City officials debate subpoena power as civilian review board model shifts to oversight

At a public hearing the council heard competing views over whether the newly revitalized Civilian Review Board should have independent subpoena power. Commissioner (public safety) and the city attorney warned that vesting subpoena authority in a board of mostly civilian volunteers risks improper interrogation practices and potential constitutional exposure; they urged reliance on trained investigators or referral to agencies with subpoena authority.

The council’s framing, reiterated by multiple speakers, was to convert the CRB from an investigative model into an oversight and mediation body. Under the approach described by Commissioner (public safety), alleged victims would file complaints with the police department, which would perform an internal investigation and provide materials — including body-worn camera footage, documentation and witness statements — to the CRB. The CRB would be able to request additional investigative work from the department and refer matters at any time to outside agencies such as the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office, the New York State Attorney General’s Office or the FBI if their subpoena powers are needed.

City Attorney Tony Izzo and the commissioner outlined specific risks: civilians may lack training in proper questioning, could inadvertently intrude on privileged information, and a board-issued subpoena could trigger litigation that stalls substantive oversight. Izzo described the alternative of turning files over to professional investigators who handle subpoenas and interviews as a safer, more effective option.

Steve Boxley, who identified himself as chair of the Civilian Review Board, told the council he and the CRB members believe they could carry subpoena power responsibly and that removing it risks creating a board with limited authority that could undermine public trust. He asked councilors for continued support and for help securing supportive agencies that could assist the CRB’s work.

Council members said they want the CRB to succeed, but several indicated concern about ‘‘weaponizing’’ subpoena authority in future boards that may not have the same composition or training. City staff noted the CRB will meet again and that councilors are not voting on subpoena power at this meeting.

The hearing concluded with the council keeping the public record open for further CRB deliberations; the council emphasized the option of external referral to agencies with subpoena power as the primary mechanism if compulsory process is required.