Overview:
City Council member Soheila Bana led opposition, saying the mayor's proposed ad hoc committee had conflicts of interest as she rehashed former commission investigator’s accusations of bias.
A proposal to form an ad hoc Richmond City Council committee to review the Community Police Review Commission’s (CPRC) proposed police department reforms sparked tension and accusations of collusion at Tuesday night’s meeting.
At the center of the dispute was Mayor Eduardo Martinez’s idea to form a committee consisting of himself and District 5 and 6 council members Sue Wilson and Claudia Jimenez, along with Police Chief Bisa French, City Attorney David Aleshire and a CPRC representative. Their task would be to review new CPRC recommendations and decide which ones the council should consider approving in an effort to strengthen the commission’s oversight of the Richmond Police Department.
In a Richmond Progressive Alliance-affiliated voting block that is often seen in council business, Martinez, Jimenez and Wilson voted to create the committee while District 1, 2 and 4 council members Jamelia Brown, Cesar Zepeda and Soheila Bana voted “no.” With council member Doria Robinson absent, the measure failed. Now the whole council will review all of the CPRC’s 13 recommendations.
The CPRC created the recommendations at the start of 2025 in an attempt to beef up its influence over how it investigates complaints involving the police department.
The recommendations include: Hiring a permanent, full-time investigative officer who would report annually on investigation results; giving citizens more time (up to a year) to file complaints; expanding its authority to automatically review, hear, and investigate all incidents involving the use of a body-restraint device, taser, canine or firearm; making “non-confidential” reports and records publicly available; changing the stated purpose of the commission; redacting a complainant’s information; giving the CPRC the right to issue subpoenas; and providing more training for commissioners.
One other recommendation is to lower the standard of proof to a “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that to prove a fact of sustained complaints it must be shown that it is more likely than not that the fact is true, essentially a 51% threshold of the evidence presented.
CPRC members who’ve said they support the recommendations say they’d like Richmond’s commission to be run more like those in neighboring cities such as Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.
According to Aleshire, some of the recommendations would require altering the Richmond Municipal Code, which can only be done by a vote from the council, and that some of the suggestions require a meeting process with police labor representatives.
“After we got these recommendations we met at a staff level to talk over what was a potential process to deal with this,” he told the council Tuesday. “It seemed as if just putting all the recommendations on a council agenda without some review by staff and implications was really not the right way to do it.”
Bana leads opposition to creating ad hoc committee
Bana, who pulled the ad hoc committee item from the consent calendar to the visible surprise of fellow council members and City Clerk Pamela Christian, said during the meeting that she was “shocked” to see it on the agenda and questioned why it wasn’t scheduled to be discussed by the entire council.
“I have no complaint about the content (of the CPRC recommendations) at this point but my objection is procedural,” she said. “Why does the mayor have the power to assign an ad hoc committee of a council member who is already a (CPRC) liaison (Jimenez) and another council member who is the wife of one of the (CPRC) members (Wilson)?”
Jimenez’s 2024 council campaign was managed by CPRC chair Carmen Martinez while Wilson’s husband, Daniel Lawson, is currently a CPRC commissioner. His term ends in 2026.
Bana questioned the ad hoc criteria, saying that the council usually will call for a mayor-appointed ad hoc committee when the issue at hand is too complicated to be covered during a regular city council meeting.
She also questioned why Aleshire allowed the ad hoc committee members to be pre-selected and included on the consent agenda without input from other council members.
Aleshire said that according to the Richmond City Charter, the mayor has the authority to choose and make appointments to boards or commissions, including ad hoc committees.
In an emailed statement to Richmondside, Martinez reiterated his mayoral authority and said that Bana was within her right as a council member to pull the item.
“Under the Brown Act, no more than three members can collaborate or discuss an item before it’s public, so it’s not unusual for someone to be unaware of what’s coming. Pulling an item is a right any councilmember has — that’s just how the process works,” Martinez wrote.
Aleshire defended the decision and said the goal of setting up a committee was to allow it to hear “different viewpoints,” referring to French and CPRC chair Martinez.
“You’re talking about different views? Seriously?” Bana said, adding that the police commission was operating unethically and reading an excerpt from the resignation letter of former CPRC investigator Jerry Threet, who stepped down in September 2024.
“Put plainly, I no longer believe the commission can be relied upon to reach a valid finding on allegations of officer misconduct based on an objective, thorough, and unbiased view of the totality of the investigative evidence,” Bana read aloud, quoting Threet’s resignation email. “Unfortunately, that is the standard that must be met to honor both the ethical obligations of each commissioner, as well as the due process rights of the civil servants who serve as Richmond Police Department officers.”
Multiple sources who spoke with Richmondside after Threet’s resignation said that the part-time investigator, who lives in Canada, was going to leave anyway because he had taken other investigative jobs in other cities.
Bana also accused Aleshire of “putting it under the rug” when she mentioned that she invited Threet to a closed session of the council after he resigned.
