On the agenda: Charlottesville Police Civilian Oversight Board — license plate reader (Jul 9)

Regular Meeting Agenda
Police Civilian Oversight Board
July 9, 2026
CitySpace
100 5th St NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902

Police Civilian Oversight Board
Dr. Jeffrey Fracher, Chair
Dr. Kyle Dobson, Vice Chair
George Dillard Jr., LE Rep
Andrew Frye, At Large
Albe LaFave, At Large
Caron LeNoir-Kelly, Community
Nathalie Reaves, Community
Ruairi Vaughan, At Large

6:30 PM Regular Session
I.

Call to Order | Roll Call

II.

Agenda | Minutes Approval
• Approval of agenda: July 9, 2026.
• Approval of minutes: June 11, 2026.

III.

Announcements
• Status of proposed ordinance legal review.
• National Night Out - August 4 @ Booker T. Washington Park (time TBD).
• Retreat, training, shirt size poll coming by email/text.
• Market Street Garage Limit - July 13 to August 28.

IV.

First Public Comment Period

V.

School Resource Officer MOU - Supporting Implementation
• Discussion between the Board and guests regarding the CCS Memorandum of
Understanding with CPD for the implementation of the School Resource Officer program.

VI.

Work Plan Updates - Office and Board
• Updates on the Director's FY26 Work Plan and goals for FY27 (July 1 - June 30, 2027).
• Review of the 2026 PCOB Work Plan and discussion of any needed modifications.

VII.

Advancing Priorities
• Community Connections - Presence, listening survey, and dialogue.
• Policy Review - Core CPD policy review related to SROs, UoF, complaints.
• Direct Oversight - Case review figures, process, and first set plan/dates.

VIII.

Second Public Comment Period

IX.

Adjournment

Notice: For members of the public participating virtually, if you experience technical difficulties, you may call
(434) 970-3115, and a staff person will assist you. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special
arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 987-1267 or submit a
request via email to [email protected]. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48-hour
notice so that proper arrangements may be made.

-- 1 of 2 --

PCOB Meeting Public Participation Rules
Please adhere to respectful conduct, treat other attendees with courtesy, listen actively, avoid
interruptions, and refrain from personal attacks or inflammatory language.
For the public comment periods, for which there will be two opportunities, please wait for the
designated time on the agenda to provide your comments. There is a three-minute time limit
for individual comments, but all public participants are welcome to speak during both
opportunities.
When you speak, we request that you clearly state your name, your organization affiliation, if
any, and whether you're a resident of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or another jurisdiction.
During public comment, the Board will not enter into dialogue. The Board will listen carefully to
all comments. If there are specific questions, please submit them in writing to the PCOB Office
staff after the meeting.
Questions or additional comments can be sent to:
[email protected]
Using the “Email PCOB” form on the right side of our website homepage:
https://www.charlottesville.gov/1440/Police-Civilian-Oversight-Board

-- 2 of 2 --

CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Date: June 11, 2026
Scheduled Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: CitySpace – 100 5th Street NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Board Members Attending: Dr. Jeffrey Fracher (Chair), Dr. Kyle Dobson (Vice Chair), Andrew
Frye, Albe LaFave, Caron LeNoir-Kelly, Nathalie Reaves, Ruairi Vaughan.
Board Members Not Attending: George Dillard Jr.
Staff Present: James Walker, Acting Director.
Guests: Chief of Police Michael Kochis; Captain Tony Newberry (Professional Standards);
Lieutenant Ron Stayments (Professional Standards); Jonathan Said and Ashley Moje
(technology and data systems); Lori Seiden, Crime Analyst.
Call to Order:
•

The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:32 p.m. by Chair Dr. Fracher. Dr.
Fracher reviewed the ground rules for meeting participation, including respectful conduct,
courtesy toward other attendees, the two public comment periods, the three-minute time
limit for individual public comments, and the reminder that the Board does not enter into
dialogue during public comment. He noted that specific questions may be directed to the
Office during working hours or submitted by email to [email protected].

•

Mr. Walker called the roll. Seven Board members were present, constituting a quorum. Mr.
Walker noted that Mr. Dillard had indicated in advance that he would be away this week.

Agenda & Minutes Approval:
•

A motion was made by Mr. Frye to approve the agenda for the June 11, 2026 regular
meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Vaughan and approved unanimously by members
present.

•

A motion was made by Mr. Vaughan to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2026 regular
meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Frye and approved unanimously by members present.

Announcements:
•

Mr. Walker reported that he continues to update the Board's shared calendar, adding the
CPD events distributed by Sgt. Thomas so that Board members can attend as available. He
noted that he and Dr. Dobson had joined a community walk along the Rivanna River earlier
that day and encouraged the Board to begin attending such events regularly. The calendar
also reflects Mr. Walker's scheduled out-of-office dates over the coming weeks.

•

Mr. Walker reminded the Board of the annual IT security training requirement, noting that
three members' accounts were currently deactivated. Affected members may stop by the
Office to reset their passwords and complete the brief training.

•

Mr. Walker reminded Board members of the ride-along opportunity, noting that the
participation form had been distributed by email. Members who complete and return the
form will be coordinated with Sgt. Thomas for scheduling. Dr. Fracher urged members to
prioritize completing a ride-along by the end of June, or July at the latest, describing it as a
valuable and informative experience.

•

Dr. Dobson shared reflections on the Rivanna River community walk, noting that even a
brief outing provided valuable context for understanding the circumstances in which officers
interact with the public, and encouraged all Board members to participate.

•

No additional announcements were made.

Public Comment (First Period):
•

No public comment was received. One attendee was present online but did not wish to
speak.

Technology Systems Presentation – Charlottesville Police Department:
•

Dr. Fracher welcomed Chief Michael Kochis and members of his staff to present an update
on the technology systems used by the Department. Chief Kochis introduced Captain Tony
Newberry and Lieutenant Ronald Stayments of Professional Standards; Jonathan Said and
Ashley Moje, who support the Department's software and data systems; and Lori Seiden,
Crime Analyst.

•

Chief Kochis framed the presentation around the balance between adopting effective, up-todate technology and protecting residents' privacy rights. He emphasized that policing should
not move faster with technology than the community can understand it, and that sound
policy and appropriate oversight are essential. He noted that evidence-based policing
depends on usable data, and that the Department's central challenge is not a lack of data
but the difficulty of consolidating disparate systems into information that is actionable.
Axon Systems

•

Mr. Said described the suite of Axon technologies in use or available to the Department,
including body-worn cameras, the Fleet 3 dash-camera system, virtual reality training
headsets, the drone program, Community Link (My90), and Axon Standards.

•

Body-worn cameras: In addition to recording officer–community interactions, the cameras
include AI features (an assistant, real-time two-way translation across more than 50
languages, and a policy chat tool) that are not yet in use pending policy development. Chief
Kochis noted that body cameras and dash cameras continuously buffer and capture the 30
seconds preceding activation, and that footage is stored on encrypted, CJIS-compliant
Amazon Web Services servers accessible only to the Department.

•

Mrs. LeNoir-Kelly raised questions about translation accuracy across dialects and about
racial, regional, and other biases in AI systems. Mr. Said explained that the Department will
begin with a testing and auditing phase, including validation by fluent Spanish-speaking
officers, and will implement written policies governing use; he acknowledged that no system
can be guaranteed fully accurate, underscoring the need for ongoing audits.

•

Mr. Frye asked what prevented activation of the remaining features. Chief Kochis explained
that policies must first be properly drafted (available for Board review) and that the
Department intends to proceed deliberately, particularly with the translation feature.

•

Mr. Vaughan asked whether Axon operates its own AI model. Mr. Said explained that the
tool uses a closed, third-party large language model routed through secure servers, that
Department data is not used to train the model, and that the data remains under Department
control.

•

Fleet 3 dash cameras: The system records with the same 30-second look-back and
activates alongside emergency equipment. Its automatic license plate reader (ALPR)
capability (vehicle-mounted rather than fixed, and configured to alert only on defined hits
such as wanted or unlicensed subjects) is included in the purchase but currently disabled.
Chief Kochis indicated he would seek City Council's input before enabling it, given the
broader community conversation about license plate readers.

•

Mrs. LeNoir-Kelly asked about location accuracy. Mr. Said explained that the fleet camera
tracks the vehicle while the body camera tracks the officer, and that officers cannot disable
their body cameras.

•

Mr. Vaughan asked how officers view being monitored by the cameras. Chief Kochis said
that body cameras are now embedded in law-enforcement culture and that officers
overwhelmingly support their use.

•

Virtual reality headsets: Used for realistic use-of-force and de-escalation training and for
community engagement. A new set has been received, with vendor-led training scheduled
for the following month. Mr. Said described the tactile feedback provided during simulated
scenarios.

•

Drone program: The Department operates small drones with its Special Response Team for
barricade and hostage situations and a separate drone team for locating missing or fleeing
individuals. A Drone First Responder (DFR) program (three drones in fixed housings that
deploy to call locations to gather real-time intelligence and clear unnecessary calls) is
available but not yet implemented. Chief Kochis indicated he would consult City Council
before implementation and described the program's potential to supplement staffing and
support the Department's response to mental-health calls.

