Saratoga Springs council approves changes to Civilian Review Board law, removes subpoena power

The Saratoga Springs City Council voted to amend Chapter 37 of the city code governing the Civilian Review Board (CRB), eliminating the board’s subpoena power while adding language that allows the CRB “to make reports or referrals to or request independent investigation from any agency or entity with competent jurisdiction.” Commissioner Cole moved the change and the motion was seconded; the council voted to approve the measure.

The measure drew a packed public hearing and extended debate. Several residents and former task‑force members urged the council to keep subpoena authority, saying it is essential to preserve the CRB’s independence and public confidence. Terry Digory, a former member of the Police Reform Task Force, told the council that subpoena power — even if rarely used — ‘‘is very important to maintain the independence of the CRB’’ and called on the council to retain a range of options for investigations. Robin Baxter said removing subpoena power would “compromise its independence” and noted that CRB chair Stephen Boxley had asked the board be allowed to keep the power and use it judiciously if necessary.

Council supporters of the amendment framed the change as a measured, risk‑averse reform. Commissioner Cole, the sponsor of the ordinance, said the CRB itself voted to adopt the changes at a recent meeting and emphasized the risk and cost to taxpayers from litigation if a board without investigatory training used subpoenas. He told the council the new law requires the police department to turn over all relevant documents and that, when subpoenas would be appropriate, the CRB can refer cases to outside, trained investigators such as the state Attorney General’s office.

During the council discussion, opponents argued that referral is not equivalent to subpoena authority because an outside investigation may be more distant from the community and less timely. Supporters countered that subpoenas are “intrusive investigative techniques” that should be handled by law‑enforcement professionals or attorneys and that referral preserves independence while avoiding the potential for harmful litigation.

The ordinance language approved by council adds a sentence authorizing the CRB, when appropriate, to request independent investigations or make referrals to entities with competent jurisdiction. The transcript records the council’s vocal outcome as passing; at one point the clerk’s voice tally was described in the record as “four‑zero” and then corrected to “four‑one,” with no abstentions recorded in the discussion. The final, formal roll‑call numbers were not printed verbatim in the public transcript available in the record.

What happens next: the ordinance changes become part of the city code as amended and will guide CRB practice going forward. Council members and several public commenters said the city should provide training and legal support so board members can perform oversight without creating unnecessary legal exposure. The record shows the CRB has already recommended some of the new language that was adopted.

Quotes that capture the debate:
“Subpoena power is very important to maintain the independence of the CRB,” said Terry Digory, a member of the city’s Police Reform Task Force.
“Subpoenas are intrusive investigative techniques and should only be used by law‑enforcement professionals or attorneys,” said Commissioner Cole, the ordinance sponsor.

Next procedural steps: the council closed the public hearing, approved the amendment during the same meeting and moved on to its regular agenda. The transcript does not show a subsequent challenge or a second hearing date for this local law in the recorded segments.