The request came after council voted for the city to create language that could allow the Police Citizens Review Board (CRB) to obtain independent legal representation.
Police transparency advocates say that the CRB having its own lawyer will help avoid a conflict of interest, because city staff lawyers often represent TPD in lawsuits.
But when City Attorney Andrea Zelman provided a draft of the ordinance before the meeting, council members noticed some adjustments that went beyond what they originally requested.
Some council members felt that the language crafted by Zelman could potentially make the CRB attorney less independent and more under the control of Mayor Jane Castor’s administration, which has pushed back on police transparency efforts for years.
Earlier this week, the ACLU Greater Tampa Chapter pointed out that some of the verbiage in Zelman’s memo could hinder the efficacy of the independent attorney role.
Today, council asked Zelman to revise some of the points of the ordinance that she presented, specifically in regards to the hiring of the attorney.
Councilwoman Lynn Hurtak—who last month made the motion for the independent attorney ordinance after Castor vetoed the public’s right to vote on the matter—said that a couple things needed to change.
The most major adjustment she asked for was to have a sentence in the ordinance that clearly says the CRB shall be represented by an independent attorney.
Zelman’s ordinance had used language that was more vague, saying, “Should a majority of the CRB vote to hire an attorney who is not a city employee to serve as their legal advisor” then the City of Tampa would hire one.
Hurtak made it clear that it was council’s decision as elected officials that the CRB should have an independent attorney to avoid conflict of interest, and that should the ordinance pass, the CRB would definitely be hiring an independent attorney.
She also pointed out that the ordinance’s language should make it extra clear that the attorney will definitely be independent from Castor’s administration. To this point, Councilman Luis Viera suggested that the independent attorney be defined as a “privately retained non-city employee.”
Hurtak also asked for the ordinance to make clear that selection of the attorney would be done by the CRB itself and not by the city attorney’s office.
“I would say, ‘the CRB may establish procedures to review and select its legal advisor’,” Hurtak said.
Zelman’s current ordinance wasn’t as clear as what Hurtak suggested. It instead read that the CRB would “review and provide its recommendations to the city attorney for selection of a CRB legal advisor.”
Hurtak requested that Zelman come back with the changes by March 16 for the first reading of the ordinance. Two separate readings and two separate votes are required for the ordinance to be made into law.
Councilmen Charlie Miranda, Guido Maniscalco and Joe Citro voted against Hurtak’s suggestions, making it a close but passing vote.
This article appears in Feb 16-22, 2023.
