An Open Letter Concerning the San Diego Police Department Citizens’
Review Board on Police Practices
To: San Diego City Supervisors, Mayor Kevin Faulkner, Chief of Police Shelley
Zimmerman, CRB Chair Lisa Sorce, CRB Executive Director Sharmaine
Moseley, Active and Prospective CRB Members, and Citizens of the City of San
Diego:
We collectively served 19 years on the San Diego Citizens' Review Board for
Police Practices (CRB). During our tenure on the board, we volunteered
thousands of hours, reviewed scores of complaints by citizens and Internal
Affairs investigations, served on and chaired CRB committees, attended
meetings, completed training, rode along with SDPD officers, authored case
reviews, presented cases to the CRB, and faithfully and conscientiously
performed our jobs as CRB members. During that time, we found problems with
transparency, accountability, case review process, conflicts of interest, favoritism,
staff performance, selection, recruitment and training that needed improvement.
During our service over the years, we have attempted to engage the CRB
leadership in reforms to make the review board more effective and less prone to
individual leadership whims and City Employee influence. We did so by working
within the Board and attempting to use written guidelines and procedures to
make changes. Our questions and ideas were ignored; we were marginalized,
subjected to public and private ad hominem attacks; gossiped about; and
eventually were not reappointed to the Board without explanation or due process.
Each of us is a member of a diverse community group that was and is underrepresented on the Board, which is currently operating with fewer than full CRB
membership with our departure and high attrition. We strongly feel that the CRB
needs to reflect the demographics of the City it serves and, as cases are
reviewed, that members also need to understand how diverse segments of the
City interact with police. We have been told by leadership that comments about
how our culture and life experiences related to any case were inappropriate and
unwelcome while other favored members were invited to share their culture and
life experience. CRB leaders continually ignore the high attrition of prospects
and members who come from diverse neighborhoods and backgrounds. We
seek to shed some light on how and why this Board reflects homogeneity in
culture and ideology.
We fully understand the difficulties and challenges that face SDPD police
officers, especially in light of changing technology and national issues of police
abuse in the news. Throughout our CRB work, we were painstaking in trying to
be fair to SDPD’s majority of professional and dedicated officers and the citizens
they serve, while understanding that there is a minority of officers that violate the
rules. We know that exonerating the minority of officers who violate the rules
seriously injures the entire department unfairly. We are convinced that the CRB
1

 must have credibility with the police and the public in order to be the effective
oversight that San Diegans intended at its inception.
The CRB fails to meet the intentions of the citizens of San Diego who voted to
have an independent entity oversee the police department. It does not
adequately address citizen complaints. It is controlled by the conflicted City
Attorney’s Office and board members are manipulated by the City-employed
CRB Executive director and handpicked leadership based on cronyism. Key
CRB decisions are made in secrecy and Board processes are not transparent.
There has been no published annual report by any CRB Executive Director in the
last six years and not one quarterly report by the current Executive Director, as
mandated by the City Charter. The budget is not available to the public and there
is no accounting for monies spent.
As currently designed, the CRB does not provide the credible oversight that
builds public trust. It fails both the SDPD officers and citizens who seek redress.
It is not a fair, representative or unbiased group of citizen members as planned.
A decision by this board has little impact because of overwhelming public
perception that the CRB is a “rubber stamp” board. That perception serves
neither the citizens nor conscientious officers.
We have decided that our commitment to serving citizens of San Diego and the
best use of our voluntary service is to draft this document. It details problems we
personally observed during our service and proposes proactive solutions that
would restore the CRB to the review board initially envisioned by the voters of the
City of San Diego who overwhelmingly want effective and legitimate police
oversight.
We are prepared to meet with you and discuss our proposed solutions and are
interested in making this board effective. We welcome you to work with us to
improve this board.
To be part of the solution, please contact us at
SDCitizensReviewBoardReform@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
Jude Litzenberger
Lucy Pearson
Benetta Buell-Wilson

