Residents press Akron City Council for enforceable police oversight and stronger body-camera rules
Loading...
Summary
At tonight’s Akron City Council meeting, public commenters urged the council to adopt enforceable police-oversight measures and to require longer camera 'look back' and automatic audio on body-worn cameras; commenters said the council provided no on-the-record answers.
William Reynolds, a public commenter, told the Akron City Council that it must stop delaying decisions on public-safety equipment and police accountability measures, criticizing an ordinance to purchase a mobile command center that has sat in committee since October 2024.
Reynolds urged the council to either approve the purchase or reject it, saying, “Either council is for the purchase and makes a plan on how to do it, or council is against it and it should be voted down. Anything else is a slap in the face to our public safety personnel.” He also urged changes to the city’s body-worn camera policy, advocating a two-minute “look back” and automatic audio to provide fuller evidence and to help prevent large lawsuits and losses of life.
Tasha Mills, another commenter, told the council that oversight recommendations have lacked enforceability. Citing what she referred to as “charter section 68 a” and “Home Rule Article 18 Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution,” Mills asked multiple direct yes-or-no questions on the record, including whether the council would require mandatory written responses and enforceable timelines for oversight recommendations, tie funding to oversight compliance, and introduce enforceable police-oversight legislation within 30 days. “Oversight without enforcement is not oversight. It’s a performance,” she said.
According to the transcript, Mills said the council offered no answers on the record to her direct questions.
The public comments also included calls to hold officers accountable for misconduct; Reynolds referenced the 15‑year‑old Jasmere Tucker and said officers’ failure to turn on cameras left the full picture of that case unknown. Those calls came during the meeting’s public comment period; the council did not take formal action on oversight during the session.
The meeting moved on after public comment. The council approved its consent agenda later in the session, which included an ordinance read at the meeting related to Cuyahoga Street storage facility treatment improvements. The council did not record on-the-record commitments in response to the oversight demands during this meeting.