•

Board members asked a range of questions about the drone program, including two-way
audio capability (confirmed), comparative response times (roughly one minute for a drone
versus three to four minutes for an officer), whether operators must be sworn personnel
(currently yes, though not required), and whether drones deploy only in response to specific
calls (confirmed, at the Department's discretion and governed by forthcoming policy). Mr.
Said agreed to follow up on whether a person other than the drone operator could speak
through a deployed drone.

•

Community Link (My90): A survey platform for internal feedback, including anonymous
officer surveys, and for community feedback. The Department currently gathers community
input through Guardian Score via QR codes on officer business cards and intends to
customize future surveys.

•

Axon Standards and the Early Intervention System (EIS): Officers complete use-of-force,
weapons, and compliance reports through the system for supervisory and Internal Affairs
review. The recently activated EIS alerts Internal Affairs when an officer reaches defined

thresholds, enabling early, non-disciplinary intervention and trend identification. Examples
include complaints, use-of-force incidents, vehicle accidents, or pursuits within a set period.
Chief Kochis noted the Board had advocated for such a system. Captain Newberry reported
the system had been live approximately one month with no alerts triggered to date, and that
command staff are notified as officers approach thresholds. Mr. Walker noted the EIS policy
is available for Board review.
Records, Dispatch, and Mobile Systems
•

Ms. Moje described the Department's Tyler Technologies computer-aided dispatch (CAD),
records, and mobile dispatch systems. The CAD system suggests the closest available
units, appropriate personnel by call type (including mental-health response), and priority by
severity; it is housed at the regional Emergency Communications Center (ECC), with
versions in officers' vehicles and on their phones. She described resource-sharing within the
regional triad with UVA and Albemarle County using automatic vehicle location (AVL), the
ability to incorporate hazard and public-works information, and the value of comprehensive
incident logs for reporting, compliance, training, and officer wellness.

•

Ms. Moje outlined the features the Department seeks in a records management system,
including efficient data entry and retrieval, integration across systems, analytics,
collaboration with other agencies and service providers, reduced redundancy, and legally
compliant records retention.

•

She noted significant limitations in the current LERMS records system, which stores large
volumes of data but is difficult to search. It lacks the ability to search by age range or by
generalized descriptors, requiring substantial manual effort. She discussed the "global"
persons and vehicles feature and its gaps in capturing vulnerable and transient populations.

•

Dr. Dobson observed that these inefficiencies are themselves an appropriate subject for
oversight, noting the community-safety and service-alignment consequences of slow data
access. Ms. Moje compared the current system to a fixed "ski lift" and described the goal of
a customizable, third-party platform that treats data elements flexibly. Chief Kochis noted
that any change involving the shared regional system would require agreement among the
ECC partners, and that Axon and other vendors now offer such capabilities.
Crime Analysis

•

Ms. Seiden described drawing on all of the Department's systems to compile analysis and
the difficulty of searching and consolidating data, for example, the week and a half required
to prepare data for a single monthly CompStat meeting. She noted the Department is
introducing data automation and visualization tools to reduce manual effort and free capacity
for pattern, trend, and suspect analysis, and emphasized the value of built-in analytics and
real-time dashboards.
Board Discussion with the Chief

•

Chief Kochis summarized the central theme: the Department holds substantial data across
many systems but struggles to make it actionable. He noted that other platforms such as
Peregrine (used by UVA, which shares the same regional data) and Force Metrics (used by
the City of Roanoke) can fuse existing systems to enable tailored, real-time responses to
complex situations.

•

Board members and staff discussed the oversight implications. Mr. Vaughan raised the
importance of consistent officer data-entry standards. Dr. Fracher stated that the
inefficiencies described were unacceptable and that the Board could make a case to City
Council regarding the technology, while acknowledging the need to address community
concerns through better messaging. Mrs. LeNoir-Kelly asked about the vendors offering
solutions and about the opportunity cost of delay. Dr. Dobson emphasized the risks of not
adopting more efficient tools and the Board's role in ensuring data quality. Mr. Walker drew
a parallel to the real-time data and accountability tools that would support the Office's
oversight function.

•

Chief Kochis reaffirmed that the PCOB Office has more access to Department data systems
than any other oversight body in the Commonwealth, as noted in the Office's annual report,
and cited the Flock pilot as an example of responsible, misuse-free data use. Board
members discussed the importance of community buy-in and clear messaging so that the
Board's role is understood, and Dr. Fracher connected this to the ongoing ordinance revision
effort. Chief Kochis thanked the Board, and he and his staff departed.

Reaffirming the Office and Board Work Plans:
•

The Board discussed organizing its work into smaller working groups to make progress
between monthly meetings. Dr. Dobson identified community outreach, including the
concept of a "trust map" illustrating levels of community trust across the City, and the
forthcoming School Resource Officers (SROs) as near-term priorities.

•

Regarding the SROs, Board members expressed interest in meeting the two selected
officers and in inviting Superintendent Dr. Gurley to a future meeting (possibly in July) to
discuss the rollout. Members discussed taking a proactive oversight role to hold the program
to a high standard. Dr. Fracher and Mr. Walker noted concerns that the current SRO
memorandum of understanding and related policies lack some specificity on matters such
as physical contact and calling for backup, and that the Board intends to review these
policies. Mrs. LeNoir-Kelly noted that the two officers, one assigned to the middle school
and one to the high school, would be new to the SRO role and still in training.

•

Mr. LaFave emphasized the need to prioritize the Board's many possible initiatives and
focus its efforts rather than pursuing too many at once. Mr. Walker and Dr. Dobson noted
that the Board's work plan is the appropriate document for setting and organizing those
priorities.

•

Dr. Dobson recommended focusing near-term attention on immigration and school safety as
persistent community concerns. He and Mr. Walker described an opportunity for the Board
to help the Department operationalize the City Attorney's Office guidance on immigrationrelated situations. Mr. Frye noted that the school-related issues were more time-sensitive.

•

Mr. Walker provided office updates: the ordinance revisions remain under review by the City
Attorney's Office and independent counsel; the Office is completing fiscal-year budget
spending before July 1, including office and audiovisual equipment; and Mr. Walker will
prepare his FY27 work plan and goals and share a draft with the Board for feedback. Dr.
Fracher expressed hope that the ordinance would proceed to first and second readings and
a vote by the end of August, after which the Office could pursue listing the previously
budgeted second staff position.

Board Opportunities and Training:
•

Mr. Walker reviewed opportunities for Board participation in community events, noting that a
list of past and upcoming events had been circulated and highlighting National Night Out as
a significant opportunity. Office materials, including a table and tent, are available for
members staffing events.

•

The Board discussed a possible board retreat in early fall that could incorporate a training
component. Mr. Walker reviewed the Board's training requirement and provider options,
including NACOLE and the Daigle Law Group, and members expressed a preference for
engaging, substantive training rather than simply fulfilling the requirement.

•

Board members discussed outreach methods, emphasizing in-person engagement with
residents beyond those who regularly attend meetings, the importance of documenting
community input and reporting it back to the Board, and following up with community groups
and organizations. Mr. Walker noted this would be a growing focus of his work going
forward.

Public Comment (Second Period):
•

No public comment was received.

Adjournment:
•

A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. LaFave and seconded by Mr. Frye. The motion was
approved unanimously by members present.

•

Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:24 p.m.

Certified by James Walker, Acting PCOB Director
Date Adopted: ____________________________
Certified: ________________________________

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between
The Charlottesville City School Board
And
The Charlottesville Police Department
School Law Enforcement Partnership
July 1, 2026 - June 30, 2028