2

 Suggestions to Improve the San Diego Citizens’ Review Board on
Police Practices
By former CRB members Jude Litzenberger, Lucy Pearson and Benetta Buell-Wilson
A. Legal Counsel
Problems: The San Diego City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest
between its clients, the City of San Diego and the CRB, lacks effective
protection for CRB client’s separate interests, and assigned Deputy City
Attorneys are disrespectful and controlling with CRB members.
Solutions:
1. CRB should have independent legal counsel that does not have conflicts of
interest (i.e. between City and the CRB since both are clients of the same
City Attorney’s office and Deputies usually serve the City’s interests in
CRB duties). Such independent counsel shall support the CRB’s role to
provide effective neutral oversight of the police, and shall not be
conflicted by the need to avoid City liability.
2. No comments by CRB legal counsel shall be made, including legal advice,
during any closed meetings, especially during discussions where votes on
cases are pending.
3. Legal Counsel (including the City Attorney’s Deputy assigned if that office
is retained) must be respectful to Board members and will answer
questions posed by any Board member who needs legal explanations to
do their review and oversight work. Such questions may be collected and
tracked but will not be filtered or edited at the urging of any City
Employee.
4. All advice from legal counsel shall be in writing, or if requested in
exigency, shall be answered and later reduced to writing with time
considerations explained therein.
5. Legal Counsel for the CRB shall not attempt to strategize how to
manipulate any votes or personnel serving as board members in any
dealings or meetings with the Mayor’s Office, any City Employees or CRB
leadership.
6. Meetings of any CRB committees and CRB leadership team where
anything related to the CRB is discussed shall be timely noticed and shall
be open to all CRB members (with voice) and to the public (without
voice). The sole exception to the requirement for CRB’s noticed, open
meetings shall be statutorily required closed meetings where the only
agenda items involve police personnel records of specific SDPD officers.
Any prior legal advice to the contrary given by the Office of the City
Attorney shall be ignored.
7. All Memorandum of Law that respond to particular legal questions posed
3

 by the board to Legal Counsel for the CRB shall be sanitized of any names
or identifying information and posted on a public website. Legal counsel
shall review them quarterly and update them as the law involved in the
advice changes. CRB members shall be advised of revisions as occurring.
Links to another website containing the documents or copies available to
the public may be used as long as use directions for the public are clearly
detailed on the CRB website.
B. Role and Responsibilities of Executive Director
Problems: The CRB Executive Director position is misclassified as regards to
the CRB role; lacks effective performance standards; is not held accountable
for the job; has taken over the role of leaders on the board in a controlling
and unaccountable manner; has intruded into matters that are citizen
volunteer board member responsibilities; and has co-opted the Citizen’s
Review Board into a City employee control board.
Solutions:
1. As a City of San Diego employee, the Executive Director’s job should be to
provide staff support to the CRB; NOT oversight, selection, training, or
supervision of CRB volunteer citizen members. Those activities are
specifically reserved to the CRB membership and their elected leaders.
Recently the guiding documents of the CRB were changed to make this
City Employee the supervisor for all CRB members. This should be
reversed.
2. The proper role of the Executive Director is to do the staff work of
keeping statistics on CRB activities; preparing rooms/documents for the
meetings; maintaining website; organizing the agenda and providing
public notices; coordinating with the CRB leadership to obtain resources
and training; assisting with community awareness and recruiting efforts
led by the CRB committees; and the like. To have this employee
“supervise” the CRB members co-opts the board’s independence and
contributes to the CRB’s image as a “rubber stamp” of the City and SDPD.
This suppresses valid complaints and has a negative effect on recruiting –
especially for minority members whose voice is direly needed on the CRB.
3. The Executive Director should report all statistics and activities involving
CRB concerns (i.e. meetings with citizen groups, Internal Affairs, City
staff, Mayor’s office staff, City Attorney’s Office, reports or testimony to
City Council) to the CRB in an open meeting monthly.
4. The Executive Director should write quarterly and annual reports for City
Council that contain accurate and verified statistics concerning the CRB’s
activities as directed by the City Charter. These numbers reports shall
detail the allegations and outcomes of all cases where complaints were
filed, how they were resolved if not handled by the CRB, and, the exact
allegations that were sustained, not sustained, or deemed unfounded by
the CRB. If reports are not done, not timely, or not accurate, any board
4

