Overview:
Richmond’s City Council votes 3-4 against investigating its citizens police commission.
Richmond’s city council on Tuesday rejected a proposal to investigate the commission that investigates allegations of police misconduct.
In a 3-4 vote, the council shot down a weakened version of the proposal that would have kept the Community Police Review Commission operating during the independent third-party investigation. The investigation was called for by council members Soheila Bana, District 4, and Jamelia Brown, District 1, who wanted to investigate claims that the CPRC “has engaged in conduct that reflects bias, or a failure to meet its semi-judicial obligations — particularly as they pertain to due process protections and adherence to objective investigative standards,” according to the agenda item.
Those who voted for the investigation included its co-sponsors as well as District 2 council member Cesar Zepeda. Earlier this month those three voted against creating an ad hoc committee to review 13 recommendations the CRPC is proposing in an effort to strengthen its oversight of the Richmond Police Department.
The proposed investigation stemmed from an email sent by former CPRC investigator Jerry Threet, who resigned in September 2024, alleging bias and unethical conduct from commission members.
Bana and Brown’s timing was questioned Tuesday by residents and council members who suggested it’s an attempt to silence the commission, which was established more than 40 years ago following the murder of two men by Richmond police officers known as the “Cowboys.”
Residents speak out against investigation; police say they support it
Richmond resident Anne Norton was one of two dozen people who addressed the council Tuesday night, a majority of which said they opposed a CPRC investigation, characterizing it as an attack on the commission as a whole.
Norton told the council that she filed a formal complaint with Richmond police about a “dangerous police incident” in her neighborhood last October but only received a letter “months later” from the department, which was “exonerating themselves from all allegations.” But that same letter also said the CPRC was investigating it.
“This underlines how important the community police commission is to our citizens, allowing for police accountability and full disclosure of police events that could or do harm to our community members,” Norton said. “We, as the Richmond community, have no other recourse or independent commission to gather information, file complaints and make our community safer against police activity that could do harm to our community members.”
Most of those who expressed support for the investigation were current or former Richmond police officers, including police Sgt. Benjamin Therriault, president of the Richmond Police Officers Association, which represents officers of the rank of sergeant and below. Calling Threet a “whistleblower,” he said an investigation into the CPRC was warranted.
“If there’s nothing there, no big deal. Happens to cops all the time. That’s fine. We accept that. We live that. We know that’s the high standard,” Therriault said. “This body should have that as well.”
Eric Smith, president of the Richmond Police Management Association, which represents lieutenants and captains, said via the meeting’s Zoom call that as someone who was investigated by the CRPC “many, many years ago,” Threet’s concerns should be addressed, including how CPRC commissioners are allowed to “recommend their own training,” while police officers follow the standards set by the Commission for Peace Officer Standards and Training.
“They don’t get to make up their own training. They actually go to places who tell us what we’re going to take. We don’t get to pick,” Smith said.
Training was a key part of Tuesday night’s discussion. City Manager Shasa Curl said “in the city of Richmond, board and commission trainings have always been conducted and led by the city attorney’s office.”
Those opposing the investigation, which as initially proposed would have suspended the CPRC’s activities, however, noted that the timing was crucial, pointing to the council’s plans to review the CPRC’s 13 recommendations, one of which asks that commissioners receive training on how to adequately do what they have been tasked to do.
District 5 council member Sue Wilson, whose former campaign manager was Carmen Martinez, the CPRC’s chair, and who is married to CPRC commissioner Dan Lawson, said she isn’t opposed to investigations when they’re justified but said Threet’s email was “too thin” to trigger an investigation, especially if used as a “political weapon” against the CPRC, saying Threet’s claims “seemed to overstate conclusions based on very minor things.”
Wilson, who was among the four council members who voted against the investigation, said Threet was critical of CPRC because its members weren’t prepared enough before meetings.
“I think he was using that as evidence that they weren’t serious about their jobs. I would argue that if we were to do these kinds of investigations of all of our commissions, we would find that of many of our commission members, all of whom are volunteers, unpaid, working jobs, raising families,” Wilson said. “I’m mostly just proud they’re all reading the agenda items and opening up the attachments. I’m not annoyed that they didn’t do it far enough in advance to satisfy Mr. Threet.”
Council member Doria Robinson, District 3, said she reviewed the minutes of the May 6 meeting she missed and “just found myself completely angry and yelling at the computer screen” because, she said, for six months Threet had talked about moving to Canada but “he never said one word, one complaint, anything about the commission … nothing. But on the day of his resignation, he drops this letter publicly without ever bringing it to the council. And then it’s like, ‘Drop the mic. I’m out.’ ”
Richmondside reached out to Threet over social media during the meeting. He responded that he didn’t want to comment but said his email “really said what I needed to say.”
