Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Civilian Review Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Civilian Review Board — March 19, 2026

The meeting was professional and focused on establishing long-term operational frameworks, despite some singular instances of public frustration.

Date Thursday, March 19, 2026 Duration 1.7h Speakers 22 Public comments 1 Decisions 4 Routine

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At the March 19 Aurora Civilian Review Board (CRB) meeting, several critical issues regarding transparency and community access were on the table.

One of the most pressing concerns came from the public. Resident Ash Dreymon pointed out that website issues are making it difficult for citizens to contact the board and requested clearer information on how CRB investigation timelines compare to police investigations. While the Chairperson offered to speak with the commenter individually, the recurring difficulty in accessing the board via digital platforms remains a hurdle for community engagement.

On the oversight front, the board is moving toward a more data-driven approach. Recognizing that simply having data isn't the same as understanding it, members discussed the need for structured data that allows for meaningful analysis. This includes exploring the use of academic researchers to provide objective, third-party insights into police-related data—a move that could significantly strengthen the board's ability to hold the department accountable.

Finally, the board addressed potential biases in the city's application process. Members noted that questions regarding political affiliation in municipal applications could create an 'old boy network' perception, which contradicts the CRB's mission. While they confirmed the question has been removed from the online application, the discussion highlights the ongoing effort to ensure the board remains impartial and focused on evidence rather than politics.

Mar 19, 2026 1.7h long 22 speakers 1 public comments 4 decisions Routine
Notable statements Drag to browse

“I'll personally contact you after [the meeting]... that is a standing deal that, again, I make for anyone making public comment.”

— Curtis Wilson · Responding to a member of the public regarding communication difficulties. 05:15

“We don't need to be reinventing the wheel... let's see what Milwaukee does... what information do those folks get?”

— Timothy Brown · Suggesting the board contact other Civilian Review Boards for best practices in data collection. 41:28

“I think all of our intention in this group here is that we want CRB... to continue beyond our time served.”

— Speaker M (Ginger Ingram) · Discussing why the printed materials should remain basic and avoid including specific member names or term lengths. 1:08:51

“It just sounds old boy network to me [referring to political affiliation questions].”

— Speaker O (Christopher Bennett) · Raising concerns about potential bias in the city's board application process. 1:21:37
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Increased oversight through improved data extraction and academic analysis of police stops.

What happened

The board agreed that data analysis should be a standing item and decided to direct formal data 'asks' to the Chief and Deputy Chief.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Curtis Wilson, Christopher Bennett, Timothy Brown
What was discussed

The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the February 19, 2026, meeting.

What happened

The motion was approved by unanimous voice consent.

Speakers: Curtis Wilson, Ash Dreymon
What was discussed

A member of the public, Ash Dreymon, provided comments regarding communication difficulties and timelines for investigations.

What happened

The Chairperson offered to speak personally with any public commenters after the meeting or via contact information provided.

Speakers: Curtis Wilson, Christopher Bennett, Timothy Brown, Ginger Ingram, Renu Chandra Kanakamma
What was discussed

The board conducted a detailed review of Aurora Police Department Policy 401 regarding bias-based policing and profiling.

What happened

The board discussed potential feedback for the department, including recommendations on the timing of articulating stop reasons and the inclusion of communication resources for the hearing impaired.

Speakers: Timothy Brown, Curtis Wilson, Christopher Bennett, Ginger Ingram
What was discussed

The board discussed strategies for gathering and analyzing police-related data to better fulfill its mandate.

What happened

The board agreed that data analysis should be a standing item and discussed the need to engage the Chief and Deputy Chief regarding data access.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board discussed the importance of data being structured in a way that allows for meaningful extraction and conclusion-drawing.

What happened

The board agreed that data requests should be handled through direct engagement with the Chief, Deputy Chief, and command staff rather than starting with administrative staff, once a consensus on the necessary data is reached.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board reviewed draft content for a new trifold brochure and PowerPoint presentation intended for public outreach.

What happened

The board agreed to keep the printed material 'basic' and 'timeless' to ensure it remains useful even after current members' terms end, while using digital resources for more complex visuals like maps.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board discussed the city's generic application process for boards and commissions, specifically regarding questions on political affiliation.

What happened

The board confirmed that the political affiliation question is no longer part of the application process, addressing the concern of potential bias.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board explored various ways to increase public awareness, including attending neighborhood meetings and National Night Out.

What happened

The board decided to add 'CRB Engagement Ideas' as a formal agenda item for the next meeting to plan these activities.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Bias-Based Policing Policy (Policy 401)

This involves the standards for officer conduct regarding profiling and protected characteristics, which directly impacts civil rights and community trust in law enforcement.
Board position: The board supported revising the policy to improve transparency regarding the timing of stop justifications and to ensure better communication for hearing-impaired individuals.
medium concern
02

Board Application Process and Political Bias

The inclusion of political affiliation questions in municipal applications was flagged as potentially creating an 'old boy network,' which could undermine the perceived impartiality of the CRB.
Board position: The board expressed concern over potential bias, though it was noted the question had already been removed from the online form.
low concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
0
Addressed
0
Partial
1
Not addressed
Ash Dreymon
03:06
Not addressed
The speaker noted that they previously had difficulty contacting the board due to website communication issues, though the website appears fixed now. They inquired about the expected timeline for the board's review of specific complaints in relation to ongoing police investigations. Key concern
The timeline for the board's investigation process compared to police investigations, and previous difficulties in contacting the board.
Per the rules read by the Secretary, the board is prohibited from engaging with or responding to speakers during the public comment period. The board did not provide an immediate response.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
01:24
Approval of the minutes from the February 19, 2026, meeting.
Motion made by Christopher Bennett and seconded by Timothy Brown.
Unanimous voice consent
38:32
Closing of discussion on Policy 401 (Bias-Based Policing).
Motion made by Timothy Brown and seconded by Christopher Bennett.
Unanimous roll call vote (Yes)
1:20:08
Approval of final printed materials process
The board agreed that all members will vote on the final version of the trifold and presentation materials before they are sent to print to ensure alignment on talking points.
Agreement reached
1:40:23
Adjournment of the meeting
Motion to adjourn made by Christopher Bennett and seconded.
Approved