 member may make a motion that the statistics reported be supported by
the Executive Director in a noticed, open public meeting or City Council
be informed that the CRB members disagree with the Executive Director’s
report on their activity.
5. All CRB members and the general public shall have an opportunity to
review the position description and performance standards of the
Executive Director once each year in an open meeting and make comment
to the individual supervising the Executive Director regarding the
performance of those standards and any changes deemed necessary to
the position description and performance standards.
C. Discipline of CRB Members
Problem: CRB members are not given due process during reappointment
consideration and their leaders engage in character assassination and
falsehoods to get them off the board because they challenge how things are
being run by the leaders.
Solutions:
1. CRB members should be given standards of performance and as long as
they do the job, may only not be reappointed if given due process to
address the allegations and reasons cited by leadership to the Mayor’s
office to affect their non-reappointment. They shall be provided an
opportunity to respond to allegations by Executive Director, City
Attorney, etc. No back-door decisions on appointments should be made,
as is the case now, based on ideology, voting patterns, targeting members
who ask questions during review process, or ask leaders for
accountability. Terms of appointment should be made public on the CRB
website to avoid manipulation of terms and assignments as has been
done by CRB leadership.
2. Objections to any board member’s performance or demeanor during a
meeting shall be handled in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order per
the Bylaws of the board, not by complaining to the Mayor’s office at the
time of re-appointment decisions secretly. Such back-door politics by the
Office of the City Attorney or City employee Executive Director usurp the
power of the CRB leadership to correct members’ conduct and is too often
used to silence dissenters and eliminate diversity on the CRB.
D. Favoritism and Board Member Conflicts of Interest Prevail
Problems: Board Members who have clear conflict of interest are appointed
and allowed to serve on the CRB. The Police Department CRB Liaison
determines who passes a background check without any published or known
criteria on what constitutes disqualification, creating a pro-police bias.
Recommendations from serving board members, who are mostly older and
5

 Caucasian, are the major source of recruits which causes the board
demographically to not reflect the community.
Solutions:
1. There shall be clearly written eligibility/minimum participation
standards for CRB board member performance which shall be shared
with potential recruits. Such standards shall include, inter alia, the
maximum standard for missing meetings; required training completed;
case write ups completed; CRB committee participation; participation in
case review in minimum hours and number of cases.
2. Any background checks to be done on prospective CRB members shall be
based on known, written criteria developed by the CRB, not the SDPD or
City Attorney’s Office. Such criteria will be published on the CRB website.
3. The Executive Director and the CRB committee in charge of recruiting
prospective board members shall provide quarterly reports containing
information on locations and audiences where recruiting presentations
were done and by whom, and shall conduct recruitment of diverse
demographics underrepresented on the current CRB (i.e. African
Americans, Latinos/as, business owners, persons with disabilities, and
young persons).
4. The CRB shall have written training standards that are designed to
inform/educate CRB members in a fair, unbiased manner. Neutral
associations such as NACOLE can offer training materials that should be
used to the extent necessary to avoid constant rewrites of training
materials to reflect bias by board members who control the CRB.
5. No police officers or SDPD staff should be allowed in closed meetings
unless complainants are also allowed in order to have equal voice and
presence. Only serving CRB members should be permitted in the room
during voting.
6. Training requirements for CRB members should balance SDPD “ride
alongs,” academy and menu training, and CRB meeting training
presentations with training from advocates of police reform equally to
avoid training bias. Currently, almost all CRB training is provided by
SDPD presentations.
7. A prospective CRB member shall be presumed to be ineligible to serve if
they held any position as a contractor or employee of SDPD or any SDPDaffiliated contract security service (i.e. Elite) within the two (2) years
prior to application.
8. A prospective CRB member shall be presumed to be ineligible to serve if
they are in a marriage, domestic partnership, or the immediate family of
an active SDPD officer.
9. All Board members must agree not to apply for or advocate for a position
with SDPD during tenure as a CRB member. Police and City employees
must not recruit active CRB members for employment or contracts or
promise or imply help with same.
10. Any changes in employment status and any contractual relationships or
applications for employment submitted to the City of San Diego by active
6