PREAMBLE
The Partnership:
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the Charlottesville
City School Board (CCS) and the Charlottesville Police Department (CPD):
1. Recognizing that collaboration is required between law enforcement and
school administrators to ensure compliance with the Code of Virginia and
provide other benefits for school safety and security;
2. Recognizing CPD staff as professional , sworn law enforcement partners can best
provide services to CCS with dedicated and specially trained officers;
3. Whereas the Virginia Board of Education, under VA Ann . Code§ 22.1 -280.2:3 requires
school boards who employ School Resource Officers (SROs) to establish an MOU with
a local law enforcement agency;
4 . Whereas, CCS makes an enduring commitment to ensure that students and staff are
respected for their diversity, dignity and self-worth , and this commitment is affirmed in
the CCS Strategic Plan, which identifies a culture of safety, wellness and belonging for
all students, and support for staff as strategic imperatives; and
5. Recognizing that CCS and CPD share a common goal to maintain specially trained youth
focused professional law enforcement services for the benefit of the school community
and for the benefit of Charlottesville City generally.
RESOLVE and affirm this MOU to benefit the safety and security of our students and staff.
Overview:
CCS and CPD hereby enter into this MOU of School-Law Enforcement Partnership to
foster relations of mutual respect, collaboration, and understanding in order to maintain a
positive and safe school community. The parties agree that most challenges posed by
student behaviors are best supported through proactive classroom and in-school strategies
that promote learning and growth. The parties recognize that students are in a critical
stage of development, building the maturity, experience, perspective, and judgment needed
to make thoughtful decisions and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them and

others. They are also navigating a range of influences and benefit from supportive
environments that help them build resilience, responsibility, and self-awareness.
All responses to school misconduct should be reasonable, consistent, and fair, with
appropriate consideration of mitigating factors and the nature and severity of the incident.
Students will receive appropriate redirection and support from in-school community
resources prior to the consideration of suspension, expulsion, involvement of law
enforcement, or referral to court. This document is in compliance with Code of Virginia
statutes and is based on best practices as established by the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety's Schoo lLaw Enforcement Partnership (S-LEP) Guide and Model MOU.
This MOU clarifies the following:
1. Departmental-level scope of responsibilities of CCS and CPD.
2. Roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders of the MOU program :
a. CCS:
i.
CCS Administrators
ii.
Care and Safety Assistants/School Security Officers (CSA/SSO)
b. CPD:
i.
CPD Official/SRO Program Liaison and Program Supervisor
ii.
CPD SRO Unit
iii.
CPD Law Enforcement Officer (Non-SRO law enforcement such as offduty officers who support athletic events)
3. Procedures to exchange information between CCS and CPD.
Either CCS or CPD may terminate or pause this agreement at any time. This agreement may
also be terminated or paused if CCS and CPD are unable to identify mutually approved
candidates to serve as SROs.
The principal/designee has the right to request the review, removal or reassignment of any SRO
at any time. Requests need to be sent to the CPD CCS Liaisons and the Superintendent. The
Chief of Police and the Superintendent or their designees will collaborate to determine
disposition of any such requests .
This MOU will be made publicly available on the CPD and CCS websites, as required by VA
Ann. Code§ 22.1-280.2:3. The CCS website will also provide Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) information to support families and other stakeholders in understanding the program. The
FAQ will also highlight updates made to the MOU.

2

<PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK>

3

INDEX

1. AUTHORITY

2. PURPOSE

3. GOALS

4.

EVALUATIONS OF THE SCHOOL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

6. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

7. KEY STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

8. APPROVAL AND REVIEW

9. GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ABBREVIATIONS

4

1. AUTHORITY

VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-280.2:3. School boards; local law enforcement agencies; memorandums
of understanding. ''The school board in each school division in which the local law enforcement
agency employs school resource officers, as defined in VA Ann. Code§ 9.1-101, shall enter into
a memorandum of understanding with such local law enforcement agency that sets forth the
powers and duties of such school resource officers. The provisions of such memorandum of
understanding shall be based on the model memorandum of understanding developed by the
Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety pursuant to subdivision A 12 of VA Ann. Code §
9.1-184, which may be modified by the parties in accordance with their particular needs.
Each such school board and local law enforcement agency shall review and amend or affirm
such memorandum at least once every two years or at any time upon the request of either
party. Each school board shall ensure the current division memorandum of understanding is
conspicuously published on the division website and provide notice and opportunity for public
input during each memorandum of understanding review period. "

2. PURPOSE
Charlottesville's schools must be safe, caring , inclusive, and equitable places for students and
staff. The environment must support teaching and learning through the continuous
development and reinforcement of respect, responsibility and other positive behaviors. The
purpose of this document is to establish the protocols and supporting procedures that will define
the working relationship between CCS and CPD to ensure that actions of all parties promote
and reinforce this environment. The partnership is intended to facilitate effective, timely
communication and coordination of efforts for both parties to establish a mutually beneficial
framework that both schools and law enforcement can work within to achieve shared goals.

3. GOALS
The primary goals of the MOU are:
1. To ensure that school personnel and SROs have clearly defined roles in responding to
student conduct. School administrators are responsible for addressing disciplinary
violations as outlined in CCS's Student Rights and Responsibilities.
2. To establish a framework for principled conversation and decision-making by school and
police personnel regarding student conduct and students in need of services.
3. To foster a positive, safe, supportive and secure school climate by building relationships
with students on and off campus.
4. To establish metrics that clearly measure the effectiveness of the partnership, including
an SRO assessment form to be completed annually by principals.

To ensure understanding of the roles of the two parties, this MOU clarifies the respective
responsibilities ensuring that CPD manages the operational employment of SROs while CCS
retains administrative control when SROs are operating as

5

SROs. Regardless of their role, SROs are subject to CPD policy and procedure at all times.
Two resources are crucial to this partnership:
1. The CCS Student Rights and Responsibilities provides guidance to students,
parents/guardians and caregivers; and provides administrators with guidance for
managing behaviors, including interventions designed to assist administrators and
minimize invo lvement of law enforcement in school discipline matters. Administrators
use tiered strategies that help students build skills through Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) , and Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Respect for
the rights of all individuals is fundamental. CCS and CPD will work together to uphold
and promote both rights and responsibilities of all members of the community at all
times.
2. The CCS Departments of Instruction and Student Services provide support to
administrators through coaching and consultation to promote restorative practices
where applicable and to implement and monitor equitable disciplinary practices.
Students require different supports than adults, and any intervention with students
should be developmentally appropriate.
To foster a positive and supportive school climate, the partnership will collaborate to increase
law-related education, expand school safety and crime prevention efforts, reduce conflict, and
support effective police interventions as a last resort for staff and student safety.

4. EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP (S-LEP)

Ongoing evaluation of the S-LEP is part of the continuous refinement of the CCS safety model
overall, and performance of the law enforcement officers on assignment in CCS will be
monitored. This continuous assessment process must include:
• Qualitative and quantitative measures
• Perspectives of various stakeholders from within CCS (administration, staff and
students) , CPD, and from families
• A focus on youth perceptions
• Measures of assessing collective impacts on school climate
Approaches to evaluation will be developed and refined to ensure they accurately and usefully
represent stakeholders' views. The paragraphs that follow detail specific annual assessments
and measurable objectives:
Climate Surveys
The Code of Virginia requires school divisions to complete an annual School Safety Survey in
order to assess school safety conditions. As a means for collecting individual school safety audit
information, the Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety (VCSCS) annually administers
the Virginia School Safety Survey. This web-based survey provides all public schools (K-12)

6

with a standardized reporting format for conducting and submitting their audit information. This
process includes a school climate survey that is administered per the DCJS schedule to assess
middle and high school level students' views of school safety.
Measurable objective: School climate surveys will be compiled by the Safety & Security
Coordinator and made available for stakeholder analysis to identify positive and/or negative
trends.
Student Behavior and Administrative Response (SBAR) Reporting
VA Ann. Code §22.1 -279.3: 1 requires school divisions statewide to submit data annually to the
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) on events of student behavior and administrators'
responses to the behavior. These events shall include those that occurred on school property,
on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity. Unlike the Discipline, Crime and Violence
data collection (DCV) that was retired after the 2020-2021 school year, SBAR captures all the
behaviors of each student in each event. This reporting requirement corresponds with school
board policy CLA "Reporting Acts of Violence and Substance Abuse." The reporting required by
the Department of Education is the responsibility of the Principal or their designee. The report
shall include whether CCS disciplinary action was taken against a student. Proper reporting will
include whether action required a police enforcement action.
Measurable objective: How many incidents are reported each school year and how many
resulted in Jaw enforcement action? Analysis will differentiate between incidents of
administrative discipline and law enforcement actions.
Law Enforcement Reporting and Data Collection
The CPD will provide data regarding youth involvement with law enforcement quarterly to the
CCS Coordinator of Safety and Security, unless otherwise requested by CCS. Information
sharing between CCS and CPD will be essential for providing the quantitative data required for
overall program evaluation. In addition to CPD juvenile offender data, all occurrences in which
an SRO makes "official contact" with any student on school property must be logged by SROs,
and all such reports must be reviewed by CCS Administrators as outlined in the Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for the SRO program.
As defined above, for the purposes of this MOU, "official contact" is defined as:
I.
Questioning any student for law enforcement purposes;
II.
Detainment of any student;
Ill.
Apprehension, citation, or arrest of any student; and
IV.
Other contacts between SROs and students deemed necessary to support student
safety and well-being as determined by the SRO, SRO Supervisor or CCS Administrator.
This logging of official contact is in addition to the reporting required by school board policy or
by statutory requirement (refer to MOU section 7. KEY STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES
subsection a. Crime Reporting).

