The Urbana Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) met on December 17^th, though they did not accomplish the one task that they had planned at their previous regular meeting: reviewing a TASER deployment that the CPRB originally approved on January 22^nd, but which has recently raised some serious questions.  At the time they approved the TASER usage, additional video evidence was requested and finally shown at the November 18^th CPRB meeting.  Check CU published an article on the incident which can be viewed here:

Urbana Police TASER Video Shows Blatant Misconduct, Circumstances Similar to the Aleyah Lewis Arrest

The CPRB did not have a quorum at their November 18^th meeting, so they decided to review the video again in a month, but did not.  Multiple residents spoke on the issue during public input, but no explanation was given at the December 17^th meeting for why the CPRB could not review the incident as they’d planned.

More generally, the CPRB, along with the Urbana Police Department (UPD), still appear to be flagrantly violating the CPRB Ordinance in regards to TASER displays.  City Ordinance requires that the CPRB review every single TASER display, which includes any instance where an officer removes the TASER from its holster.  In 2019, the CPRB and the UPD staff member assigned to the board, Deputy Chief Richard Surles, decided to only review incidents wherein a TASER was actually discharged.  The board would no longer review incidents where a TASER gun was drawn and pointed at someone.

The CPRB Ordinance can only be modified by the Urbana City Council through an ordinance change, but the members determined that they could simply ignore their TASER review mandate.  Council member Bill Brown noted this violation at a City Council meeting on May 18^th, and told City staff that if the CPRB wished to change their mandate, a new ordinance would need to be brought to the Council. 

More than seven months later, no such ordinance has been presented or even discussed, and the CPRB continues to violate their TASER review mandate.  At the November 18^th meeting, CPRB founding member Scott Dossett repeated that the board was only going to be reviewing TASER discharges, but not displays.

The December 17^th CPRB meeting revealed even more conflicts with the CPRB’s interpretation of their own ordinance.  For the past several meetings, the issue of who can file a police complaint in regards to a specific incident has been repeatedly raised.  The question being contemplated is if a complaint can be filed by someone who wholly or partially witnesses a transgression via video.  That question had previously been settled by the board to allow for video witnesses, but City Administrator Carol Mitten went out of her way to meddle with that determination:

Urbana City Administrator Tattles on Police Review Board in Regards to Complaint Filing Requirements

At the December 17^th meeting, Mitten brought an attorney, contracted by the City, to argue against the CPRB’s determination that they could accept complaints from video witnesses.  By all appearances, Mitten recruited attorney Ben Gehrt to essentially pitch a pro-police propaganda piece, which contained almost no technical legal content.  Gehrt claimed he was not a police apologist, but then he went on to pontificate for seven minutes about the difficult and dangerous jobs that police officers have, and explained how unfair it is to judge them based on split-second decisions they made while on duty.

There still appears to be no resolution to the video witness issue.  It may be the case that the most useful path forward would be for someone to submit a police complaint based on video evidence, have the CPRB either accept or deny the complaint, and expect the aggrieved party to file a lawsuit.  Then the issue could be settled in court.

The December 17^th CPRB discussion on the “first-hand account” language of their ordinance, including Mitten’s hired propagandist Ben Gehrt, can be viewed here:

-Christopher Hansen, Urbana