COVINGTON, Ga. — Covington’s Citizen Review Board held its quarterly meeting on Dec. 15 to handle some internal business, as there were no cases in need of review.

The Citizen Review Board is an eight-person board (though only seven members vote) made up of individuals appointed by the city council. Per city ordinance 2.32.030, the board exists to review cases where the Covington Police Department has been accused of using excessive force and provide any recommendations to the police chief.

Correcting some missteps 

After years of on-and-off activity, the city council refilled the relatively young board at its Aug. 18 meeting. The revitalized board met on Oct. 14, where the first order of business was to elect a new chair and vice chair.

However, that election was deemed invalid days later when it was determined that the board’s eighth non-voting member, Marty Zon (who is appointed by the police chief to advise while the other members are appointed by the council to vote), had cast votes.

At the board’s Dec. 15 meeting, a new vote for chair and vice chair was held. Brent Fuesting, CPD chief, passed along information from City Attorney Frank Turner Jr. that addressed the previous invalid vote, attributing the error to the board members’ newness.

“Basically, this is a reset from last meeting and basically a start-over,” Fuesting said. 

Fuesting explained more about Zon’s role as a non-voting advisor on behalf of the CPD who can help guide and advise the board from that angle. Zon previously worked in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation as agent-in-charge, giving him more insight into the specifics of police work than the average citizen. 

Tommy Davis was elected to be chair, and Scott Willis was elected as vice chair, both by 3-2 votes. Neither Rosie Crawford nor Greg Shy—the only two veteran board members—voted in support of Davis and Willis. 

Per the ordinance, the chair and vice chair will serve two-year terms.

Board vacancies

Only six of the eight board members were present at the meeting on Dec. 15. Two members who cast votes were absent: Bill Sanfelice and Bryan Jackson.

According to Fuesting, Sanfelice will not sit on the board moving forward. Sanfleice reportedly alerted Crystal Stevens, the board coordinator, that he is in the process of moving out of the city, making him ineligible for service.

Additionally, though Jackson has not formally vacated his seat like Sanfelice, Stevens said that she had experienced difficulty contacting him and is uncertain if he will participate moving forward, as he has not up to this point.

Per the ordinance, the West Ward and East Ward council members each appoint three people to the board. This past summer, the six council members each presented their nominations. Both Jackson and Sanfelice were presented by Councilman Travis Moore, though he brought Jackson on behalf of Councilwoman Susie Keck.

With both Sanfelice and Jackson having been nominations of the East Ward, it will be the East Ward’s responsibility to replace them. Fuesting said that he will work to notify the council of the need to replace at least Sanfelice for certain, and possibly also Jackson, though his participation moving forward remains unconfirmed.

“In the event council members representing the East Ward or West Ward fail to fill any vacancy in a position to be appointed by them for a period of sixty (60) days, the mayor may appoint a member to serve the remainder of that term,” the ordinance outlines.

It is not immediately clear if the 60-day window begins at a meeting or upon a board member’s notice of resignation.

Other business

The board members also discussed the parameters for their roles at length.

Throughout the conversation, the members tried to hammer out the breadth of their responsibilities and obligations to the people and to the CPD. Much of this stemmed from a conversation about where to put complaint drop boxes, which led to a deliberation on what kinds of complaints the board should act on.

Scotty Scoggins pointed out that, though they are explicitly required to review the CPD’s completed internal investigations that relate to use of force, the phrase “and issues of importance or interest to the community” leaves a pretty broad path.

“I think we should have the council re-address that,” Scoggins said. “That’s a really broad statement…They need to rewrite this.”

Crawford weighed in that when she served as chair, the flexibility of the statement allowed her to be another channel for people who have an issue with the CPD to communicate that.

“There could be some other issues that are important to people as well,” Crawford said. “...If some came to me and said [something] and it wasn’t excessive force, as the chair, I was willing to take a look at it.”

But Davis responded with his uncertainty that hearing every complaint runs the risk of opening the floodgates, or even getting the board tied up in court issues if they make themselves a party in an ongoing investigation.

“I believe that we have a proactive police department and a district attorney’s office here that if there is some concerns that we can’t address, like ‘Well, that officer used foul language in front of me’ or ‘I got a ticket and I shouldn’t have got one,’ we can’t answer every complaint like that,” Davis said. “We can tell them, ‘Hey, I sure am sorry, but you need to forward that on to the chief or the assistant chief and let them know your concerns.’ I don’t think we as a board can sit and review every complaint that may be filed against a police officer.”

Fuesting noted that he will speak to the city attorney for additional clarification. Though the attorney was present at the Oct. 14 meeting, he was not present at the December gathering.