This story was updated as of 3:30 p.m. Monday to include new details.
Controversy continues to surround Richmond’s Community Police Review Commission (CPRC) amidst its efforts to strengthen its oversight of the police department. On Tuesday the council will consider a proposal to investigate past allegations of misconduct.
During the May 6 Richmond City Council meeting, Mayor Eduardo Martinez’s effort to form an ad hoc committee to review 13 recommendations by the CPRC was rejected by the council. It would have consisted of the mayor, Districts 5 and 6 council members Sue Wilson and Claudia Jimenez, the city attorney’s office, a representative of the police commission and the police chief.
District 4 council member Soheila Bana raised conflict of interest concerns, pointing to Jimenez’s and Wilson’s ties to CPRC chair Carmen Martinez, who served as Jimenez’s campaign manager, and CPRC commissioner Dan Lawson, who is Wilson’s husband. Richmond city attorney David Aleshire said during the May 6 meeting that Wilson did not have a conflict of interest because Lawson was already on the commission before Wilson was elected in 2024. In addition, Jimenez told Richmondside after that meeting that she and Martinez had parted ways on a professional level.
At Tuesday’s meeting Bana will propose the city launch an independent, third-party investigation into previous allegations of unethical conduct by the commission which were levied by its former investigator, Jerry Threet, who resigned in September 2024 via a mass email sent to all city departments. Threet’s successor has not been chosen, but Sharrone Taylor, Richmond’s Human Resources director, said at the commission’s May 7 meeting that a contract for an interim investigator is being reviewed and finalized.
According to the city, the CPRC is a commission of citizens that advises the council, city manager and police chief on “all matters pertaining to the administration of the Richmond Police Department.” It receives, investigates, and hears complaints against Richmond police officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force, discrimination, sexual harassment and/or sexual assault; conducts investigations on all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a police officer and/or when death or serious bodily injury results from direct police action; handles appeals from the Office of Professional Accountability; and submits recommendations to the police chief.
If you go
WHAT: Richmond City Council
WHEN: Tue., May 20, 3:30 p.m. closed session; 5 p.m. regular meeting begins.
WHERE: City Hall, 403 Civic Center Plaza
MORE INFO: Agenda, Zoom information.
Threet accused the CPRC of bias and said he was not confident that it could make justifiable decisions on police misconduct cases. Though never mentioning specific commissioners, he also said commissioners engaged in “grudge matches” regarding cases.
“Sometimes, evidence is completely ignored, even when it is crucial to the questions at issue in the investigation, such as the officer’s state of mind at the time. At times, commissioners have described the evidence in ways that are diametrically opposed to the actual facts in evidence,” Threet wrote in the email. “Some commissioners have accused those with a different view of the facts with bias in favor of police officers for considering evidence that supports the officers’ actions as appropriate under the circumstances.”
Bana is proposing that a third-party investigator determine whether the commission has engaged in biased conduct pertaining to due process protections and “objective investigative standards.”
If the council votes to investigate the CPRC, the commission would halt any current investigations into officer misconduct until the third-party investigation concludes.
Council member Sue Wilson addresses controversy in her Saturday newsletter
In screenshots shared with Richmondside from the private “Everybody’s Richmond” Facebook page, Bana said that she had tried to put the third-party CPRC investigation on the May 6 agenda, but it was removed by the mayor.
District 1 council member Jamelia Brown, who is co-sponsoring the third-party investigation proposal, posted that the two did not know why their item was removed from the agenda until later.
“Only to later learn that it would have directly conflicted with item W.6.b (the mayor’s ad hoc committee item),” Brown wrote. “While I’m not drawing any conclusions, the timing is certainly noteworthy.”
Wilson wrote in her Saturday email newsletter that she felt Bana was concerned about not being part of the proposed ad hoc committee.
“I can sympathize with Bana here — none of us like to be left out of an ad hoc on issues we care about,” she wrote. “And as a council member, she still had ultimate decision-making authority, being able to amend, approve, or reject whatever recommendations that would have come from the ad hoc committee. None of us are left out of the process in the end.”