7

The CCS Law Enforcement Official Contact Report is a form available online to be completed by
the SRO any time there is law enforcement official contact with a student at a school. This may
include assisting administrators as requested , investigations, referrals, arrests, and other
actions. Entries in this form will generate a notification to CCS administration responsible for
reviewing the entry for accuracy and completeness and adding any additional information
needed from the student information system.
Official contact reports must record the school site, nature of incident or offense, race, ethnicity,
gender and gender identity or expression, disability (if applicable), age of the student or
students involved in the incident, and whether the incident was or was not school-related.
The reports will describe CCS personnel involvement and must be maintained by the school as
an education record and must be stored in such a way that will protect the individual student's
identity and privacy, and be accessible to students and to parents. If an official contact pertains
to an incident where the student is the alleged victim of possible criminal or neg ligent actions by
parents/guardians, the report will not contain any personally identifiable information and will not
be maintained as an education record in order to protect the victim's identity, and the SRO will
comply with all mandated reporting procedures.
Measurable objective: Collection of comprehensive, accurate and complete data for CCS Safety
& Security, Student Services and Strategic Initiatives Administrators' further review and
comparisons to measurable discipline data.
Educational Activities with Students and Staff
Principals will permit SROs to provide safety educational activities at their assigned school with
a goal of one activity per quarter. Educational activities may include classroom or student
group/club/council briefings. Activity materials and topics must be relevant, age appropriate,
and pre-approved by school administration.
School administrators may request law enforcement participation in briefings, seminars or
training at any time regarding various school safety, educational or education law topics. CCS
will support CPD-sponsored community activities when requested as resources are available,
and CCS and CPD will collaborate to develop and deliver joint training as needs are identified.
Measurable objective: All educational and training activities involving SROs will be reported on
the quarterly performance reports.
Stakeholder Feedback & Formal Complaints
CCS will provide a mechanism for students, staff and families to provide feedback regarding the
SRO program by reporting positive and/or negative interactions with SROs via an on-line form.
The form will serve as a way for stakeholders to initiate a report of any notable interactions or
observations involving SROs. The report will go directly to school administration. For any
negative reports, administration will follow-up with the person making the report to acknowledge
receipt, get additional information, and follow-up as needed for resolution of any concerns.

8

In addition to providing feedback, students, parents , administrators, and school personnel who
believe that any CCS official has violated the terms of this MOU, or that any SRO has engaged
in misconduct, may file a formal complaint with the Superintendent within 30 days of the alleged
violation. CCS shall submit any complaint against an SRO to CPD for investigation.
The Superintendent will investigate all complaints pertaining to CCS personnel. Within two
business~days of receiving a complaint, the District will provide written acknowledgment of
receipt along with the anticipated actions and a timeline for addressing the allegations against
CCS personnel. The Superintendent will provide updates if new information becomes available,
and will report the results of the CCS investigation to the complainant no later than 60 ca lendar
days after receipt of the complaint in accordance with CCS Regulation GBLA-R.
Stakeholders can also make formal complaints regarding an SRO directly to CPD. CPD Citizen
Complaint Forms are available in the main school office for schools that have an assigned SRO.
Measurable objective: All stakeholders will have a mechanism to provide feedback on the SRO
program and there is a defined process for stakeholders to file an official complaint related to
the program.
Performance Review Meetings
CCS administration and up to two school board members will meet with CPD in September,
January, and April of each school year to review SRO performance and discuss reporting data.
The performance review will include data such as daily SRO attendance, calls for assistance,
official contact reporting , stakeholder feedback, educational activities with students, and all
other activities in support of school safety and security. The CCS Coordinator of Safety and
Security will gather feedback from the school principals where SROs are assigned and from the
SROs in preparation for each quarterly meeting. SROs will work with the Coordinator of Safety
and Security to ensure all relevant data is compiled in support of these meetings which is
consolidated for the annual program report.
Progress towards achieving or improving the objectives shall be jointly reviewed at least
annually by the Superintendent and Chief of Police and/or their designees. Information from the
program review meetings will be prepared as written reports for School Board public meeting
agendas.
Measurable objective: Quarterly review with summary of findings provided in a report to the
Superintendent.
Public Reporting
In addition to the program review meetings, both the CCS and CPD shall provide the public with
the following by posting the information on the agencies' websites, updated on an annual basis:

9

•
•
•

•

Regulations, policies, and protocols governing the SROs, including any changes made
in the prior year;
Number of SROs deployed to each school;
Number of times an SRO used mechanical restraints (e.g. , meal, plastic or Velcro
handcuffs or shackles; restraint chairs; helmets; prone or face-down restraints; or the act
of being physically locked in a room) on any student during the prior school year,
including a description of the student's behavior and actions taken by CPD and CCS ;
Annual program report.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS
a. CCS Responsibilities
CCS will designate a primary division-level point of contact to implement the partnership and to
maintain ongoing communications with CPD officials. The Chief Operations Officer or designee will
serve as this point of contact.

It is the responsibility of school administrators (principal or designee) to facilitate effective
communication between the SRO and students and school staff, and to support the goals of the
partnership. School administrators working with Care and Safety Assistants (CSAs) and other
CCS staff have the responsibility to ensure consistent enforcement of school rules and policies. All
CCS staff requests for assistance from an SRO must go through school administration in
alignment with the goal of minimizing student involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice
systems, as well as Virginia statutes. School personnel must be well informed by school
administration how requests for SRO assistance are to be directed and will be provided with
guidance pertaining to the operational criteria for differentiating disciplinary misconduct from
potential criminal offenses.
School Principals' Role in Discipline; Involvement of SROs
School administrators are responsible for the clear communication of the roles and responsibi lities
of SROs to school personnel, parents and students.
Each school with an assigned SRO will provide work area(s) for the SRO that allow access to
technology (e.g. , computer systems), private interview of several persons, and locking storage
space for securing physical evidence. Access to technology allows officers to access databases
required for the performance of basic law enforcement duties. The private interview space also
serves as the SROs private office space. SROs may use this space for securing evidence only
when necessary and when initial investigations do not occur at a police station.
CCS will handle discipline within the school disciplinary process without involving SROs other than
in exceptional circumstances outlined below. This corresponds with CCS policy JFC "Student
Conduct." CCS policies, administrative guidance, training and ongoing oversight will clearly
communicate that school administrators and teachers are responsible for school discipline and that

10

law enforcement is not to be involved with disciplinary action. CCS is responsible for
communicating the goals and role of the SRO to all school administration, staff and students.
The following sequence is considered an ideal disciplinary process:
1. School administrators, student support teams, and staff engage the student;
2. School administrators, student support teams, and staff resolve the event with the
assistance of the appropriate Division Administration (Student Services, Family
Engagement and/or Safety & Security); and
3. Student responds positively to agreed intervention.
CCS will ensure that school administrators with an assigned SRO receive relevant training on
the role and responsibilities of SROs and this MOU. For the purpose of this MOU, a school
administrator is a principal, assistant principal , or their designee. The training should be aligned
with the MOU and DCJS curriculum in consultation with the CPD and will include behavioral
interventions (e.g., Restorative Practices).
CCS shall provide payment to compensate officers for working school-sponsored
events/activities such as athletic competitions or school social events. The officers who are
available and accept these extra off-duty assignments may or may not be CPD SROs.
CCS will continue to utilize a Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system for all
students and offer opportunities for restorative support where applicable. The aim of restorative
practices is to develop community and to manage conflict and tensions by repairing harm and
restoring relationships. If during the use of a restorative process, or discipline investigation ,
there is information shared that relates to a required reportable offense to the CPD, CCS
administration or designee will notify the CPD/SRO immediately in compliance with mandated
reporting procedures. Additional behavioral intervention strategies may be appropriate for some
students, including those with Individual Education Plans (I EPs). CCS staff such as special
education teachers and/or mental health professionals will provide guidance to SROs so that
responses can align with IEPs and/or Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs).
b. CPD Responsibilities
CPD will deploy sworn officers to serve as SROs. Officers assuming this position report to SRO
program supervisors at the CPD while serving under the daily direction of CCS administration.
CPD will ensure that officers are trained in accordance with Virginia law and aware of relevant
policies and directives.
CPD will designate a liaison between CPD and CCS. The liaison will complete the Virginia
DCJS SRO and School Administrator Basic School training course and work in partnership with
CCS to address any operational or administrative issues and to ensure effectiveness of
operational protocols. The liaison will serve as a consultant for school safety and security issues
including assessments and critical incident response planning. The designee will maintain a
working knowledge of school rules, regulations, and laws regarding student safety and conduct.
The liaison will establish and maintain effective working relationships with school personnel at

11

the division and all school levels, provide relevant information on community safety issues, and
seek opportunities to build positive relationships with parents and students through informal
meet-and-greets and other means. The liaison will also ensure that SROs are meeting CPD
requirements as noted within the MOU.
CPD and CCS will work together to select officers for the SRO program. Training , supervision
and evaluation of SROs will be the joint responsibility of CCS and CPO. While SROs work under
the direction of school administration , all SROs shall remain at all times subject to the chain of
command of CPD. DCJS SRO certification training is required to be completed by SROs before
working in a school.
In developing and implementing law enforcement policies and procedures that will affect the
school community, the CPD liaison and SROs will consult with CCS administration. Best
practices and the needs of the school community at large will be incorporated into the decisionmaking process. Final approval of CPD policies and procedures resides with the police chief.
CPD will ensure the SRO meets the training standards for SROs established by the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) pursuant to VA Ann. Code § 9.1-102(54) and §
9.1-114.1.
VA Ann. Code§ 9.1-102(54) establishes compulsory minimum training standards for
certification and recertification of law-enforcement officers serving as school resource officers.
Such training shall be specific to the role and responsibility of a law-enforcement officer working
with students in a school environment. Prior to deployment, every SRO shall receive
specialized training on the following topics:
• relevant state and federal laws;
• school and personal liability issues;
• security awareness in the school environment;
• mediation and conflict resolution, including de-escalation techniques;
• disaster and emergency response;
• awareness of systemic and individual racism, cultural diversity, and implicit bias;
• working with students with disabilities, mental health needs, substance use disorders, or
past traumatic experiences; and
• student behavioral dynamics, including current child and adolescent development and
brain research.
In addition to ensuring the SRO receives the required DCJS training prior to any assignment in
a school , CPD will support ongoing DCJS training and joint training with CCS staff. SROs shall
be familiar with and trained in restorative justice practices, PBIS, guidance interventions, and
other support programs in use by the school. All training for SROs provided through DCJS and
in conjunction with CCS should help SROs acquire knowledge and skills to su pport positive
interactions with youth and be aligned with the MOU and DCJS curriculum. SROs will be
certified in traffic control to assist with training crossing guards and other CCS staff as needed.