 CRB members must be disclosed to the entire CRB who may ask
questions to determine if a potential conflict of interest exists. The
Executive Director may not offer or assist any active CRB members in
obtaining such employment or contracts.
11. If past or current employment with the City of San Diego or a contractor
to the City (i.e. stadium security), prior to assignment to a review team, a
full disclosure conflict check for potential bias must be provided to the
entire CRB who then determine by vote whether or not that person may
serve on the Board. This must be done in an open meeting and, if the
board votes against seating the person, the CRB Chairperson shall inform
the Mayor’s office of the outcome of the board’s decision and reasons.
E. Transparency
Problems: The operations and recruitment/selection/deselection process
which supports the CRB is fraught with secrecy control by the leadership,
continual rewrites of procedures and rules, and decisions from clandestine
meetings held without public notice. Favored members are permitted to go
on and off the board at the pleasure of leadership and some have served
longer periods than the limit of eight years stated in the Bylaws.
Solutions:
1. Implement a study on CRB demographics that reports why the CRB does
not reflect the community with regard to race, age, ethnicity, economic
status, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, religion and
ability. The study should include queries and recommendations as to
recruitment and retention of minority group members and their high
historical attrition rate for service on the CRB. A look at eligible nonreappointments should also be reviewed in light of this study.
2. Eliminate all secret meetings where key decisions are made without the
entire CRB being present. All CRB meetings shall be in full compliance
with the Brown Act. These are held to strategize how to manipulate
voting, how to marginalize dissenters and how to control meetings and
limit CRB members input.
3. Position descriptions shall be written for Board leadership positions that
provide clear roles and their authority follows the CRB bylaws, City
Charter and Roberts Rules of Order, especially in regard to the conduct of
meetings.
4. Selection criteria of people wishing to be on the CRB to be posted on the
CRB website along with the form application. The application shall be
tracked and numbered consecutively to ensure that every application
gets reviewed by those CRB members charged with reviewing it.
Everyone who is interviewed is asked the same preset questions and
interviews are scored and weighted using predetermined standards.
5. CRB members shall be the first people asked to serve on a prospective
interview team, not former CRB members or City employees.
7