“And then the CPRC, who is acting in violation of law, is bringing recommendations?” she said. “Your position as the city attorney should flag anything unethical or unlawful.”
Bana said that at next Tuesday’s council meeting she plans to call for an independent investigation into the CPRC and Threet’s allegations of bias.
When Bana asked French if she had any issues with the ad hoc committee appointments, French said that while she didn’t object to participating, she had “legal” concerns with some of the CPRC’s recommendations and the potential effects on police officers’ morale.
“I’m looking forward to the conversation because we do have, like I said, a lot of concerns and this is actually creating a lot of issues around the department right now,” French said. “The controversy around the current configuration around the CPRC has caused a lot of anxiety and fear around our department and just as we are getting our staffing levels more steady and actually increasing, we are now seeing officers applying for other departments again because they are concerned with the direction of the CPRC.”
Jimenez pointed out that officers who choose to work for neighboring cities would face more stringent police commissions.
“I think the ones who are leaving don’t want police accountability,” Jimenez said. “The idea is that this is a process to strengthen this commission that in some ways, compared to other cities in California, is really weak.”
In an emailed statement to Richmondside on Thursday morning, Reimagine Richmond, whose members include chair Carmen Martinez and commissioner Marisol Cantu, said they are optimistic that the recommendations will be passed by the council.
“Reimagine Richmond is very supportive of the recommendations put forth by the CPRC, is looking forward to council discussion of it, and is hopeful about implementation, including on those items that are directly responsive to Jerry Threet’s concerns, such as the need for more commissioner training,” the email read.
Wilson, Jimenez deny conflicts of interest with their CPRC ties
Wilson denied that her husband’s role on the committee posed a conflict of interest for her since he was appointed before her 2024 election. Aleshire confirmed this wasn’t a conflict but said Lawson wouldn’t be able to seek re-appointment.
Wilson told Richmondside on Wednesday that she did not know about the ad hoc idea until the council agenda was released last Friday and said that she had no “sore feelings” about it failing to pass.
“I think it is completely reasonable and normal that Soheila and I disagreed about the process of bringing these proposals to the council,” Wilson said. “The most important thing though is that the city council and the public get to see these (CPRC) proposals.”
Jimenez told Richmondside she questioned why Bana chose to wait eight months after Threet’s resignation to raise these issues. She also denied having a conflict of interest related to Martinez being her 2024 campaign manager.
“Right now there is no longer a relationship,” Jimenez said. “Yes, she was my campaign manager during my last election and has long been a dedicated leader in the community, actively involved in several local groups, and I am glad to see her continue that commitment in her service in the Community Police Review Commission and her ongoing support for Richmond’s immigrant community.”
Martinez refuted the idea that the rift over the committee provides a glimpse into possible divisions on the council.
“That kind of debate — split votes and no action — is part of a healthy democratic process,” Martinez said in his emailed statement. “As for division on the council, sure — on this issue, we were split on approach. But if you look at the rest of the agenda, the rest of the items passed unanimously. I’m continuing to work with all of my colleagues on other efforts, and I value those working relationships.”
Richmondside reached out to Bana but did not receive a response by publication time.
Ah the RPA machine at it again. Conflicts of interest, any enforcement of laws and regulations, anti-police.
Great coverage of a complex issue
Too many people speaking at this meeting—and even in this article—seemed to ignore that this agenda item had nothing to do with the investigator, the recommendations or police accountability. It was about creating the ad hoc committee and who the Mayor was appointing to serve on the committee.
Below are the comments I made to the Council:
In the world we all live in, PERCEPTION is everything—perception becomes reality.
The oversight of the CPRC is a good example.
Instead of having a Police Commission, the Council rebranded it as the CPRC—the Community Police Review Commission. This was done largely so when the Council and their friends made overt actions to amend the oversight of the Richmond Police Department, they could just say that the CPRC was doing this or doing that and the public wouldn’t have a clue that it was even happening.
Many people who know that we actually have a Police Commission know that many of the Council appointed Commissioners are anti-police and many of their recommendations reflect that bias. Whether this is completely true or not is of little consequence because the PERCEPTION of the public is that whatever the Police Commission does is designed to cut the legs out from under the police department.
Many of us remember when former Councilmember Vinay Pimplé’s application to serve on the CPRC came before the Council and members of the Council tore him a new one. The PERCEPTION of the public was that some of our community leaders—both elected and strong supporters of those that are elected—HATE the police and everything they stand for.
And now we have an ad hoc committee with three Councilmembers that will serve on it. In some parts of our community, these three Councilmembers may be revered almost to the point where they truly believe they can walk on water.
In other parts of our community, though, the PERCEPTION of these Councilmembers AND their supporters is that they HATE the police and will do everything they can to further emasculate the RPD and the officers serving our community.