12

CPD will support safety inspections, audits and school crisis, emergency management and
medical emergency response planning as required by VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-279.8.
SROs are paid by CPD and CPD will compensate SROs for certain school meetings and police
investigations after-hours. Each year, CPD will determine the estimated cost for the SRO
program and will submit the necessary budget request for City Council funding.
CCS will collaborate with CPD in evaluating grant opportunities in support of the SRO program.
CPD will provide a system for CCS to requisition off-duty officer support for school events. Offduty officers providing security services for school events will take direction from CCS personnel
for specific duty posts during the event. Charges for off-duty officer event support are billed
separately to CCS.

c. SRO Role
The SRO is a sworn law enforcement officer who works in the school community in concert with
school administration. Pursuant to Virginia law, the SRO is tasked with providing immediate law
enforcement assistance in the event of serious physical violence, or criminal activity which
poses a risk to the safety of students, faculty, or visitors to schools.
As a sworn law enforcement officer, the SRO is armed in accordance with CPD policy 1024. 7.
As a law enforcement representative dedicated to serving the schools, the SRO is an active
member of the school and division-level security team. As such, under the direction of CCS
administration, SROs support compliance with all Code of Virginia, Virginia Department of
Education (VDOE) and Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) school safety
requirements. This includes supporting threat assessments (VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-79.4) and
school crisis planning, safety audits and inspections (VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-279.8).
As a law enforcement officer, SROs are mandated reporters for child abuse and/or neglect, just
as educators are mandated reporters. In their role, the SRO is expected to build and maintain
relationships within the school community. As such SROs may become aware of circumstances
which require them to disclose information related to abuse, neglect or mental health as defined
in VA. Ann. Code §63.2-1509.
As a general practice , unless there is a clear and imminent threat to safety, the SRO should act
only upon request of school administrators. Requests for SRO law enforcement assistance are
to be channeled through a school administrator. Guiding principles for conduct representing a
clear and imminent threat to safety include:
1. poses substantial harm to the physical well-being of another person;
2. is willful and malicious and causes substantial harm to school property; or
3. constitutes the permanent taking of property of substantial value.

13

To support this specialized unit and ensure its effective implementation and fidelity of operations
under this MOU, an SRO Liaison and SRO Supervisor will be assigned by CPD. These
positions will be filled by sworn law enforcement officers who hold the rank of Lieutenant and
Sergeant respectively. Both the SRO Liaison and Supervisor are subject to the same training
requirements as the SRO.
SROs shall not act as school disciplinarians, as enforcers of CCS's Student Rights and
Responsibilities, nor may they act in place of school officials for classroom management, or in
place of school social workers, counselors, psychologists, or psychiatrists on school property or
at school-sponsored events.
Generally, SROs shall not use their police powers to intervene in normative child and
adolescent behaviors , and school staff shall not request the intervention of SROs when
responding to normative child and adolescent behaviors.
When practical, the SRO will defer to CCS disciplinary procedures in lieu of pursuing criminal
charges against students. SROs will work collaboratively with CCS administration with the
understanding that some student conduct may contain all the necessary elements of a criminal
offense (e.g. , assault) but are best handled through the school's disciplinary process.
For instances where charges may be necessary, the SRO will consult with the SRO Supervisor
and Liaison prior to obtaining them and work with the juvenile justice system to pursue diversion
options when practical and appropriate.
In addition to law enforcement officer, other key roles of the SRO are:
• Law-related and safety educator: As resources permit, SROs should strive to assist with
presentations to school personnel on law-related topics such as law enforcement
practices, changes in relevant laws, crime trends, crime prevention, school safety
strategies, and crisis response procedures. SROs may also deliver law and safetyrelated education to students using lessons/curricula approved in advance by school
administration.
• Role model I informal mentor: Students often seek approval, direction, and guidance
from adults in the school setting about various problems. Through formal and informal
interaction with students, SROs serve as role models and informal mentors both in our
schools and in the broader Charlottesville community. SROs are expected to
communicate clearly to students about acceptable and unacceptable behavior, set a
positive example in handling stressful situations and resolving conflicts, show respect
and consideration of others, and express high expectations for student behavior.
Students who may need additional assistance shall be referred to a school-based
resource.
CCS shall not rely on SROs to provide counseling or other functions performed by a trained
mental-health provider, such as a counselor, social worker, or psychologist.

14

SROs shall not respond to and are not responsible for routine disciplinary matters involving
students. Should an SRO witness a student violating school rules, the SRO's primary
responsibility is to inform a school administrator and/or CSA.
Additional information regarding the SRO role is available on the CCS website to support
families and other stakeholders in understanding the SRO program.

d. School Principal and Administrators Role
In collaboration with the CCS Coordinator of Safety and Security, the school principal exercises
operational control over the SRO's work assignment location in or around the school building
and grounds. This authority is consistent with the Virginia Administrative Code for Standards of
Accreditation, 8VAC20-132-200, which states: "[t]he school administrator is recognized as the
instructional leader and manager of the school and is responsible for: Fostering the success of
all students by developing, advocating, and sustaining an academically rigorous, positive, and
safe school climate for all stakeholders .. . " (Section A.2). This code section also states, "[a]s the
instructional leader, the principal is responsible for ensuring that students are provided an
opportunity to learn and shall: Involve students, staff, parents, and the community to create and
sustain a positive, safe, and healthy learning environment that enforces state, division , and local
rules, policies, and procedures and consistently models and collaboratively promotes high
expectations, mutual respect, care, and concern for students, staff, parents, and the
community ... "(Section 8.6).

This scope of authority is also consistent with Administrative Code 8VAC20-132-240 regarding
School Facilities and Safety, which states the school administration ensures that the school has
"[w]ritten procedures to follow in emergencies such as fire, injury, illness, allergic reactions, and
violent or threatening behavior." (Section D.1)
In collaboration with the CCS Coordinator of Safety and Security, the school principal and
administrators will review the MOU with SROs and establish school-specific operational and
communications procedures to support the appropriate use of law enforcement in the schools,
only as needed. Such operational and communications procedures shall not supersede or
substitute this MOU. School-specific operational and communication procedures must be
formally written and approved by the CCS Chief Operations Officer, and will be available to the
public upon request as allowed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Reports of
concerns or complaints about SRO actions shall be directed to school administrators and the
CCS Chief Operations Officer, who shall work directly with the CPD liaison and CPD leadership
to address any concerns.
e. Care and Safety Assistants (CSAs) Role
CSAs are unarmed DCJS certified School Security Officers (SSO) employed by CCS. They
serve as an extension of their respective school administration with the purpose of maintaining
order and assisting school administrators in promoting safety, security, and a positive school

15

climate. CSAs support the welfare of all students, faculty, staff, and visitors to schools and
physically intervene in both physical and verbal altercations as needed to assist administration
in restoring order and safety.
CSAs assist administrators with enforcement and reinforcement of Student Rights and
Responsibilities, in addition to performing assigned security monitoring duties in assigned areas.
Security duties may include screening of visitors, exterior and interior patrols and door checks,
CCTV monitoring, activating emergency protocols, and other duties as assigned.
The CSA program is managed by the CCS Coordinator of Safety and Security and they report
directly to their school's principal. CSAs are required to obtain state DCJS certification within 60
days of hire (or as soon as possible when a DCJS certification course is not reasonably
available within 60 days, and DCJS is notified accordingly by the CCS Coordinator of Safety &
Security). CSAs are not law enforcement personnel, as their responsibility and authority are in
effect only while on duty at an assigned CCS property. CSAs have no authority off school
property, unless they are assigned by CCS to an off-site function.
The SR Os supplement and support the role and responsibilities of the CSAs, but their presence
does not supplant or lessen the CSA duties and assignments. CSA requests for SRO
assistance are to be directed through school administration, in alignment with this same
expectation for all other school staff.

6. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
a. Differentiating Disciplinary Misconduct from Criminal Offenses
School administrators and teachers are responsible for school discipline. Although SROs are
expected to be familiar with the CCS Student Rights and Responsibilities, the rules of individual
schools, and their application in day-to-day practice, SROs should not be involved with the
enforcement of school rules or disciplinary infractions that are not violations of law.

As a general practice, unless there is a clear and imminent threat to safety, the SRO should act
only upon request of school administrators. Requests for SRO law enforcement assistance are to
be channeled through a school administrator. Guiding principles as to whether conduct rises to the
level of a clear and imminent threat to safety include:
1. poses substantial harm to the physical well-being of another person;
2. is willful and malicious and causes substantial harm to school property; or
3. constitutes the permanent taking of property of substantial value.
SR Os will work collaboratively with CCS administration with the understanding that some student
conduct may contain all the necessary elements of a criminal offense (e .g., assault) but are best handled
through the school's disciplinary process.

16

All parties to this MOU agree that consequences of student misconduct should be effective,
developmentally appropriate, and fair. Interventions and school sanctions should help students learn
from their mistakes and address root causes of misconduct. School administrators will consider
alternatives to suspensions and law enforcement officials will consider alternatives to referrals to juvenile
court services and arrests for student violations of law.
In accordance with School Board Policy JJBB, JBA and JBB, any action taken in response to
disciplinary misconduct and/or criminal offense will be administered fairly and without regard to
race, national origin, disability, religion, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation or
marital or parental status.
The MOU shall operate in a manner to ensure children with disabilities receive appropriate
behavioral interventions and support.
b. Information Sharing
The release of student records is governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §12329 and VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-287. Limitations on access to records.

When appropriate, and to the extent the law allows, CCS should notify SROs of any special
needs of a student involved in a school-based infraction that is not routine discipline, in order to
assist the SRO in recognizing and accommodating behaviors that may be manifestations of the
student's disability. For purposes of access to student records, SROs may be considered
"school officials with a legitimate educational interest" in reviewing information from student
educational records covered by FERPA, and may be provided student information as needed to
carry out their duties related to the school environment, provided such SROs perform a function
or service for which the school would otherwise use employees (e.g., mainta ining the physical
safety and security of the school) and comply with the use and re-disclosure requirements set
forth in 34 C.F.R . § 99.33. An SRO's investigation of potential criminal activity in the capacity of
a law enforcement officer is not a service for which the school would otherwise use employees;
therefore, SROs do not have unrestricted access to student records for criminal investigation
purposes.
CCS shall not initiate communication with any Law Enforcement Agency, including any Federal
Immigration Enforcement Agency, regarding a student's or family member's FERPA protected
or otherwise personally identifiable information. CCS and CPD shall not enter into agreements
to share student information with Federal Immigration Authorities except as required by law.
Consent Access
A law enforcement officer or SRO acting in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, may have
access to a student's education records only with written consent of the student's
parenUguardian and in accordance with FERPA. Please see Section "c" for additional guidance
(below).
Health and Safety Emergency Exception

17

In the event of a significant and articulable threat to health or safety, school officials may
disclose any information from student records to appropriate parties, including law enforcement
officials, whose knowledge of the information is needed to protect the health and safety of a
student or another individual.

Disclosure of CPD Information on CCS Students
In accordance with the law, SROs or other CPD officers or officials may disclose law
enforcement records created and maintained by the SRO for the purpose of ensuring the
physical safety and security of people and property in schools and/or enforcement of laws. CPD
may provide CCS with information gathered about students in the course of a police
investigation. If a member of the SRO team is aware of an event that could compromise the
safety and security of the CCS school community, they will ensure that school administration is
notified.
c. Police Investigation and Questioning of Students
The investigation and questioning of students during school hours or at school events regarding
criminal activity in the community should be limited to situations where the investigation is related to
suspected criminal activity related to the operation of, or occurring at, the school, and should be
avoided unless immediate action is required to prevent an act of violence.

As sworn law enforcement officers, SROs have authority to stop, question, interview, and take law
enforcement action without prior authorization of the school administrator in exigent circumstances
where immediate action by law enforcement is required to prevent an act of violence. For nonexigent circumstances, when it becomes necessary for the SRO or law enforcement officer to
interview a student on school premises, the school principal or their designee shall be contacted
immediately.
Custodial interrogation of a minor must be conducted in accordance with VA Ann . Code§ 16.1-247.1 .
Unless exigent circumstances exist (e.g. crime of active violence which threatens lives), the SRO
shall take immediate steps to contact parent(s) or guardian(s) before any questioning of a student
about possible involvement in criminal activity. The SRO shall fully inform both the student and legal
guardian of the entitlement of Miranda warnings before any questioning takes place. SR Os shall seek
the consent authorization (approval or denial) of the legal guardian before conducting any interview of
the student. The SRO shall make reasonable attempts to have the legal guardian present when fully
informing them of their Miranda warnings. Additionally, the SRO shall, through conversation with the
legal guardian, determine if the student has the cognitive ability to understand Miranda warnings and
to knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently submit to questioning. SROs shall document these steps in
their police report
If the parent or guardian cannot be present for the interview or allows it to proceed, then the SRO
may proceed with the principal or principal's designee present throughout the interview, per CCS'
policy KNAJ "Relations with Law Enforcement Authorities." The investigation and questioning of

18

students during school hours or at school events should be limited to situations where the
investigation is related to suspected criminal activity. Investigations and questioning of students for
offenses not related to the operation of the school or not occurring at the school should take place at
school only when delay might result in
danger to any person, destruction of evidence, or flight from the jurisdiction by the person suspected
of a crime.
SROs shall not ask school officials to question a student for them in an effort to circumvent
these protections. Under no circumstance may the principal/designee compel or coerce a
student to submit to questioning by SROs.
The interviewing of students - whether suspects, victims, or witnesses - should be conducted
privately in an office setting. SROs will take steps to ensure minimal intrusion into the
educational experience of students being questioned in the school setting. No questioning of a
student will take place without the presence of a school administrator(s).
SROs shall work with school officials to provide language assistance services or CPD shall
provide services in the form of interpretation, translation, or monolingual conversation for
students and parents with a primary language other than English.
SROs are responsible for leading the investigation and questioning of students related to
suspected violations of criminal law. SROs shall not be included in questioning students about
student code of conduct violations that do not involve any criminal activity or risk of harm to self
or others.
School administrators are responsible for the questioning of students about violations of the
code of conduct.
d. Searches of Students by CCS Administrators & SROs
All searches shall be conducted in accordance with federal and state laws, and applicable CCS
and CPD policies and guidelines including the principles embodied in this memorandum of
understanding, as well as Virginia statutes and common law. The below sections correspond
with CCS policy JFG "Search and Seizure."

School Administrator Searches
School officials may conduct searches of student's property and person under their jurisdiction
when reasonable suspicion exists that the search will reveal evidence that the student has
violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. The standard for search by a
school official is reasonable suspicion.
SRO Searches
Any search initiated by SROs shall be based upon a higher threshold , probable cause. In all
cases where initial consent was not obtained and probable cause exists that a crime has been
committed, when required, a search warrant should be obtained by the SRO prior to conducting

19

the search. All searches should be reasonable in scope. All searches should occur outside the
presence of other students and school staff, with the exception of school administrators, unless
there is a clear and immediate threat to physical safety.
SROs shall not become involved in administrative (school-related) searches unless specifically
requested by school administrators. At no time shall SROs request that an administrative search
be conducted for law enforcement purposes or have the administrator act as his or her agent.
The role of police in administrative searches will be limited to providing security or protection, or
to handle contraband or weapons found by school staff.

e. Arrests
Whenever practical, arrests of students or staff members, whether related to an in-school
incident, or on an outstanding juvenile petition or arrest warrant, should be accomplished
outside of school hours and off school property in order to not disrupt the educational process or
school setting. In order to arrest a student during school hours or on school grounds, an SRO
must have: (1) probable cause to believe that the student has committed a misdemeanor or
felony, and (2) when practical, collaboration with the principal or designee regarding best
approach to preserve student safety.
Arrests that must occur during school hours or on school grounds should be coordinated
through the school administrator or their designee to minimize potential disruption and uphold
dignity of all involved as much as possible. In the event the SRO feels they must affect an arrest
on school property during school hours they will carefully weigh the effect this action could have
on the school community and the need to ensure its safety. SROs, and school officials shall
make every effort to respect students' privacy rights. Absent emergency circumstances,
warrants should not be executed in a public location such as a classroom, hallway, or cafeteria,
to minimize disruption and exposure to other students.
When circumstances do not allow for prior coordination through the school administrator, arrests
will be reported to the school administrator as soon as possible. In addition to any required
notification of parents and legal guardians by the SRO taking a student into custody, school
administrators or their designees are also responsible for an additional notification of parents
and legal guardians upon a school-based arrest of their child. If questioning or investigatory
interviews must occur, the SRO must refer to the "Investigation and Questioning " section of this
document.
If students or members of their family are alleged to have committed a crime unrelated to
school, an SRO should not use the school as a convenient location for arrest or interrogation.
Excluding traffic violations, CPD will not issue a summons nor make an arrest of a student on
school grounds or at a school-sponsored event based solely on a non-criminal violation of
Virginia Code.

