City of Columbia, Missouri  
701 E. Broadway  
Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Wednesday, August 14, 2024  
6:00 PM  
Regular  
Council Chambers  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
Citizens Police Review Board  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
Doug Hunt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.  
There were introductions.  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
Xavier Scruggs made a motion to approve the agenda. Steven Jeffrey seconded  
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
July 10, 2024 Draft Minutes  
Jamie Thornsberry made a motion to approve the draft open meeting minutes of  
the July 10, 2024 regular meeting. Denise Balazic seconded the motion. The  
motion passed unanimously.  
July 10, 2024 Draft Closed Meeting Minutes  
Stephanie Coleman made a motion to approve the draft closed meeting minutes  
of the July 10, 2024 closed session. Steph Yoakum seconded the motion. The  
motion passed unanimously.  
V. SPECIAL ITEM  
Report On Status Of Technology Exploration - Assistant Chief Paul  
Dickinson  
Assistant Chief Dickinson said there were no updates. Matt Unrein gave  
an update and said that the city manager included the cost for the  
technology update in the proposed budget. Matt Unrein said the budget  
hearings are ongoing.  
VI. OLD BUSINESS  
SB 754 and Board's Recommendation On Its Impact  
The Board discussed SB 754, the City Council discussion related to its  
report, and the City Counselor’s report.  
Xavier Scruggs asked how St. Louis was responding to SB 754.  
Stephanie Coleman liked the idea of two separate boards and asked if  
that was possible. Steven Jeffrey asked if the members of this Board  
would be on the second board. Doug Hunt said that he met with a  
representative of the police officers association and a representative of  
NACOLE thought that a two board solution is possible. Doug Hunt said  
that the law department does not feel that two boards are possible. Doug  
Hunt said that city staff is trying to keep the current board functioning while  
investigating the impact of 754.  
Doug Hunt read his proposed motion for purposes of discussion.  
Rose Wibbenmeyer told the board that the policy board, if one existed,  
could not access closed records.  
Jamie Thornsberry said that she wanted the best proposal for the City  
Council to consider. Harry Castilow suggested adding “if allowed by SB  
754.” Jamie Thornsberry suggested that similar language be added  
below.  
Doug Hunt continued to read the language of his proposed motion. Doug  
Hunt then discussed the rationale that he wants to include with the  
correspondence to the City Council. Denise Balazic asked about the  
City’s position on the two board solution. Xavier Scruggs asked about  
adding a paragraph about what other municipalities in Missouri have done  
to present a model that might be useful. Stephanie Coleman asked if the  
Board was trying to gain power.  
Doug Hunt made a motion to send a report to the City Council with the  
recommendations in his proposed motion. Steph Yoakum seconded the  
motion. Harry Castilow moved to table the motion to tomorrow’s meeting.  
Denise Balazic seconded the motion to table the agenda. After further  
discussion, Harry Castilow withdrew the motion to table the agenda.  
Doug Hunt opened up public comment on the proposed motion. Chriss  
Jones commented. Chriss Jones said that David Tyson Smith previously  
said that Columbia did not have to change anything. Susan Renee Carter  
spoke on behalf of Race Matters Friends. She said that David Tyson  
Smith was at their forum on August 4, 2024. Susan Renee Carter said that  
it is important that you hear people’s stories. Susan Renee Carter said  
David Tyson Smith had Reece Ellis talk to the legislators about the impact  
of the bill. Susan Renee Carter said that David Tyson Smith said that the  
Board should be able to continue doing what it has been doing. David  
Tyson Smith suggested that the City should challenge the conflicting laws.  
Susan Renee Carter said that the Board has been doing exactly what it has  
been intended to do and that citizens need protection.  
Doug Hunt said there is nothing from any proposal that would keep people  
from the public from speaking. Doug Hunt said that Reece Ellis has  
reviewed the proposal. Stephanie Coleman said that they want the public  
to be able to come to give comments.  
Doug Hunt said that to the third item add if allowed by SB 754, and Xavier  
Scrugg’s amendment to investigate what other cities and states have done  
to keep oversight under one board. Jamie Thornsberry suggested that the  
City Council reach out to David Tyson Smith to explore what the bill means.  