Wilso also suggested that both Bana and Brown are attempting to bury the CPRC’s 13 recommendations. While District 2 council member Cesar Zepeda explained that he voted against the ad hoc committee because he would like the CPRC’s recommendations to come directly to council, Wilson said that Bana and Brown are putting up roadblocks for the commission’s work. (Council member Doria Robinson was absent from the May 6kk meeting.)
“There’s got to be a better way. I’ve talked to enough people in Richmond to know we have diverse opinions about the proper role of the police and what form community oversight should take,” Wilson said. “Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I hope you will agree that what’s going on here isn’t right. Using a flimsy charge of corruption to shut down a commission and bury their ideas is not something I will ever support.”
What does Richmond’s police review commission do?
The CPRC is one of 25 boards and commissions that advise the city council on multiple issues from policing to public art and economic development. There are nine seats on the CPRC of which eight are currently filled.
The CPRC, previously named the Police Commission, was established in 1984 in response to the murders of Johnny Roman and Michael Guillory by rogue Richmond Police Department officers known infamously as the “cowboys.”
The city ended up paying a $3 million civil judgement for the deaths of Roman and Guillory, who were among six Black men fatally shot by Richmond police officers during a three-year span in the 1980s.
At its inception the commission’s mission was to “receive, investigate and hear complaints against Richmond Police Officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force or racially abusive treatment” and to submit recommendations to the city council, city manager and police chief.
Currently, the commissioners, in addition to Martinez and Lawson, are: vice chair Oscar Flores, Marisol Cantu, Oscar Garcia, Carol Hegstrom, Andre Jackson and Rachel Lorber.
Martinez and Cantu are community organizers with Reimagine Richmond, a local public safety reform advocacy group formed in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder by police in 2020. The group regularly attends council and CPRC meetings in support of alternative policing methods such as the establishing of the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP) and other recommendations from the city’s Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. Martinez has been critical of the CPRC’s effectiveness, writing in a June blog post on the Reimagine Richmond site that the city needs a “more effective and empowered oversight body.”
“As a community member, I am deeply concerned about the conduct and practices of members of the police,” Martinez wrote. “Transparency on police abuse of power needs to be brought to light and accountability needs to be enforced to help prevent future incidents of use-of-force, racial discrimination and sexual harassment. Both, CPRC and the community do not need to be jumping through various hoops to determine whether they can look at a case or not. Justice needs to be served and changes within the commission need to be made to help stop undermining the voices of our people.”
Martinez also works on political campaigns for the Richmond Progressive Alliance while Cantu, also a member of the RPA, is an adjunct professor at Contra Costa College and researcher at UC Berkeley and UC Davis.
Garcia is a former Chevron air quality engineer who currently is a senior regulatory affair manager for an international oil refining company. He is president of the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council and “senior advisor” for the 23rd Street Merchants Association. Flores is a community organizer with All of us or None — an organization that advocates for the rights of formerly and currently incarcerated people.
Lawson is a math professor at Merritt College in Oakland, Lorber is an attorney with the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, Hegstrom is a biosafety consultant for a pharmaceutical company while Jackson, a realtor, owns a medical supply store in the Hilltop area and has also served as a bishop at a local church.
Each CPRC commissioner serves a three-year term and is limited to three terms, according to the city’s website. Each commissioner is required to file a Form 700, a state financial disclosure form that aims to identify potential conflicts between public duties and personal financial interests. The annual filing deadline for city commissioners is April 1.
Some commissioners’ terms have ended; two didn’t file required financial forms
In a Form 700, commissioners must disclose information such as investments worth more than $2,000, income, including loans, gifts and travel payments, property interest worth $2,000 or more and business positions.
During the May 7 CPRC meeting, Garcia accused Cantu and Martinez of being paid by Reimagine Richmond to attend commission meetings.
“Their main source of income seems to me that they are both paid to be here which, to me, should be looked into,” Garcia said. “This is very disturbing and should be looked into, and I intend to have the city look into that to make sure this doesn’t jeopardize our work here.”
Richmondside reviewed all of the 2025 Form 700 filings and found various discrepancies.
