Meeting Time:
February 25, 2025 at 5:00pm PST
Disclaimer:
If you wish to attach any materials such as support letters or other informational items, please create and account and sign in. Once you have signed in you may attach up to three documents.
If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.
I am shocked and disappointed to again see our city council is voting to undermine civilian oversight of the police department. Members of the current council have routinely dismissed the recommendations of the Community Police Review Commission, and now they wish to allow law enforcement to sit on the commission without even opening the matter for public discussion. We give far too large a share of our budget to the police department to even consider further diminishing accountability and oversight. The council must remove this from the consent calendar and vote down the proposed amendment.
This isn't how oversight works. We don't include those whose practices we are overseeing in the oversight process. Police have plenty of ways to participate in informing the commissioners as to their policies and practices. In fact, they chose not to participate or be responsive to the commissions requests for more than a year. Why should a department that has shown arrogance and disregard for the concerns of the commission..be included in the process to oversee their policies?
The commission space is for residents of the city to ensure the police are following their rules and procedures. A officer, current, former, or otherwise...will necessarily have a bias and may impart that bias on those around them. And due to their perceived position, may be given deference. This is not oversight. And will have effectively kneecapped the commission.
Please keep the existing language of "Past and present peace officers are ineligible to be members of the commission."
I am a constituent of District 5 in Sacramento, writing to express my outrage and complete disapproval of adding former police officers to the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission. The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission is meant to be a CIVILIAN oversight board because POLICE CAN'T POLICE THEMSELVES! Letting former law enforcement be on this civilian board is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse—a dangerous proposition with disastrous consequences, particularly for our Black and brown community members who are disproportionately targeted by police through racial profiling, police violence, and increased police presence. This is a clear conflict of interest and I am horrified that it's even being considered. While I am happy to know that my councilmember, Caity Maple doesn't take donations from Sac PD, it's clear that this action is a gift paid for by the Sac Police Officers Association, who has been opposed to civilian oversight of police and has donated over $90K to Sacramento City Councilmembers since 2016. I could not be more strongly opposed to this and urge you to reject it at once!
I am a Sacramento resident in zip code 95818, and I strongly oppose this change. The oversight board should be composed of civilians, not law enforcement. Police already have an internal chain of command and accountability mechanisms. The purpose of this board is to provide independent, external review.
Allowing police to sit on a police oversight committee is antithetical to the purpose of such a committee. I strongly opposed this ordinance.
Who watches the watchmen? I’m a Sacramento resident from district 5, and I oppose. this ordinance. I do not believe that police should be policing themselves. Even retired police should not be part of the review board. We should be empowering the police review board as the citizen oversight of policing in Sacramento. We should not be watering it down by having police or former police on the board. They have the ability to speak in front of the board, and make suggestions already. Having them on the board would reduce the power of the people to provide much needed oversight.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. Constituents in 2016 demanded CIVILIAN oversight of Sacramento PD, not police oversight over themselves, which is why the Commission is the way it is now. This action also seems to be overly hasty considering it is being taken without any input from the current Police Review Commission, and the fact that it is bypassing the City Council's own standing committees. Why attempt to fast-track approval? Meaningful discussion and consideration should not be skipped over. Attempting to bypass these discussions just makes it look even more likely that this action is a reward for campaign contributions.
The extra judicial police killings of Sacramento citizens such as Joseph Mann and Dazion Flenaugh has proven that we need police oversight by NON-LEOS. This action will only hide problems and lead to further mistrust. Do the right thing and vote no on this action.
Inviting police onto the civilian oversight board is a conflict of interest and will undermine the whole purpose of the board. I am strongly opposed.
It doesn’t make sense for (former & current) police to monitor … the police? How would they provide unbiased oversight? I’m very disappointed this is even being brought to city council.
No! Former or current police officers should not be allowed on the civilian oversight board! There is a clear conflict of interest there!!
I am opposed to this ordinance. The point of the police review board is to provide civilian oversight. Former LEO joining the review board will undermine the integrity of the initiative.
I am a Sacramento resident and I am strongly opposed to this. If it was truly a better idea for the people of Sacramento to have former officers reviewing current ones, it wouldn’t be pushed through in secret by Mayor McCarty. This is unacceptable and criminal behavior, asking the parties who need oversight to review themselves. If that were an effective strategy, we wouldn’t need oversight. You work for us, and it is we who should be seeing whether or not your conduct is serving us.
This action is a gift paid for by the Sacramento Police Officers Association, who has been opposed to civilian oversight of police, and has donated over $90,000 to Sacramento City Councilmembers since 2016, including:
Karina Talamantes (D3) = $12,000
Rick Jennings II (D7) = $10,950
Roger Dickinson (D2) $6,800
Eric Guerra (D5) $6,800
Lisa Kaplan (D1) $6,000
So how can we believe you have our best interests in mind when you are lining your pockets with donations from the same people who need oversight?
We are so tired of corruption and unsafe police actions. End it now.
I am writing in opposition to this amendment, and to express my disgust at the mere suggestion that former law enforcement should be added to this body that was created for community accountability. We've all watched for years as the Police Review Commission Board has been ignored, muzzled, sidelined, disparaged, and discredited and reduced to symbolism. Stacking it with law enforcement is beyond disrespectful to the spirit of the Police Review Commission and more evidence that this council is bought.
I am glad that my own councilmember, Caity Maple, is not a recipient of Sacramento Police Officer's Association $$. But it's public record that the majority of this council is financially beholden to SPOA -- and SPOA does not want to be accountable to the residents of this city (arguably the primary reason they exist). Talamantes, Dickinson, Jennings, Guerra and Kaplan -- we know you are taking their bribes. But still welcome all of you to prove us wrong tonight, look deep and find a vertebrae or two, and vote NO on this insidious amendment.
I strongly oppose this change. This is an oversight board. It should be filled with people who represent civilians, not police. Police already (should) have their own chain of command and internal checks, the entire purpose of this body is to provide EXTERNAL review and oversight. This should be an easy NO from all councilmembers - if there's nothing to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem having regular citizens providing oversight to the police. I also am pretty upset by how this feels like an effort to sneak this change by us. We need transparency, Mayor and Council.
It is incredibly inappropriate to allow police officers on a commission created to oversee police officers and keep them accountable. Police are the most expensive department in Sacramento’s annual budget, and Sac residents deserve an independent commission (free from this flagrant conflict of interest) overseeing them.
It is also incredibly inappropriate that the mayor hid this in the consent calendar, where it is more likely to be overlooked and just be bunched together with more rote items.
As a resident of Sacramento, I strongly oppose the motion to allow former police officers to serve on the Community Police Review Commission. There is a need for strong civilian oversight of the police, not more pandering to members of the police and their union. The commission should not be watered down or overly cautious as adding former police would ensure.
Police should not be allowed to oversee themselves.
Makes sense, how can you have an oversight of something you don't have an expert understanding of? It's like an oversight board for airplane construction and not having any pilots on the board.
Please do not make this change. The rule preventing police officers from serving on the police review commission is there for good reason. It's important that the review commission be an independent group that represents the people of the city. Even former police officers will bring a bias that may affect the independence of the review commission. Making this change will erode public trust in our oversight capabilities.
This feels like since an obvious conflict of interest. Allowing police and family members to hold positions on this commission will create corruption immediately and defeats its purpose. If there is wrongdoing, we cannot expect those who require law enforcement to violate laws and rights to hold them accountable as it directly impacts their lives and personal interests.