Rose Wibbenmeyer suggested that they include public comments with their  
motion in their report to Council. The Board reached consensus to do so.  
Xavier Scruggs said that it is his sincerest hope that Columbia was not part  
of this new legislation and that he would love for the Board to still be intact.  
Jamie Thornsberry said that could be in the cover letter as well. Doug Hunt  
suggested that the board, “unless it is learned that it is possible to preserve  
the present CPRB structure and duties intact,” to the beginning of the report  
and before the words “replace the CPRB with two boards”. All voted in  
favor of the motion. No one opposed the motion. No one abstained. The  
motion passed.  
With the amendments, the motion, approved by the Board, read as follows:  
“Unless it is learned that it is possible to preserve the present CPRB structure  
and duties intact, Columbia’s Citizens Police Review Board recommends that  
the City Council take the following three actions in response to SB751, recently  
signed into Missouri law:  
1. If allowed by SB 754, replace the CPRB with two civilian oversight boards:  
the first concerned with police department policy, the second with the conduct  
of individual police officers.  
2. To avoid conflict with SB754, make it clear that the Policy Board will never  
recommend disciplinary actions against individual officers. Its duties will be  
• To host public meetings and educational programs on matters of CPD  
policies and practices,  
• To review and make recommendations to the police chief and city manager  
on police department policies, procedures, and training,  
• To educate itself on the practical effects of policies, procedures, and  
training by conducting annual reviews of police department records regarding  
citizens’ complaints and their resolution if allowed by SB 754,  
• To prepare and submit to the city council annual reports that analyze those  
complaints and the way they were resolved, including demographic data, but  
excluding information that personally identifies particular officers or citizens,  
• To prepare and submit to the city council summaries of other public input it  
receives, and to suggest ways that the CPD can best address this this input.  
3. Make it clear that the Conduct Board’s duties will be consistent with SB754.  
Those duties, which will require it to meet primarily in closed session, will be  
• To receive, and to investigate the merit of, appeals from citizens who are  
dissatisfied with the police chief's preliminary findings on complaints involving  
excessive use of force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or use of offensive  
language,  
• To submit its findings on these appeals, including any recommendations on  
disciplinary action, to the chief of police and (if SB754 allows) to the city  
manager, and to do so in a timely way so that all investigations can be  
completed within the time limits imposed by state law.  
* * *  
We want to be clear about what we are trying to accomplish here. We don't  
think the City's response to SB754 needs to become a source of contention  
between advocates of civilian oversight and advocates of police officers’ rights.  
By separating policy-level oversight from conduct-level oversight, we can  
simultaneously assure officers that they will be protected from unfair or  
ill-informed disciplinary treatment by civilian overseers and assure citizens that  
they will have meaningful input in shaping the CPD’s policies and practices.  
Relieved of the present CPRB’s duty of hearing appeals, the Policy Board could  
and should be more ambitious than the CPRB has been in its educational and  
outreach efforts. It might, for instance, host and design carefully moderated and  
balanced discussions of policy-level issues that frequently strain relations  
between the department and the public, such as searches and seizures, uses  
of force, and responses to mental health crises.  
* * *  
The above recommendations are based on an assumption that having two  
oversight boards with cleanly separated missions would present no conflict with  
SB754.  
We have discussed this two-board solution informally with lawyers, including  
one national consultant on police policies and one representative of a police  
officers’ union. Neither objected to the two-board solution, and so we were  
surprised to hear the head of Columbia’s Law Department oppose the  
two-board solution at the August 5, 2024, meeting of the City Council.  
We suspect that her opposition was based on a misunderstanding of the  
CPRB’s intention in advocating such a solution. This is not, as her comments  
implied, an attempt to circumvent SB754, but an attempt to comply with it. It is  
an attempt to comply with it in a way that preserves the opportunity for citizens  
appointed by elected representatives to orchestrate meaningful public  
discussions of crucial police policies.  