20

f. Physical Intervention by SROs
As sworn law enforcement officers, SROs may intervene to de-escalate situations. However, an
SRO should not be involved in the physical restraint of a student unless there is imminent
danger of serious physical harm to self or others.

School staff will act to de-escalate situations that are, or have the potential to cause, disruptions
to the school environment and are violations of the student's rights and responsibilities.
Under no circumstance shall an SRO use mechanical restraints on students for purposes of
administrative convenience or punishment. Mechanical restraints will only be used for
necessary and legitimate law enforcement purposes. To determine if it is appropriate to use
mechanical restraints, the SRO must take into consideration the safety of the student, the SRO,
and other members of the school community; the age and physical stature of the student; the
type of offense alleged and whether weapons were used; the presence of the student's parent
and/or school employees; the number of students being arrested; the judgment of the principal
or designee; and the student's demeanor.
If an SRO is involved in the use of restraint or physical intervention, the action and the rationale
must be reported to the school administration and must be fully documented using the CCS Law
Enforcement Occurrence Report online form. Additionally, school administration and the SRO
will coordinate to ensure that reasonable effort is made to inform the parents on the day of the
incident, and before the end of the school day.
Physical intervention by SROs is undertaken in accordance with policies and operational
procedures of the local law enforcement agency. SROs should be aware of the Virginia Board
of Education's policies and guidelines on seclusion and restraint and related CCS policies (e.g.,
policy JM "Restraint and Seclusion of Students"). However, SROs operate by CPD policies and
state law regarding when to resort to physical intervention and use of force.
g. Use of Shared Technology Resources
In an effort to continuously improve security posture at school facilities , the school division
utilizes various notification platforms to send email and text alerts to families, school
administration , staff, and first responders (including CPO) when emergencies occur. The SRO
Supervisor/Sergeant will be the direct point of contact to receive, respond, and deploy the
appropriate police response to the threat level and/or anonymous report that poses a life/safety
concern during and after school hours.

CPD and CCS will collaborate in evaluating any technology resources CPD may recommend
implementing that could impact school operations in order to understand the technology, assist
with process development from a school lens, and minimize any potential negative impacts to
students and/or school operations.

21

7. KEY STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Crime Reporting
Pursuant to VA Ann. Code § 22.1-279.3: 1, law enforcement agencies are required to notify a
division superintendent, a principal, or a designee when a student in their school commits
certain offenses that would be a felony if committed by an adult and the release status of the
student. School superintendents who receive such reports are required to report the information
to the principal of the school in which the student is enrolled. As a general practice and in
compliance with the law, SROs should notify the principal as soon as practical of any significant
law enforcement events occurring at or in association with the school (e.g ., at a school bus stop
or off-campus activity, during or outside school hours} whether or not the offense would be a
felony if committed by an adult.

Pursuant to VA Ann. Code § 22.1-279.3: 1, certain types of criminal activity that come to the
attention of the principal or school staff shall be reported immediately to CPD/SRO as specified
in CCS policy. Enumerated acts that may constitute a misdemeanor are no longer required to
be reported. No SRO or school administrator shall be required to file delinquency charges.
Schools and SROs shall be encouraged to deal with school-based offenses through graduated
sanctions or educational programming before a delinquency charge is filed with the juvenile
court. The Principal or their designee is required to notify the parent, guardian, or legal
custodian of an incident that was reported to law enforcement. This section corresponds to
school board policy CLA "Reporting Acts of Violence and Substance Abuse."
b. Threat Assessments
Threat assessments shall be conducted in accordance with local school board policies (e.g .,
CCS Policy EBB "Threat Assessment Teams"), adopted as required by VA Ann. Code§ 22.179.4 and consistent with model procedures and guidelines published by the DCJS. CPD will
develop policy and procedures to streamline the sharing of students' history when needed by
CCS in completing a threat assessment.

SROs seNe as members of school threat assessment teams as required, and assist in
monitoring of subject students as well as determining the need, if any, for law enforcement
action.
c. School Safety Audits
School safety audits will be conducted annually as required by law to assess school safety
conditions in schools. The Virginia School Safety Audit Program is managed by the Department
of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and is a written assessment of the safety conditions in each
public school. The audits are designed to identify physical security concerns, and identify and
evaluate any patterns of student safety conduct that raises concerns.

22

SROs, in collaboration with school administrators, may conduct school inspection walkthroughs
and shall participate in other school safety audit mandates, including school crisis and
emergency management and response planning and preparation.

8. APPROVAL AND REVIEW

In accordance with VA Ann. Code§ 22.1-280.2:3, this MOU will be reviewed annually, or at any
time upon the request of either CCS or CPD. This MOU remains in force until such time CCS or
CPD withdraws from the agreement by delivering a written notification of such withdrawal to the
other party at least 45 days prior to the date of withdrawal.

FOR THE CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT

FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY
SCHOOLS

MICHAEL P. KOCHIS

Michael P. Kochis
Chief of Police
Charlottesville Police Department

Royal A. Gurley, Jr., Ed.D.
Superintendent
Charlottesville City Schools
Date:

\'1 ill is

23

GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ABBREVIATIONS
CCS - Charlottesville City Schools
CPD - Charlottesville Police Department
CSA - Care and Safety Assistant. This is the term CCS adopted for the DCJS certified School
Security Officers (SSOs) serving CCS middle and high school level campuses.
DCJS - Department of Criminal Justice Services. Public Safety Training and the Virginia Center
for School and Campus Safety under DCJS provide the State mandated certification program
for SR Os, as well as numerous other training and resources to support school safety.
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding. An agreement that outlines the intentions, roles, and
objectives of two or more parties working together.
SOP - Standard Operating Procedures. A document that provides more detailed guidance for
specific tasks or processes to support efficiency, consistency, quality and compliance.
SRO - School Resource Officer. A specially trained sworn law enforcement officer employed by
local law enforcement who is assigned to work with schools in support of student safety.

24

FY26 PCOB Acting Director’s Work Plan
July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026

Part 1 – Office Operations
Action

Measures

Target

Status

Allocation

Details

Specified Timeline Action Items
 Completed Sivil form types to

capture all non-outreach
touchpoints (e.g. complaints,
Item 1.1
inquiries, comments, reviews, etc.)
Refine Sivil Data Fields
and to align complaint, incident, and
for Intake of All
review intake.
Touchpoints
 Completed intake operating
procedures delineating when and
how Sivil is used to track data
 Completed webpage redesign for all
existing pages (e.g. Data &
Item 1.2
Reporting, Oversight Resources,
Develop Website
Community Engagement, etc.)
Content and
 Completed calendar and process to
Organization
ensure information posted is
updated on a monthly cadence
 Mapped office location and profile
completion on Google services for
easier identification of Office
Item 1.3
location, hours, and contacts
Launch Google Profile &
 Established analytics dashboard
Analytics
with Google or IT to refine and track
site usage and refine accessibility
 Completed 2025 Annual Report
prioritizing accomplishments,
Item 1.4
engagement, and forward direction
Publish 2025 Annual
of the PCOB
Report

Item 1.5

Implement
Administrative
Requirements

 Mar 2026

 Feb 2026

 Apr 2026

80%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

100%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

100%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

Sivil should be utilized to
capture all intake and
communication types for the
Board and Office outside of
PCOB-initiated outreach
specifically for data tracking
and retention purposes.

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from IT Department

The PCOB website acts as a
hub for information about
access to and understanding
of the Board’s purpose and
work, with transparency and
clarity being the primary
goals. Updated UI included.
Currently, Google does not
display information about the
PCOB. Priorities are
location, contact, and hours.
Analytics will help with
website traffic data to map
usage and engagement.
The 2025 PCOB annual
report will focus on a more
refined overview compared
with 2024 with
accompanying online
resources and data.
A level budget
recommendation and lineitem revisions will be
included. COOP plan is to be
completed in accordance
with guidance from

representatives

on page verification

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from IT Department

on analytics integration and
access

 Time commitment of staff
 Jun 2026

80%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

 Completed FY27 budget proposal

and recommendations
 Completed COOP plan as required
by the EMC

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from Sivil

 Nov 2025

100%
Completion
(12/1/2025)

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from City

Manager’s Office
administrative staff
 Support from relevant
department leads

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

Emergency Management
Coordinator.
Ongoing Action Items

Item 1.6

Publish Standardized
Reporting

 Completed monthly office reports
 Completed oversight activity

summary reports

 Time commitment of staff
 Access granted to Axon
 Ongoing

 Reconciled monthly office

Item 1.7

Implement
Administrative
Management

Item 1.8

Participate in
Professional
Development

expenditures
 Attended city-wide lead, planning,
and strategy team meetings
 Completed additional city-issued
requirements
certification

Allocation

Details

 Time commitment of staff
 FY26 budgeted funds for

Based upon any ordinance
amendments by City Council.
Some manuals and
procedures are applicable to
the current ordinance, which
may change as revisions are
made, at which point revised
drafts will be needed or new
items to draft identified.
The ordinance mandates a
review of CPD budget which
is then provided to the Board
for any recommendations
relevant to the next FY
proposal.

