Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civilian Review Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saratoga Springs hearing on Civilian Review Board amendment spotlights subpoena-power dispute
Summary
At a public hearing, residents urged the City Council to retain subpoena power for the Civilian Review Board, saying it ensures independent oversight; city staff argued investigators and labor law provide sufficient mechanisms and that the CRB should focus on mediation.
The Saratoga Springs City Council opened a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 37 of the city code, which outlines the Civilian Review Board's (CRB) role. The proposal would streamline procedures, remove an administrative‑hearing provision and clarify that police investigators conduct internal investigations while the CRB focuses on mediation.
“Terry DeGree, a resident and former member of the Police Reform Task Force, told the council he was ‘very concerned’ the amendment removes one of the board’s most important powers — the ability to subpoena testimony and documents. ‘Every piece of advice … is that they need the power for transparency and for independence,’ DeGree said.
Multiple other residents echoed DeGree’s point, arguing subpoena authority is a necessary backstop that assures public trust and independence from police‑department discretion.
Councilor/staff responding to public comment said the change grew from the CRB’s request that the current rule is too cumbersome, and that the proposed model mirrors Schenectady’s CRB with two main changes. The staff representative said: ‘Under the proposal, the PD will conduct investigations with the oversight of the CRB and the CRB will focus on mediation, an area which its members have received specialized training.’
Supporters of removing a CRB subpoena power argued the city’s investigators are trained, can compel testimony under labor law and that CRB members are trained mediators rather than investigators. The staff response said officers who refuse to testify in internal investigations may face termination under applicable law, noting an internal investigative process exists to compel participation.
Speakers who opposed removing subpoena authority cautioned that without it the CRB would be entirely dependent on evidence the police department chooses to provide. One resident said the subpoena’s mere existence is an important symbol of independent oversight, even if it isn’t used in every case.
The council left the hearing open for additional comment and did not vote on the ordinance that night. Council members said they will continue reviewing the proposal and accept further public input before any final action.
