In 2021, Clevelanders overwhelmingly voted to give residents – not police – the final say on police discipline and policies. Changes to the city’s charter shifted that power to two groups – the Community Police Commission and the Civilian Police Review Board. Both already existed but could only make recommendations to police leadership.
More than two years later, people appointed to these jobs aren’t using the authority voters gave them. The situation has left residents who fought for the changes confused, and, in some cases, let down.
“I feel disappointed and disheartened by the fact that we sacrificed so much,” said Kareem Henton, who helped mobilize people around Issue 24.
At this point, Henton said, the civilian oversight required by law has “no teeth.”
City officials acknowledge that key parts of Issue 24 – which Mayor Justin Bibb supported – are not in place. What’s holding up the most powerful shift in police oversight in Cleveland history? The writing of new manuals.
When Issue 24 became law, city officials say, the broad changes were woven into the federal consent decree covering the police department. But establishing the new procedures has been trickier.
“It is an intricate process, and it takes time to get right,” Carlos Johnson, assistant law director for the Police Accountability Team, told Signal Cleveland.
Prior to Issue 24, police discipline was in the hands of the police
Before Issue 24, Cleveland’s police chief and public safety director had the final say on police discipline and department policies. The city office that investigates residents’ complaints about police – the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) – reported to the city’s public safety leadership.
The Civilian Police Review Board made discipline recommendations in those cases, but the police and safety leadership could overturn them. And the Community Police Commission, created under the 2015 consent decree, served a mainly advisory role.
Issue 24 changed that.
Voters empowered the Community Police Commission and the Civilian Police Review Board to work hand in hand as the “overarching authority” over police policies, training and discipline for misconduct.
That isn’t how it has played out so far.
Cleveland police leadership still has final say on discipline
The Civilian Police Review Board has the power to overrule discipline decisions made by police leadership, but it hasn’t done so.
Why? Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin said the board is still working under its pre-Issue 24 operating manual. The city is writing a manual that includes the board’s new authority. But Griffin said Justice Department lawyers and the police monitoring team must review the new manual and U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver must approve it before the city can use it.
The difference between what the charter says the review board can do and what’s currently happening has confused board members and even city lawyers.
In a meeting this week, Board Chair Billy Sharp asked whether the board could overrule a recent decision by the safety director.
At first, Lillian Hall, an assistant law director, told the board they could “depart” from the decision of the safety director or the chief.
“You can vote to overrule the decision by the director. It’s in the charter,” she said.
Fifteen minutes later, Hall corrected herself and referenced the “old manual,” clarifying that the safety director still has the final say on discipline until a new manual is published.
One Issue 24 author raised questions about whether the city’s slow progress could violate the consent decree, which was updated in 2022 to reflect the passage of Issue 24 and changes to the city’s charter.
“It’s astounding that the city would use drafting a manual as an excuse not to comply with the law,” Subodh Chandra told Signal Cleveland.
Chief Ethics Officer Delante Spencer Thomas said the city charter and consent decree don’t spell out how to carry out what’s required by Issue 24 “in terms of the day to day.”
Part of the hold up has been making sure that all aspects of Issue 24 are included in the different manuals, said Hannah Macias, performance auditor with the Police Accountability Team. “But also making sure that we’re giving due process to officers within this whole discipline process.”
Ultimately, the city recognizes that the review board – not the chief or public safety director – should be deciding how to discipline officers.
“It’s what [Issue 24] says. It’s what the consent decree says,” said Johnson, the accountability team’s city lawyer.
When asked if the manuals might be finalized this year, Thomas said he hoped so.
Community Police Commission has ‘final authority’ on police discipline
The Community Police Commission also hasn’t been able to use the full authority voters gave it over police discipline, frustrating members and residents.
Under Issue 24, the commission can accept appeals from residents who believe the Civilian Police Review Board went too easy on an officer. Officers who believe that a board decision was retaliation for whistleblowing can also appeal to the commission.
Technically the commission can handle appeals now. But it is still in the process of outlining rules for how it would hold hearings to consider evidence and determine discipline.
Interim Executive Director Jason Goodrick told Signal Cleveland the commission anticipates adopting hearing procedures early this year.
In the meantime, the commission has received two appeals from residents who disagree with review board decisions. Previously, the commission set a window of up to 15 days to review an appeal. The commission started to work on one of the appeals – including requesting records on the case from the Office of Professional Standards.
That request sparked questions from one Civilian Police Review Board member.
“What directive or policies have been put in place to give the CPC the authority to review our cases?” Board Member Kenneth Mountcastle asked during a Jan. 9 meeting.
A city lawyer confirmed the commission had the authority.
Sharp, the review board chair, told the board it didn’t have to comply with the commission’s deadline.
“We are not under any time frame,” Sharp said during the meeting.
It’s unclear whether the commission could hold a hearing anyway. City officials said that the commission’s new hearing procedures will also have to be vetted by the Department of Justice and the police monitoring team and approved by the federal court.
Records snags and conflicts
Civilian Police Review Board members, Community Police Commissioners and investigators with the Office of Professional Standards all have complained that slow access to city records has held up their police oversight work.
City officials say they are working to streamline that process – but there have been snags.
The city is no longer handing over police reports or body camera footage to investigators without first removing information that identifies victims. That’s based on the law department’s interpretation of a state law passed last year. The process of reviewing the records and shielding that information takes additional time.
Ohio law has an exception that allows the full records to be shared with other public offices and public officials. The city says whether OPS, the review board or the commission fit that description is an “unsettled legal question,” so it is erring on the side of victims’ rights.
The issue of backlogged records also came up during a federal court hearing last month. Cleveland’s charter says the city must get records to the police commission in a “timely” manner. But commission members have noted unfulfilled requests dating back to July 2023. The city, on the other hand, says it gets voluminous requests from the commission and its members and needs a reasonable way to prioritize.
Judge Oliver ordered the city and the monitoring team to work out a system by March 18 to alert the Department of Justice about each records request related to police oversight and whether the city responded in a timely manner or objected to providing the records. The judge also suggested the commission work with its new lawyer to streamline its requests.
Committed to making civilian oversight work
City officials said the way Issue 24 was incorporated into the charter and consent decree created some murkiness that may require changes or clarifications. But the city is committed to working through those issues.
The city would have to return to the voters for any major rollbacks of the authority given to the police commission or review board. Right now, there’s no plan to do that.
“Nothing has yet risen to the level of ‘We’re going to go to the voters on this and ask for it to be changed,’” said Griffin, the law director. “There is nothing yet that we see requires immediate amendment.”
Suggested Reading
Framers of Issue 24 reflect on Community Police Commission’s first year
The framers of Issue 24 told Signal Cleveland about their frustrations with the CPC’s limited progress. They expressed hope as well.
Cleveland residents tasked with police discipline say they ‘are not ready’ for new responsibilities
For nearly three years, the Civilian Police Review Board has inched toward more authority over police misconduct, approved by voters in 2021. A final step is approving manuals that would act as the rule books for resident-led oversight.