TAMPA, Fla. — A bill steeped in confusion was a hot topic at Tuesday night's meeting for Tampa's Citizen Review Board (CRB).
As it stands now, the language in House Bill 601 essentially says that local governments, commissions, boards, and municipalities can't make or enforce ordinances that allow "civilian oversight" into law enforcement investigations of misconduct.
And it's leading some to believe that this will force current CRBs to be dissolved.
However, Tampa attorney James Shaw argued that the Tampa CRB and others across our state only review closed cases, which wouldn't count as oversight.
"All this bill really does is say, 'Leave things as they are,' and every existing civilian panel in Florida already complies with HB 601," he said.
Adding to the confusion is language that says if Florida sheriffs and police chiefs decide to create an "oversight board," they must appoint the members —and at least one member must be a retired law enforcement officer.
But again, Shaw said this doesn't mean current CRBs and other civilian boards have to be dissolved.
Related Story: Newly passed bill leading to confusion for local citizen review boards
According to him, this provides guidelines for Florida law enforcement leaders who may want to start their own oversight boards.
"They always could. There's nothing to stop a police chief and sheriff from appointing an informal group to give advice to the sheriff or police chief. They didn't need the permission of the legislature to do that," he said.
Shaw presented his interpretation of the bill to the CRB Tuesday —the board called on the city's legal department for guidance.
"We are speaking internally on how this bill could impact this board [and] further information will be provided later, but this bill is not signed. Again, I am trying to keep this board informed of the legislation, and we will go from there. But I don't have an interpretation for you," said Asst. City Attorney Camaria Pettis-Mackle
It's an answer that not only seemed to prolong confusion but also had a chilling effect on the board's longstanding search for an independent attorney.
And instead of continuing their search for more applicants Tuesday night, the board chose to wait until their next meeting—on April 23—to give the city more time to advise them on House Bill 601.
"We're still unsure of what's happening. So, I mean, how can we continue on as a strong board when our foundation is shaky like this? That's all I'm saying. So, I feel, my opinion is, we should wait until we find out what's going on and then go from there," said CRB member Albert Cooke.
ABC Action News has emailed the City of Tampa to get more information on how it is interpreting this bill, but we are still waiting to hear back.
We have also emailed state representative Wyman Duggan—the bill's sponsor—several times over the last month to get some clarity. We also called his office and contacted legislative aides but still haven't heard back.
In the meantime, if this bill becomes law, it will go into effect on July 1.
