Akron leaders, voters must decide between competing police oversight proposals

A decades-old discussion about citizen input and participation in police policies came to a head in recent weeks when two competing proposals for a civilian oversight board came before Akron City Council.

The move comes nearly three months after the death of Jayland Walker, a 25-year-old DoorDash driver who was shot more than 40 times by Akron police officers. Calls for police reform and accountability reached a fever pitch in the wake of Walker's death, spurring protests and demands for justice throughout the city.

Now, the two groups — the mayor's office and a group of local leaders, elected officials and citizens — are vying for their plans to get the stamp of approval from Akron City Council and voters, respectively, which would give power to civilians to oversee police practices, recommend disciplinary actions and more.

The group of petitioners, who submitted their charter amendment proposal Aug. 30, garnered the support of about 7,000 residents. Akron City Council held a special meeting Sept. 8, voting to move the petitioners' proposal to a ballot initiative on Nov. 8 after 3,315 signatures were verified with the Clerk of Council.

Several days later, Akron Mayor Dan Horrigan appeared before City Council to present his own plan.

How do the two differ?

Though Horrigan said the two proposals share the same goals, some key duties, composition and logistics differ.

The major difference, however, is that unlike the mayor's ordinance, which could be tweaked by future council legislation, the petitioners' proposal would codify the board as a permanent entity as part of the city's charter.

The mayor assures that he has plans for a ballot initiative in November 2023, and by passing an ordinance in the meantime, the city would have time to "work out the kinks" and make adjustments as needed.

Mayor calls proposal ‘problematic’

Horrigan has made it known that he is opposed to the proposed charter amendment, calling it "problematic" several times during Monday's committee meetings.

"There are parts that marry up pretty good, but there are parts that are problematic," he said.

His chief concern is how certain language could clash with the existing labor agreement with Akron's chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police. His legal team said there is a possibility that it would immediately go into litigation if passed and delay the creation or effectiveness of the board.

Horrigan's team also argues that giving the board a full year to beta-test the ordinance would allow wiggle room to make adjustments before it is permanently added to the city's charter.

"We’re going to get to the same place," Horrigan said. "We may not get everything we all want, but at the end of the day, we’re going to have a civilian oversight board."

NAACP leader is ‘fed up’

Meanwhile, Akron NAACP President Judi Hill said she is "fed up" with the city's opposition to the petitioners' plans.

She said she met with the city administration about the civilian oversight board to discuss collaboration, but she said the mayor's office had "already decided how they wanted to do it." She continued to push for a ballot initiative, but she said they were trying to convince her that a legislative route was sufficient.

"There was no real conversation," she told the Beacon Journal. "It didn’t go very well. We sat down, we heard each other and that was about as far as it went."

The mayor's office released legislative language just hours after the petitioners' submitted their charter amendment proposal for signature verification on Aug. 30.

Councilwoman at-large Linda Omobien was among the petitioners who were not too happy.

"I'm not really sure why the mayor couldn't join forces with the citizens," Omobien said in Monday's committee meeting.

She said she would not vote in favor of Horrigan's ordinance.

"We have waited too long to do this, and now we have two pieces of legislation. ... We are going to confuse the public," Omobien said.

Hill and others also expressed concern of the board's makeup, which in the ordinance's case, would include a 11-person committee, six of whom would be appointed by the mayor with council's consent and five directly by council. Initially, the draft stated that all appointments would be made by the mayor with council approval.

The petitioners' plan outlines three mayoral appointments on their nine-person board.

"There's no independence," Hill said. "When you get to decide who gets on and who doesn’t, you select the agenda."

What happens next?

City Council ultimately voted to take time to further consider the mayor's proposal.

Possible passage could take place at the legislation's third reading Sept. 26. If passed by nine members of City Council, the ordinance would immediately go into effect. If passed by seven, the ordinance would have a 30-day referendum period before implementation.

What happens if both pass?

No one has given insight as to what would happen if voters pass the measure in the fall after Akron City Council had already given its stamp of approval to the mayor's ordinance.

Ward 5's Tara Mosley, who signed as a petitioner for the charter amendment, was among several council members who expressed concern over confusing voters, as well as logistical problems that may arise if both are passed.

There's no pumping the brakes on the charter amendment proposal, which already received the green light to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Reporter Abbey Marshall is a corps member with Report for America, a national service program that places journalists into local newsrooms. Learn more at reportforamerica.org. Contact her at at amarshall1@gannett.com.