* * *  
Should the Council decide that the two-board solution described above is not  
feasible, we would urge it to consider a second alternative. Eliminate the  
Discipline Board entirely, so that Columbia will have no “entity appointed by the  
local governing body, with the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct  
by local law enforcement officers towards members of the public.” This would  
make it logically impossible for Columbia’s system of civilian oversight to be in  
conflict with SB751.  
At that point the Council would be free to appoint a Policy Board that can act  
robustly and publicly. The present members of the CPRB feel that having  
citizens concentrate their attention on policy matters is more productive than  
having it pass judgments on the behavior of individual officers. Citizen input on  
the effectiveness of the entire system is far more crucial than citizen input on  
the conduct of some particular officer. “  
Productive Outreach Efforts  
The Board discussed outreach efforts. Denise Balazic brought up the  
national night out in the first Tuesday in August and suggested that they  
make a plan for next year’s national night out. Denise Balazic suggested  
that they try and put a calendar together. Steph Yoakum said the Human  
Rights Commission does tabling events, and thought the Board would do  
them but they do not.  
Audits Of 2023 Complaints-Status Updates  
The Board discussed their approach to the audit of 2023 complaints. Doug  
Hunt reported the Board has been doing audits and they will be looking at  
them in closed session. Doug Hunt stated that the Board chose the most  
frequent areas or most problematic areas to audit.  
VII. NEW BUSINESS  
Future Meeting Schedule  
The Board discussed their future meeting schedule. Denise Balazic liked  
to continue with monthly meetings. The Board reached consensus to  
continue to have monthly scheduled meetings, which could be canceled if  
there were no training or cases.  
Televising Meetings  
The Board discussed whether their regular meetings should be broadcast.  
The Board reached consensus to take no action and to continue to have  
their regular meetings broadcast.  
Item's For Next Month's Agenda  
The Board discussed the following items for next month’s agenda.  
Additional items may be added later.  
Special Item:  
Old Business:  
New Business: Review of new ordinance/proposed ordinance  
Items for Next Month’s Agenda  
Reports:  
Human Rights Commission  
Positive Connections, Training, Outreach and Ride Alongs  
VIII. REPORTS  
Human Rights Commission  
Steph Yoakum said the Human Rights Commission has not met yet this  
month.  
Positive Connections, Training And Ride Alongs  
Stephanie Coleman reported a ride along on July 25, 2024 from 8p.m. to  
midnight.  
IX. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF  
Doug Hunt announced the time limits for individuals and groups. Members  
of the public commented.  
Chriss Jones commented on behalf of Hold CoMo Accountable. Chriss  
Jones read from an article regarding a police shooting of a mentally ill  
person that happened last August. Chriss Jones gave the article to staff  
and asked that staff scan the article and send it to the Board.  
Meg Ladd commented on the police department’s handling of David  
Strumpf’s murder. She talked about the numerous attempts to contact the  
prosecutor and detectives about a car for over four months only to find out  
April 18th, that the car was released to 170 towing. She expressed  
frustration that minimal contents were collected from the vehicle and that  
the vehicle was released to the tow company one day after the funeral. She  
complained about the lack of communications with any of them about the  
vehicle being transferred to 170 towing.  
Xavier Scruggs asked about the procedure for revision to the ordinances.  
X. MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION  
Motion to go into closed session to discuss records which are protected  
from disclosure by law, Sections 610.021(14) and 590.502 RSMo.  
Doug Hunt made a motion to go into closed session to discuss records which are  
protected from disclosure by law, Sections 610.021(14) and 590.502 RSMO.  
Steven Jeffrey seconded the motion. Denise Balazic, Harry Castilow, Stephanie  
Coleman, Douglas Hunt, Stephen Jeffrey, Xavier Lee Scruggs, Jamie  
Thornsberry, and Steph Yoakum voted in favor of the motion.  
No one voted against the motion.  
No one abstained.  
The motion passed and the Board adjourned open session to go into closed  
session at 7:33 p.m.  
The board met in conference room 2A for closed session.  
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE  
Special Meeting: August 15, 2024  
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: September 11, 2024  
XII. ADJOURNMENT  
The meeting adjourned from closed session at 9:07 p.m.