Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Police Audit System topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee delays vote on police‑auditor case‑management software after cost and contract questions

Akron City Council — Budget & Finance Committee; Housing & Neighborhood Assistance Committee · June 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Police Auditor Anthony Fenel asked the Budget & Finance Committee to approve a case‑management system to centralize complaint intake and analysis. Members requested more time; the committee voted 3–1 to delay action. The proposed contract includes roughly $22,000 implementation and an estimated $62,000 annual subscription.

Anthony Fenel, Akron’s police auditor, appeared online to answer questions about a request to fund a case‑management system intended to centralize complaint intake, standardize data and speed report generation. Fenel said staff have migrated much of 2023–2025 data into spreadsheets and the vendor can import historical records to enable trend analysis.

Fenel told the committee the previously selected vendor could not agree to city contract terms, so auditors resumed the procurement; the transcript references a widely used platform (recorded as "Thompson/Thomson Reuters" in committee remarks) as the current vendor selection. Fenel said the earlier vendor sought contract changes that would have put the city at risk, so negotiations failed and the office identified a vendor willing to accept city terms.

Committee members asked how the software differs from Excel. Fenel said the case‑management product enforces consistent data intake (drop‑down fields, standardized complaint forms), enables community members to file complaints in a structured way that funnels to the auditor’s office, and provides built‑in analytics that an Excel spreadsheet cannot reliably provide at scale.

Council members sought cost clarity. Fenel described an implementation and first‑year charge structure that the committee summarized as roughly $100,000 total, with an implementation cost around $22,000 and an estimated annual subscription in the mid‑$60,000 range; Fenel said subscription pricing may grow with typical escalators but the city should expect to be under $100,000 next year. Fenel also estimated roughly 90 days to train staff and have the system running after contract execution.

Citing outstanding questions, several councilmembers moved to take additional time to review the legislation. The motion for time passed 3–1 on roll call (Lombardo — Aye; Amobian — Nay; Boyce — Aye; Balden — Aye), so the committee deferred final action and requested additional review before presenting the item to full council.

Next steps: staff and the police auditor will continue contract review and return with answers to members’ outstanding questions before the item advances.