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Community concerns raised but dismissed/not fully addressed
During the March 19 CRB meeting, residents raised concerns about website issues making it difficult to contact the board and asked for clarity on investigation timelines. The board responded with offers for private follow-ups... https://meetingwatch.org/il/aurora/civilian-review-board/2026-03-19/ #MeetingWatch #AuroraIL
321/280 chars
Progress on transparency and oversight capabilities
The Aurora CRB is pushing for better data access. At the March 19 meeting, members discussed moving past simple data storage toward meaningful analysis, including potentially hiring academic researchers to ensure objective... https://meetingwatch.org/il/aurora/civilian-review-board/2026-03-19/ #MeetingWatch #AuroraIL
318/280 chars
Internal efforts to prevent political bias
At the March 19 CRB meeting, members flagged that political affiliation questions in city applications could create an 'old boy network,' undermining the board's mission of impartiality. They confirmed the question has since... https://meetingwatch.org/il/aurora/civilian-review-board/2026-03-19/ #MeetingWatch #AuroraIL
320/280 chars

X thread

1
Can the Aurora Civilian Review Board (CRB) actually provide effective oversight? At the March 19 meeting, the board tackled several issues regarding data, bias, and public accessibility. Here is what you need to know. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #AuroraIL
243/280
2
First, the data gap: The board discussed that simply storing police data isn't enough. They are now working to secure structured data and are considering hiring academic researchers to ensure analysis is objective and not just a collection of numbers.
251/280
3
Second, accessibility: A resident, Ash Dreymon, highlighted difficulties contacting the CRB due to website issues and asked for transparency on investigation timelines. While the Chair offered personal follow-ups, the technical barriers to public input remain a concern.
270/280
4
Finally, the board is fighting 'old boy network' optics. Members raised concerns that asking for political affiliation on city applications could bias the board. While the question was removed from online forms, the conversation shows the fight for... https://meetingwatch.org/il/aurora/civilian-review-board/2026-03-19/
275/280

Facebook — long form

At the March 19 Aurora Civilian Review Board (CRB) meeting, several critical issues regarding transparency and community access were on the table. 

One of the most pressing concerns came from the public. Resident Ash Dreymon pointed out that website issues are making it difficult for citizens to contact the board and requested clearer information on how CRB investigation timelines compare to police investigations. While the Chairperson offered to speak with the commenter individually, the recurring difficulty in accessing the board via digital platforms remains a hurdle for community engagement.

On the oversight front, the board is moving toward a more data-driven approach. Recognizing that simply having data isn't the same as understanding it, members discussed the need for structured data that allows for meaningful analysis. This includes exploring the use of academic researchers to provide objective, third-party insights into police-related data—a move that could significantly strengthen the board's ability to hold the department accountable.

Finally, the board addressed potential biases in the city's application process. Members noted that questions regarding political affiliation in municipal applications could create an 'old boy network' perception, which contradicts the CRB's mission. While they confirmed the question has been removed from the online application, the discussion highlights the ongoing effort to ensure the board remains impartial and focused on evidence rather than politics. https://meetingwatch.org/il/aurora/civilian-review-board/2026-03-19/ #MeetingWatch #AuroraIL

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Submit consolidated recommendations regarding Policy 401 to the department (including timing of articulation and communication tools).
Assigned: Curtis Wilson
Follow up on FOIA request to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) regarding stop data.
Assigned: Curtis Wilson
Distill meeting notes on data needs into a formal list of requests/questions for the Chief and Deputy Chief.
Assigned: Timothy Brown
Distill notes from the data discussion into a list of 'asks' to be shared with the Vice Chair.
Assigned: a speaker (Chair) · Due: Next meeting
Update the messaging content/draft and send to the Chair for formatting by Brand and Marketing.
Assigned: Ginger Ingram · Due: Before the next meeting
Contact the Mayor's office to inquire about the applicability of certain application questions (even if resolved) and follow up on the 'not applicable' wording for the CRB.
Assigned: a speaker (Chair) · Due: Not specified
Send out information regarding leadership classes offered by Ileana's group to all members.
Assigned: a speaker (Chair) · Due: Immediate

Member ⁠positions

4 issues · 1 explicit · 10 inferred
Present
Approval of Minutes YES ~
Policy Review: Bias-Based Policing (Policy 401) YES ~
Approval of final printed materials process YES ~
Ginger Ingram
Member
Present
Approval of Minutes YES ~
Policy Review: Bias-Based Policing (Policy 401) YES ~
Approval of final printed materials process YES ~
Present
Approval of Minutes YES ~
Policy Review: Bias-Based Policing (Policy 401) YES ~
Approval of final printed materials process YES ~
Present
Approval of Minutes YES
Policy Review: Bias-Based Policing (Policy 401) YES
Board Application Process and Potential Bias
Concerned that political affiliation questions create an 'old boy network' perception.
Approval of final printed materials process YES ~
Absent
Absent

Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”

Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Aurora.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-07.