Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley council declines PAB request for Attorney General assistance, refers communications-policy memo to city attorney
Summary
After a two-hour discussion, Berkeley’s City Council voted to take no action on a Police Accountability Board request to let civilian oversight heads request Attorney General assistance and instead directed the city attorney to prepare a legal memorandum on communications and due-process rules for pending personnel investigations.
The Berkeley City Council on Sept. 30 rejected a Police Accountability Board-backed resolution that would have asked the state legislature to amend Government Code section 12519 to allow heads of civilian oversight agencies to request written opinions and investigative assistance from the California Attorney General.
The council instead voted to take no action on that request and, separately, referred a related proposal on communications during pending personnel investigations to the city attorney for a staff and council memorandum on applicable legal doctrines.
Director of Police Accountability (DPA) made the case that civilian oversight offices often face legal questions about access to records and interpretation of state law that are not always settled at the local level. "Providing more legal clarity is going to improve our public confidence and trust in our oversight outcomes," the director told councilmembers while describing gaps the office encountered during a downtown task-force policy review.
Several councilmembers said they supported the goal of clearer legal guidance but questioned whether the proposed legislative fix was necessary or appropriate. "I'm very reluctant to support approaches that increase potential for internal conflicts within city governments," Councilmember Humbert said, adding that channels already exist to raise issues with the state attorney general and that the proposal could create new costs and legal disputes.
Other members urged more outreach before pursuing legislation. Councilmember Taplin and others said the DPA should have sought early conversations with the senator's office and emphasized working through local procedures and committee review before pressing a statutory change.
On the communications-policy companion resolution — which asked the city manager and city attorney to draft a policy, training and compliance mechanisms to minimize prejudgment during personnel investigations — the council agreed to refer that item to the city attorney. The mayor’s motion directed the city attorney to prepare a memorandum for staff and council summarizing existing legal doctrines on due process, pending investigations and related constraints on public statements; the motion carried by roll call.
What happens next: The city attorney will prepare the requested memorandum and return it to council and staff. The DPA said it would continue to engage with council and staff on both legal clarity and internal communications issues. No statutory change has been requested of the Legislature by the council as a result of the Sept. 30 vote.
Votes and actions: The council took no action on the legislative request (item 17); the referral directing the city attorney to draft a memorandum on communications and due process (item 18) passed by roll call. The DPA presentation and council exchanges were the primary record of debate.