Reimagine Richmond was not listed on Cantu’s or Martinez’s form 700 filings, but the two reported earning between $10,000 and $100,000 as contractors for the Richmond Community Foundation, a local nonprofit that says its goal is to fight for racial justice and health equity in and around Richmond. RCF confirmed Monday afternoon that it has been a fiscal sponsor of Reimagine Richmond for about three years but isn’t involved with paying anyone directly.
“That’s totally internal with them. We deal with the bigger picture such as grants they can apply to, as their fiscal sponsor,” said Rosalind Mays Welch, senior director of marketing and development for the foundation.
Cantu also reported adjunct professor wages from Contra Costa College and her work as a researcher for both UC Berkeley and UC Davis. Martinez reported earning between $1,000 to $10,000 as a campaign manager for the three Richmond Progressive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Richmond City Council election: Wilson, Jimenez and Melvin Willis, who was not reelected.
Richmondside also reviewed the Richmond Community Foundation’s Form 990, which nonprofits must file, but did not see any connection disclosed between Reimagine Richmond and the nonprofit. Reimagine Richmond’s website also doesn’t include a donation link nor any references to fiscal sponsorship or operating as a 501(c)3.
Flores reported earning between $1,000 and $10,000 from Reuniting Families Contra Costa — an organization supporting the formerly incarcerated; Lorber reported making more than $100,000 for the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office as well as a number of investments.
Both Garcia and Hegstrom each filed a Form 700 in 2025 but did not disclose any type of income.
Richmondside could not locate Form 700 filings for either Lawson or Jackson for 2025 in the city’s database. However, Lawson later provided the documents and says he falls under a rule that exempts him from reporting income because he works for a government agency. Jackson has not yet responded to Richmondside’s inquiry.
According to California’s Fair Political Practices Commission’s reference pamphlet for Form 700 filings, failure to file or disclose any pertinent income information on a Form 700 could result in penalties, including fines of up to $5,000 and a referral to the Enforcement Division of the FPPC. Late filing penalties include a fine of $10 per day per position, up to $100, for each day the statement is late.
Additionally, the city’s commission website shows that the terms for Garcia, Hegstrom and Jackson have ended. The third term for Garcia, who was initially appointed in 2015, ended on Nov. 1, 2024. The second term for Hegstrom, who was first appointed in 2017, ended April 18, 2023, so she should have been reappointed to a third term that would end in 2026. Jackson, who was appointed to his first term in 2020, has also served past his term, which ended on Nov. 1, 2023.
In Richmond’s commission, committee and board handbook, there is no mention of a process allowing commissioners to serve past their appointment terms ending.
Richmondside reached out to Adam Cunha, a paralegal working in Richmond’s City Attorney’s Office who is the staff liaison to the CPRC, as well as Floy Andrews, assistant Richmond city attorney who is assigned to the commission, for clarification on why commissioners are serving past their appointment dates and about incomplete or unfiled Form 700s but did not receive a response by publication time.
Threet’s emailed accusations about the CPRC were not the first accusations of ethical violations during his tenure as the body’s investigator.
According to a 2022 East Bay Times article, both Garcia and Hegstrom were accused of inappropriately approaching Threet to discuss pending investigations based on complaints that had not been discussed in closed session.
The article said that though Threet didn’t share any specific information about those complaints, he disclosed that they consisted of “allegations of gender and ethnic bias, excessive force during a parking enforcement incident and excessive force and racially abusive treatment.”
Alshire avoided answering Wilson’s question repeatedly during that council meeting! . So NO he didn’t say it’s ok. She said it’s ok based on a city attorney office statement before becoming council member. Additionally Alshire said something like: “this question is not related to the topic, you need to vote on the adHoc now!” I attended the entire contentious discussion with council Bana repeatedly being interrupted, yelled at and admonished by Wilson, Jimenez and Alshire. Bana rightfully pointed out conflict of interest with Anderson, city attorney firm being the current CPRC council. And, Anderson, without presenting the 13 adHoc points to the CPRC, colluded with Jimenez. Anderson also assured to whomever that someone will brief Jimenez on how to present the 13 points, not seen by CPRC, at the next council meeting to ensure they pass. And, Alshire will set up the council meeting discussion in a way which creates the shortest possible public comment period.