Is this what we really want—elected representatives with a real or implied bias against the officers sworn to protect and to serve—serving on this ad hoc committee?
I can guarantee this Council that for sure and for certain, the perception of this action will not be positive. This is one of those times when perception could very well become reality.
As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck…
FYI there’s one community police review commissioner (NOT CHAIR!!) Floy Andrews(former public defender with failed contra costa election bids). She single handedly instructed the city attorney Alshire to rewrite her 13 recommendations into legal terms. AND she conspired with him how to present it to council with minimizing public input! ALARMING is the CPRC chair was excluded, the entire commission NEVER saw the 13 recommendations to be discussed in the proposed adHoc committee. AND council JIMENEZ will be COACHED by Floy on how to present the 13 recommendations to council!
(Link CPRC meeting 05.07.25 https://m.facebook.com/groups/1076564749104499/permalink/9858651654229054/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Another public speaker excerpt: “I provided the below public comment tonight on the new business item VIII.
Good evening, Commissioners.
I’d like to express my concern regarding the City Attorney’s proposal to limit all public comments on agenda items to the Open Forum — restricting public speakers to just two minutes to address multiple topics, and doing so before any presentations or Commission discussion.
This would mark a significant departure from long-standing practice. For decades, Richmond’s City Council, boards, and commissions –including this one — have allowed public comment on each agenda item at the appropriate time. This approach promotes transparency, informed participation, and meaningful public engagement between the community and its representatives.
A similar policy was previously introduced by the West Contra Costa Unified School District Board of Trustees. It was met with strong community opposition and quickly reversed.
If this Commission is committed to democratic values and genuine community involvement, public input — and by extension, First Amendment rights — should not be stifled or minimized in the name of procedural compliance with the Brown Act.
I respectfully urge the Commission to retain a format where each item is presented, Commissioners engage in an initial round of questions and discussion, the public then comments based on the full context, and the Commission concludes with deliberation and action.
Finally, at least two legitimate Brown Act complaints were lodged and have been confirmed by the very actions transpiring this evening allowing public comment on each item and comments made by Counsel Andrews.
Instead of curing those violations within 30 days — as required by CA law — the City Attorney instead chose to propose this item for your consideration.
I encourage the Commission to consider why this proposal is truly being introduced now, and whether it truly addresses a Brown Act compliance issue or creates a new barrier to public participation.
The CPRC has a deeply concerning legitimacy issue. Do you really want to be the ONLY commission (public entity) in the city of Richmond that is restricting meaningful public comment?
“The process is truly clear as mud. It’s unclear if they are trying to present just an agenda report drafted by the Commissioner who made the Recommendation + Councilmember Jimenez + Floy Andrews + Aleshire, and if they will propose it as a study session or actually an agenda item with proposed ordinance language for a first reading.
This is particularly alarming as the Commissioners (Oscar Garcia Carol Hegstrom) should ALL review it first and vote on whether or not they agree with the language that is being presented to the City Council.
Ask any lawyer, a single word (e.g., Shall vs. May; Bill Clinton and the meaning of “Is”) can dramatically change the legal interpretation of a sentence.”
Another public speaker excerpt: “I provided the below public comment tonight on the new business item VIII.
Good evening, Commissioners.
I’d like to express my concern regarding the City Attorney’s proposal to limit all public comments on agenda items to the Open Forum — restricting public speakers to just two minutes to address multiple topics, and doing so before any presentations or Commission discussion.
This would mark a significant departure from long-standing practice. For decades, Richmond’s City Council, boards, and commissions –including this one — have allowed public comment on each agenda item at the appropriate time. This approach promotes transparency, informed participation, and meaningful public engagement between the community and its representatives.
A similar policy was previously introduced by the West Contra Costa Unified School District Board of Trustees. It was met with strong community opposition and quickly reversed.
If this Commission is committed to democratic values and genuine community involvement, public input — and by extension, First Amendment rights — should not be stifled or minimized in the name of procedural compliance with the Brown Act.
I respectfully urge the Commission to retain a format where each item is presented, Commissioners engage in an initial round of questions and discussion, the public then comments based on the full context, and the Commission concludes with deliberation and action.
Finally, at least two legitimate Brown Act complaints were lodged and have been confirmed by the very actions transpiring this evening allowing public comment on each item and comments made by Counsel Andrews.
Instead of curing those violations within 30 days — as required by CA law — the City Attorney instead chose to propose this item for your consideration.
I encourage the Commission to consider why this proposal is truly being introduced now, and whether it truly addresses a Brown Act compliance issue or creates a new barrier to public participation.
The CPRC has a deeply concerning legitimacy issue. Do you really want to be the ONLY commission (public entity) in the city of Richmond that is restricting.
Re the statement: “One other recommendation is to lower the standard of proof to a “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that to prove a fact of sustained complaints it must be shown that it is more likely than not that the fact is true, essentially a 51% threshold of the evidence presented.”
What is the standard of proof now?