Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates whether initial CCRB reviews should be public or held in executive session
Summary
Members discussed balancing transparency with privacy: some argued initial reviews of complaints could happen behind closed doors under a sunshine-law provision while hearings should be public; staff said they will consult the law director and ensure personal data is protected.
Board members raised questions about whether the CCRB’s initial review of complaints should be open to the public or conducted in executive session to protect personal information.
Gwendolyn Fole cited a sunshine-law provision and urged that the CCRB could hold initial review meetings behind closed doors while making any full hearing public: “I feel like with the initial review, we can meet behind closed doors, and the hearing should be public.”
Aaron Sorrell and others said all hearings being public preserves transparency, but they acknowledged the need to redact personally identifiable information and to consult the law director on the legal parameters for executive-session closures. Sorrell said he would work with the law director to confirm whether the initial review can be held in closed session consistent with Ohio open-meetings rules.
Members also discussed quorum and scheduling implications if the board must meet within the 15-day window for initial determinations; staff suggested remote attendance and internal options to avoid a complaint becoming moot if quorum is not met.
Staff committed to return with legal guidance and recommended processes so the board can balance confidentiality protections with transparency requirements.
