Following the Citizens Police Review Board’s decision to meet behind closed doors, students and Columbia residents voiced their disappointment.
“I was disappointed that the board approved closed sessions because I feel like it really goes against the spirit of what the board was created for,” Devon Slavens, president of MU’s chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy said. “It’s important for the proceedings to be open and allow for public presence and comment so that the public is part of the process, which I think is really important for the community to feel there is real police accountability.”
Discussing closed sessions began at the board’s March meeting, when board member Susan Smith said she thought complainants were being unfairly treated because of media attention. The board initially passed the measure. A few board members later reconsidered and wanted to table it for further discussion.
Several board members said they felt complainants would be more willing to come forward if there was an option in place for giving their statements behind closed doors. Board Chairwoman Ellen LoCurto-Martinez said there has already been one case in which this was an issue.
“One complainant never did show up, and I know she had a concern involving her kids,” LoCurto-Martinez said. “We’re assuming there are more people out there who don’t come and express what happened because it’s in front of everyone and the media in the City Council chambers.”
At its April meeting, the board decided to add the requirement of a two-thirds vote to go into closed session. The measure was then passed on to the City Council for approval. During the public comment section of the meeting, several Columbia residents expressed frustration about the decision and about the board not being forthcoming enough with information about current cases.
“You’re asking us for trust, but there are a lot of things going on that we don’t know about,” Columbia resident Holly Henry said. “I am seeing you as a rubber stamp for the police department. We have Internal Affairs for that.”
Slavens said the argument is unsupported because there is no data to show witnesses are hesitant to appear.
“Although some board members expressed the concern that the publicity discourages potential complainants, I don’t think it is substantiated,” Slavens said. “It’s very speculative and there’s no real evidence besides supposition that says that anyone has withheld a complaint for fear of being in the public eye.”
LoCurto-Martinez said that as a former member of the oversight committee that created the review board, she wants the public to be able to trust the review board.
“I think there is concern out there that more things will be said behind closed doors,” LoCurto-Martinez said. “We don’t want people to think we’re going behind closed doors and hiding things. The only time we want to close the meetings is when a complainant is telling what happened.”
The way the ordinance change is worded, requests for closed sessions are not limited to complainants, LoCurto-Martinez said. Although there might be legitimate concerns about confidentiality, there needs to be strict guidelines describing when a deliberation or hearing can be closed, Slavens said.
“I don’t think that the board is heading in the right direction,” Slavens said. “Openness is vitally important for a citizen review board, and any move that excludes the public more from the process is a move in the wrong direction.”
