City of OKC

Recommendation No. 13:

The City should assess the membership design and transparency of the Citizens Advisory Board.

Oklahoma City should assess the membership design of the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), including who sits on the CAB, the transparency of their appointments, and establish term limits.

Project Status: 90% Implemented

On August 1, 2023, Oklahoma City Council voted to pass a resolution establishing a Community Public Safety Advisory Board to serve as a permanent and independent resident advisory group in Oklahoma City that will review the complaint investigative process and results of completed complaint investigations involving Oklahoma City Police officers.

Visit the About page for Project Status definitions.

Project Details from Consultant Report

The Task Force received presentations from members of the CAB, who explained the current roles and limitations on the Board. While there was general appreciation for the work of the CAB and several noted that the CAB simply did not have the resources it needed to succeed, there was also criticism of the lack of transparency for appointments, concerns that some of the current members were “defenders of the status quo,” the lack of term limits, and a perception that despite the level of power granted even under the current Charter, the CAB was simply not exercising its power to maximal effect. Moreover, many expressed concern that the CAB’s membership did not reflect, and was not accountable to, many in the community.

Under the current structure, terms are indefinite for Board members in good standing although the appointment process can be triggered by vacancies or “expiration of the term of service members.” It is unclear whether term limits were originally contemplated, but they are not currently in effect. In fact, some Board members have been on the Board since its inception. While those member’s knowledge and experience contribute to the CAB greatly, that knowledge and experience should be passed down through training of new members and succession planning that includes staggered term-limits for members.

Appointments are made by the Board after an application, backgrounding, and interview process. The Board is comprised of not more than nine voting members and a police department representative, appointed by the Chief of Police, who is a non- voting member. Presumably this non-voting member is designed to provide technical assistance to the Board concerning police policies and practices.

While there was no consensus on the proper appointment procedure for the CAB, some suggested representative appointments by council members. Specifically, the Civilian Oversight Sub-committee recommended:

For a total of thirteen board members, we suggest a board member from each ward and creating five positions for special interest groups to include from the following: LGBTQ+, Civil Rights group (NAACP, ACLU, etc.), returning citizens, Native American, non-English dominate residents, disabled, veterans; the RFA process will gather nominations for special interest groups, where each city council ward nominates its representatives with appointments finalized and approved by City Council.

21CP does not take a specific position on the structure of the appointment of the CAB, but offers some comments for consideration. First, ward-based or similar representation is common in many jurisdictions and is generally well-received. Additionally, transparency in the appointment process is critical. The inclusion of special interest groups is a complicated proposition and the City should consider whether having such groups present and appear before the CAB is sufficient or whether they should actually have direct voting power, and if so, why other groups are not given similar access.