 6. SDPD Policies and Procedures (excluding tactical security classified
components), CRB Standard Operating Procedures, and CRB bylaws
should be available online so citizens can oversee the CRB. Posting the
SDPD Policies and Procedures would enable a complainant to cite the
specific P&P deficiency when making complaint and not rely on Internal
Affairs to decide what the complaint allegations will involve. IA shall be
able to add allegations but not remove them.
7. The CRB budget should be broken out from other City department
budgets and separately posted on the CRB website.
8. CRB open meetings shall be video-recorded and if possible, included on
city television programming to better inform the public about the CRB
and invite participation. CRB open meetings minutes shall reflect all
actions in meetings, not selected ones, and shall be posted timely on the
CRB website.
9. CRB statistics reported should separate sustained complaint outcomes
into Category I and other allegations to enable the severity of complaint
to be tracked and addressed by staff and the community.
10. Any ad hoc committee of the CRB shall be authorized by a vote of the
entire Board in an open meeting. Minutes shall reflect and members shall
be informed of the purpose of the committee, the beginning and end date,
and names of the members serving on it.
11. All CRB standing and ad hoc committee meetings shall be open to the
public and any CRB member. Agendas and meeting times and dates will
be posted in advance on the CRB website. Minutes will be posted within
30 days of any CRB committee or ad hoc committee meetings.
F. Role Clarification and Leadership
Problems: Instead of doing their proper roles to support the work of CRB, the
leaders have been led by the Executive Director’s rise to power and the
Deputy City Attorney’s control to be puppets of the city employees. CRB
members are disciplined for disagreeing with them and for any dissent on
case reviews. A complete review of the role of CRB leadership is direly
needed since the City employees have selected leaders they can control but
who are not effective at supporting a properly run CRB. The size (23
members) on the CRB is insufficient to do the work now needed. The board
also experiences a high attrition rate.
Solutions:
1. Meetings and member conduct therein shall be strictly handled in
accordance with the CRB bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order. The Chair
shall follow these if there is any objection or claim that any member is
disrespectful to anyone instead of having a closed door meeting about
that member or telling the Mayor not to reappoint them based on onesided information without a chance to respond.
8

 2. Non-members who are given voice (i.e. legal counsel, Executive Director,
SDPD, complainant, visitors) shall always be treated with respect and
dignity by CRB Chair and CRB members.
3. All prospective members who complete basic job training should be
assigned to a team. Team leaders must include prospective members in
team meetings and case evaluation and write-ups. Team leaders who do
not comply should be held accountable.
4. The CRB Chair shall make review team assignments and shall not
consider a CRB member’s ideology, voting record, race, sexual
orientation, ability, religion, etc. when making review team assignments
or case assignments.
5. Recruitments for team leaders and CRB standing and ad hoc committee
chairs shall be by application. Application forms shall be distributed to all
CRB members equally situated in experience and time served on the CRB,
not members selected for their shared ideology with the Executive
Director or Chair.
6. The CRB shall develop a Standard Operating Procedure to select review
team leaders and committee chairs annually. That procedure shall pay
particular attention to rotating people that have not served into
leadership positions and ensure the diversity of the CRB leadership
reflects the diversity of the community and various San Diego
neighborhoods and districts are not under-represented in CRB
leadership. The process shall be reviewed annually and considered for
change whenever characteristics such as race, gender, age, sexual
orientation, ability, etc. of CRB officers and review team/committee
leadership does not reflect the community.
7. Once they are appointed as “prospective” members and have completed
an orientation period (an approximate 8 hours of initial training that shall
include topics of Case Review procedures; Robert’s Rules of Order;
review of SDPD Policies and Procedures; and CRB Standard Operating
Procedures), Prospective members shall be allowed to attend all CRB
meetings; meet with their assigned review team to review cases (without
vote); be seated alongside their assigned teams in meetings; and be
allowed to answer questions in closed meetings. Prospective members
are allowed at any time to participate in open meetings as observers,
prospective CRB members (where they may report as requested), or
public comment.
8. Increase the number of CRB teams that review cases to allow time for
teams to thoroughly review the vast increase in investigation evidence
resulting from body camera videos of several officers on each case.
Currently, teams are under time pressure from the Executive Director
and CRB leadership to push cases through quickly and that does not allow
them time to review all the evidence before a report and motion is
scheduled for the CRB at closed meetings.
9. CRB Chair and all CRB elected officers must complete at least two case
reviews as a team member per year to remain eligible to serve as CRB
9

