By Anne Lowe

OPEN GOVERNMENT -- The names of past and present members of three police department advisory panels were released by Pasadena city officials Wednesday following a public records request; still an open question is whether the panels should comply with the Brown Act.


The decision to release the information came after Police Chief Phillip Sanchez declined to disclose any names last month. reports the Pasadena Star News. Sanchez cited concerns for the board members’ safety as the reason for withholding their names.

More than 100 names were released in connection with the "review" panels, which meet in private with no public notice. According to the newspaper,

The Disciplinary Review Board, which the chief has the option of convening when a personnel investigation is completed, determines whether a policy has been violated by a department employee. It also recommends disciplinary actions if needed.
*****
    The Use of Force Board makes recommendations to the chief related to training, tactics and equipment in cases where use of force by an officer has been deemed justified and the chief deems it necessary.
*****
The Risk Management Review Board reviews situations involving loss or damage to city property, private property or accidental injury by department members, rendering opinions as to whether the incident was preventable and what corrective action can be taken.
*****
According to police records dating back to 2008, no citizens have been impaneled on risk management review boards, Korpal said.
    In addition, the city released the names of nearly 90 volunteers who graduated from the Citizens' Police Academy and are eligible to serve on the review boards.
    Those who serve on the Disciplinary Review Board must also complete an additional 1.5 hours of training that addresses personnel confidentiality issues, Korpal said.

Despite the decision to release information on the panel members, city officials have yet to comment as to whether the review boards should also be subject to open meetings laws that would require them to both release meeting agendas and allow the public to sit in on their meetings.??