“I strongly support the commission’s work and hope they find their way to fully regain credibility, because the commission is very important to both the community and the city,” Threet wrote.
Robinson said Threet never submitted any negative claims against the CPRC until his last day, and, despite being a lawyer, Threet never provided a written record of his concerns, which, as someone “in a managerial position for over 20 years, this is suspicious.”
“I absolutely see what’s happening on the federal level. You know how important due process is, but I do not believe launching a witch hunt in this moment is going to do anything but destroy this commission,” Robinson said.
Bana took offense to Robinson calling it a “witch hunt,” saying she objected to “name calling.”
“I don’t appreciate calling an independent legal expert to be hired for transparency and accountability to strengthen the position of CPRC witch hunting,” she said.
Referring to the CPRC’s recommendations, which include a request for more training, Robinson said, “I do think that there is absolutely no reason in the world for us to wait any longer to direct staff tonight, to put together the training that the CPRC needs in order to properly conduct the work.”
The CPRC’s 13 recommendations haven’t been discussed by the council but include a mention that CPRC members need more training about topics such as basic investigative skills, such as how to give different types of evidence weight to reach a conclusion.
Training new police commissioners is “high priority,” city attorney says
Before the final vote, District 6 council member Claudia Jimenez tried to make a motion directing the city attorney and staff to come up with a CPRC training plan and start implementing it by September.
City Attorney Dave Aleshire said that while he agrees training is a high priority, it couldn’t be voted on because it wasn’t on Tuesday’s agenda. He said it could be added to next Tuesday’s agenda.
After listening to residents’ concerns, Bana altered her proposal to remove a portion that would suspend the CRPRC’s authority to adjudicate any cases involving police officers. Brown said there was already a pause, as the commission has not been hearing cases since Threet left.
Bana attempted to have Jimenez, the council’s liaison to the CPRC, and Wilson recused from voting over what she framed as “common law bias,” due to their connections to CPRC members, but Aleshire reminded Bana that he had told her earlier in the day that such recusals were unnecessary.
CPRC commissioner Lawson addressed the council, introducing himself as a CPRC member and Wilson’s husband, saying he heard the criticisms from Threet and some commission members, and said disagreements aren’t evidence that the CPRC is “corrupt or broken and needs to be stopped.”
“Our job is not merely to rubber stamp the recommendations made by the investigator,” Lawson said. “Our duty is to hear evidence evaluated and make our own determination, and that’s what we do.”
But some CPRC commissioners said they did support the proposed investigation.
Oscar Garcia, a CPRC commissioner since 2015 whose term, according to the city website, expired in November, told the council that Threet was “very ethical,” and said the city has done nothing to address his concerns. He said he was alarmed that none of the new members have received any training.
“Would you trust an intern to redesign a plane you are flying in?,” he said. “Please do the right thing and conduct this overdue investigation.”
Carol Hegstrom, a CPRC member since 2017, said the community should expect transparency and accountability from the police department and the CPRC.
“Anybody who is against transparency and accountability, that, to me, sounds like there’s something to hide,” she said. “If you don’t have anything to hide, let the investigation go forward.”
Aleshire said he would start working on the CPRC’s training plan in preparation for the council’s May 27 meeting. Acknowledging there’s a “backlog” of cases before the CPRC, Aleshire said the city is close to hiring Threet’s successor.
“It could be within a couple months, some new matters could be before the commission,” he said. “And we’d want the training to happen before that.”
Seems like someone is running for Mayor and hoping for support from the Police Union and the Building Trades.
The RPA is the left version of Trump and Richmond is DC West under their majority control.
When 4 out of 4 RPA-aligned council members vote no on an item calling for an ethics investigation, and 2 of those council members — Claudia Jimenez and Sue Wilson — and their husbands would be the subject of said investigation, everyone can see the outright corruption.
The 2 people running for re-election in 2026 and who were impacted by this corrupt vote are none other than the other RPA-aligned council members — Doria Robinson and Eduardo Martinez. And since they both need the support of the RPA, everyone can see why they voted against an ethics investigation.
Doria Robinson is already the subject of at least one investigation. The RPA gave her cover for the $10.7 million she and her husband received from the taxpayers as part of the $35 million TCC grant that Richmond received from the Strategic Growth Council amongst other serious allegations, including but not limited to tax evasion and election fraud.
Doria chose to save herself rather than throw Claudia and Sue under their own investigation bus and risk losing their protection. You can run but you can’t hide and eventually it will catch up with all of them.
Again — these 4 (Doria, Eduardo, Claudia and Sue) voted against an ethics investigation looking into legitimate allegations by a whistleblower.
The optics are terrible and hopefully their Richmond supporters and voters will finally see just how corrupt they are and how similar they are to Trump.