 officers. Currently, these officers may serve several years without
reviewing any cases.
10. The CRB Chair, not the Executive Director or Deputy City Attorney, shall
control discipline of CRB members in accordance to Robert’s Rules of
Order when necessary.
11. The CRB Vice Chair should keep track of Board members who are not
conforming to Board rules of attendance, numbers of case write-ups or
training and report to the CRB Chair. The Chair should discuss the issues
with the Board member privately to determine solutions for better
performance. Board members who do not improve performance shall be
recommended for non-appointment (with due process).
G. Being Reactive vs Creating the Opportunity for Prevention and Good Will
Problems: The role of the CRB as confined to oversee only formal complaints
in the Category I does not allow for adequate police oversight.
Solutions:
1. CRB should be proactive in creating more opportunities and listening
posts to enable citizens to voice concerns and obtain information that
are outside the realm of the complaint process.
2. The CRB should welcome public comment in open meetings and not
be rude or ignore input. Wherever possible, CRB will respond in
writing to thank the citizens or provide information to them. If
deemed appropriate, one of the voting CRB members may make a
motion in response to the public comment and put the issue on the
agenda for a future open meeting and/or refer the issue to a CRB
committee for action.
H. Improving Oversight
Problems: The Citizen’s Review Board is ineffective at overseeing the SDPD,
addressing public concerns, or providing improvement to the SDPD in
response to those concerns. There have been numerous officers found by
courts to have committed Category I violations (arrest, force, slur,
discrimination, and criminal conduct), especially over the past ten years, that
were unchecked by CRB review. Other Category I offenders were never
referred to the CRB. The CRB’s has a poor reputation in the community and
is viewed as being run by police/city employees, “rubber-stampers” of IA
investigations, non-representative of the community, and pro-police. The
citizens of San Diego voted for a better system of reviewing citizen
complaints and are not getting that from the currently configured CRB.

10

 Solutions:
1. Upon motion by the CRB board, there must be an opportunity to
initiate an independent investigation in any case where 1/3 of the
voting members desire one. These “safety valve investigations” could
occur if, during review, 1/3 of the voting members see the IA
investigation as substandard and feel they cannot make a
determination that is fair to both the officer and complainant based on
what the review team has presented. This may occur when the board
members seek more information that probably would be available but
was not included in the review materials provided by IA (Example:
Investigator did not seek out key witnesses or additional video
recordings when a subject officer’s body camera is not turned on).
2. Subpoena power and independent investigators for conduct of these
independent investigations are needed and funds should be provided
by the City for them. They would not be used in every case, but in a
minority of review situations (estimated at perhaps 10% of reviewed
cases) where at least 1/3 of the board felt independence was needed.
Subpoenas may be needed to have access to all officers/SDPD and city
employees needed for independent investigations. (This model is
used by the San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review
Board for all of their complaints, but is not deemed necessary per the
authors except for a smaller percentage of SDPD review work.)
3. Case evaluations (read, evaluate all evidence, discuss and write report
for Board presentation) should be conducted by three Board
members and signed off by all three. At least three people should do
all case reviews, not one or two team members.
4. The CRB shall be informed by the District Attorney or City Attorney
prosecuting a criminal case whenever any SDPD arrest is the subject
of a granted Penal Code §1538.5 suppression of evidence motion
(where the Court finds that the arrest lacked probable cause by the
subject arresting officer). The CRB should inquire into the matter and
either initiate a complaint regarding the arrest or invite a complaint
by the victim of the illegal arrest.
5. The CRB should adopt a rule that allows the time from complaint to
decision to be tolled as the law allows. This tolling stops a one year
“clock” from running where either the complaining person or key
witness or subject officer is involved in litigation (i.e. criminal case
arising from the incident which led to the complaint). Without tolling
the time from complaint to decision, investigations take longer or are
incomplete because a complainant or officer facing criminal charges is
not usually free to speak to law enforcement about the matter. The
contract between the City of San Diego and the Police Officers’ Union
limits discipline to one year from the time of notification of a
complaint or violation. SDPD has only one year time to impose
discipline or supervisors lose the chance to do so per the contract. The
CRB accepting the City Attorney’s advice to not toll time in these
11

