, to the division's chain of command or other appropriate authority for any administrative action. Several members requested the IGreach back to the chain of command to request written explanations when chain-of-command concurrence differs from the IGfinding.

Votes and recordkeeping notes

The transcript records multiple motions to accept IG recommendations and multiple separate votes to accept sustained findings where the IG recommended them. In several cases the motion was made after a subcommittee read its report; the chair called for seconds and then called the vote, announcing motions carried. The transcript records one explicit roll-call style result for the contested case (motion carried with one opposed) but does not list roll-call vote counts for every motion.

Ending

Board members agreed to revisit the contested-case language and to seek clearer guidance about when the board should override or supplement IG findings. Several members requested more detailed chain-of-command explanations when the division disagrees with IG findings. The board took a short recess at the close of the meeting and then adjourned.