 matters has led to many cases being pushed without real review to
make the clock stop or the chance to impose discipline is lost when it
should have been imposed. There have been times when the CRB
team assigned review even got the case from Internal Affairs after the
year had already expired. Motivation to do a complete review in these
matters wanes when CRB members realize that nothing can be done
as to discipline even if the complaint is sustained. This rule should be
changed to allow tolling of that discipline imposition clock until one
year after completion of litigation/ criminal proceeding so that
investigations can be complete and the process can be fair to both the
citizen complainants and the subject officers.
6. Allow CRB team reviewing a case to look at subject officer’s past
sustained and non-sustained complaints to the same extent as
information regarding the complainant’s criminal record and criminal
case disposition. Currently, IA investigations often put one-sided
information into the investigation package – the side that supports
their finding. Currently, information on the subject officer is held
from the review team until after the vote on the matter.
7. Citizen complaints should all be forwarded to the CRB without the
SDPD or Executive Director tampering, discarding, editing,
withholding or dissuading complainants from pursuing their
complaint (i.e. If concurrent claim is filed with San Diego City Risk
Management that department would hold up the processing of the
complaint against the officer until the claim had been decided).
8. CRB website should be upgraded to allow for automatic numbering of
complaints (like tip lines do) and the Executive Director should keep a
consecutively numbered log of all complaints made and their status.
The new complaints should be listed by number and date received on
the monthly report to the CRB. Any inquiries received concerning the
status of the complaint should be answered promptly and accurately.
9. The CRB should be advised of all complaints about the SDPD, not just
select ones. There were times when a complainant would call police
stations and be talked out of making a formal complaint by
supervisors. Others had their complaints pigeon-holed in Risk
Management, IA or divisions. All complaints should be forwarded and
all complainants should be told to get the form from the website and
submit the form electronically or mail it directly to a mail drop set up
for the CRB. Forms should be available on counters at all divisions
and in public libraries. Forms received in non-electronic form at the
mail drop should be numbered and accounted for in the reports by the
Executive Director. Only in cases where the complainant indicates to
the CRB leadership that he/she wishes to withdraw the complaint
should it be taken off the tracking system.
10. Develop secure online portals where assigned CRB members can do
case review work on a 24/7 basis from any qualified computer.
Unlike the limited times/availability of the Internal Affairs office
12

 where CRB members are limited to IA office hours and have limited
privacy, this portal would be available after IA working hours to allow
working people to participate and improve timeliness in handling of
complaints. This would greatly improve the diversity of the CRB as
well as timeliness of case review.
11. Instead of spending closed meeting time to read several pages of team
reports aloud to each other, this secure portal could be used to allow
board members to read the reports prior to the closed meetings and
be prepared for discussions, thus allowing for more cases to be
presented at the closed meetings, thus reducing backlogs. To facilitate
accuracy, copies of the report should be provided to CRB members at
the meeting since printing or downloading them from the secure
portal would be curtailed.
12. Each IA investigation should list number of hour of tapes, recordings,
pages and other evidence in each case. The CRB Chair should create a
report that compares this volume of “case evidence” to the actual
number of Board member hours logged on case review to easily
identify Board members who do not review all materials before
deciding a case. Those data listing the number of pages to be read and
the hours of the recordings on the case investigation should be
reported in the IA write-up and considered along with the motion by
the Review Team during the closed meeting case presentation. Where
board members consistently do not review all evidence in the
investigation, the Chair should consider discipline or a
recommendation to the member to resign, or a recommendation to
the Mayor with reasons on why the offending member should not be
reappointed.
13. The CRB shall be informed by SDPD Chief of Police any time an SDPD
officer is arrested, charged or convicted of any criminal offense. This
report shall be made at the next closed meeting following the arrest.
14. The Executive Director, City Attorney or anyone else shall not read IA
completed cases prior to sending them to the CRB team.
15. Cases shall be randomly assigned to teams for review without regard
to nature of allegations or severity.

13