Standards by CPD

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from City
 Ongoing

 Completed training courses with
 Completed log of participation

Manager’s Office
administrative staff
 Support from relevant
department leads
 Support from supervisor
 Time commitment of staff
 FY26 budgeted funds for
professional development
 FY26 budgeted funds for
travel and meals

Oversight activity summary
reports are intended for
specific actions of the Office
including UoF panel reviews,
IA interview observations,
system audits, etc.
The office has an
administrative obligation to
other offices like finance,
HR, IT, and the City
Manager’s Office. These
commitments are expected
of every office in the city.
As the Acting Director, it is
important for this role to
continue to develop
oversight skills and
experience through training.

 Ongoing

Part 2 – Department Oversight
Action

Measures

Target

Status

Specified Timeline Action Items
 Completed review and draft

Item 2.1

Implement Ordinance:
Manual and Guide
Revision Drafts

revisions of:
o Case review manual
o Audit manual
o Hearing manual
o Reporting guidelines

 Jun 2026

independent legal counsel
50%
review (if applicable)
Completion  Support from City
(5/1/2026)
Attorney’s Office

 Completed annual CPD budget

Item 2.2

Implement Ordinance:
CPD Budget Review

audit
 Identified findings, outcomes, or
recommendations

 Time commitment of staff
 May 2026

80%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

Ongoing Action Items
 Completed case reviews prepared

Item 2.3

Implement Ordinance:
IA Case Reviews

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from IA

for the Board
 Identified findings,
recommendations, or outcomes

investigators

 Ongoing

Implement Ordinance:
CPD Audits

Item 2.5

Implement Ordinance:
Monitoring of CPD

Attorney’s Office

 FY26 budgeted funds for
 Completed audits prepared for the

Item 2.4

 Support from City

Board

 Identified findings, outcomes, or

recommendations

 Completed system and data audits
 Completed IA observations
 Completed investigation monitoring
 Completed Use of Force Panel

reviews
 Attended CPD interview panels
 Attended CPD-led meetings/events

 Ongoing

 Ongoing

independent legal counsel
review (if applicable)
 Time commitment of staff
 Support from CPD staff
 Support from City
Attorney’s Office
 FY26 budgeted funds for
independent legal counsel
review (if applicable)
 Time commitment of staff
 Support from CPD staff
 FY26 budgeted funds for
data analytics, research,
and development tools

The Board will conduct its first
case review once all
members are seated
(intended for March 2026).
The aim is to practice, train,
and refine the process and
clear outcomes of case
review.
The Office, in collaboration
with the Board, will identify
specific CPD practices,
procedures, systems, or
patterns to audit in an effort to
provide unbiased policy
recommendations (e.g. LPRs)
The Office continues to
engage in oversight functions
on behalf of the Board to
provide transparency and
insight into CPD policies,
practices, and procedures.

Part 3 – Board Support
Action

Measures

Target

Status

Allocation

Details

Specified Timeline Action Items
 Completed onboarding meetings

Item 3.1

Onboard New Members

Item 3.2

Draft Ordinance
Revisions

with new members
 Completed orientation and initial
training of new members
 Completed survey of Board member
experience and feedback

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from Clerk of
 Mar 2026

 Completed redlining and

presentation of set one ordinance
amendments (structure/clarity)

 May 2026

80%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

100%
Completion
(5/1/2026)

Council’s Office

 Support from IT

Department

 FY26 budgeted funds for

Board member professional
development

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from City

Manager’s Office

 Support from Clerk of

Council’s Office

The Office plays a key role
in onboarding and
orientation of new Board
members to ensure
technological needs are met
and a clear understanding of
Board initiatives is
developed, along with
engagement support.
The role of the Office is to
provide the Board, the City
Council, and city leadership
with an informed
understanding of the

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

 Completed redlining and

presentation of set two ordinance
amendments (authority/duties)
 Completed education of PCOB
members on set one and two
ordinance amendments
 Completed joint meetings with City
Council on set one and two
ordinance amendments

 Support from City

ordinance, implementation,
and relevant barriers. From
this understanding,
recommended revisions will
be made based on
applicable research and
legal advice. This effort has
been split into two rounds,
one in fall 2025 and one in
spring 2026 to address
ordinance clarification,
structure, and content.

 Time commitment of staff
 Designation of available

A primary role of the Office
is to ensure all needs are
met and procedures
adhered to for the
successful implementation
of public Board meetings
and planning sessions.
The core responsibility of
the Director is to support the
functions and work of the
Board through the provision
of information, research,
advice, and contracted
services. The Office also
helps to facilitate Board
engagement in authorized
duties and relations with city
personnel and the
community.

Attorney’s Office
 FY26 budgeted funds for
independent legal counsel
review (if applicable)
 Support from supervisor

Ongoing Action Items

Item 3.3

Facilitate Board
Meetings

 Completed meeting agendas
 Completed meeting minutes
 Completed meeting recordings
 Completed regular, special work,

and subgroup sessions

 Ongoing

Support
Board Initiatives

Item 3.5

Draft Supplemental
Document Revisions

Communications team

 Completed lead planning sessions

 FY26 budgeted funds for

 Completed weekly updates
 Completed resolutions and policies
 Completed provision of access to

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from CPD staff
 FY26 budgeted funds for

 Completed provision of Board-

 FY26 budgeted funds for

Board meals

relevant CPD records

Item 3.4

meeting spaces for Board

 Support from

requested professional services

 Completed provision of Board

professional development

professional development

 Ongoing

 Completed provision of support for

Board attendance at community
events and CPD engagements
 Completed provision of additional
Board and member needs
 Completed redlining and
presentation of supplemental
documents for Board procedures
and related policies
 Completed education of PCOB
members on supplemental
documents for Board procedures
and related policies

professional services

 FY26 budgeted funds for

travel and meals

 FY26 budgeted funds for

outreach and engagement

 Support from supervisor

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from City

Manager’s Office

 Support from City
 Ongoing

Attorney’s Office

 FY26 budgeted funds for

independent legal counsel
review (if applicable)
 Support from supervisor

The Office provides
evaluation of the practical
impacts of the Board’s
foundational documents in
relation to CPD, city policy,
and state law. Revisions are
often needed, or newly
drafted documents created
to support implementation of
the ordinance.

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

Part 4 – Community Engagement
Action

Measures

Target

Status

Allocation

Details

Specified Timeline Action Items
 Completed outreach process
 Completed community survey form,

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from community

 Completed development of initial

 Support from CPD

one-pager, and understanding log

Item 4.1

Develop a Community
Outreach Process

partners and connections

community directory of connections

 Completed Board and Office

community engagements

 Completed summary report of

community understanding gained

 Mar 2026

community outreach team
100%
 Support from the Office of
Completion
Human Rights
(2/1/2026)

 Completed documentation of public

comment on ordinance revisions

 Completed presentation of

The Office and Board have a
growing need to focus
attention on direct
community outreach with a
clear purpose to help
prioritize oversight work and
guide the topical focus of the
PCOB. The goal is to make
more direct communication
the norm and to build
personal relationships.

community understanding

Ongoing Action Items
 Completed log of Board

Item 4.2

Engage in Community
Messaging

Item 4.3

Engage in Community
Events

applications
 Completed summary of public
comments at Board meetings
 Completed responses to public
inquiry and outreach touchpoints
 Completed log and summary of
media engagements
 Completed summary and
presentation of engagements
 Completed press releases and
publicly distributed information
 Completed log and summary of
small-scale events
 Completed log and summary of
large-scale events
 Completed log and summary of
speaking or discussion
engagements
 Completed log and summary of
participation in department or
community initiatives

 Time commitment of staff
 Support from

Communications team

 Support from Clerk of

Council’s Office

 Ongoing

 FY26 budgeted funds for

outreach, marketing, and
engagement efforts

 Time commitment of staff
 FY26 budgeted funds for

travel and meals

 FY26 budgeted funds for
 Ongoing

outreach, marketing, and
engagement efforts

The Office is focused on
positive, forward-looking
messaging and engagement
with the community and
media for the purpose of
enhancing transparency,
accountability, and oversight
outcomes provided by the
Board in service to the
community.
The goal is to focus on
neighborhood-level
meetings, associations, and
events for more targeted
outreach and discussion.
The Board will seek to
develop concise and clear
messaging about the
services, work, and limits of
the Board, along with
oversight accountability and
transparency provided.

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

 Attended Virginia oversight group

Item 4.4

Engage in Oversight
Communities

meetings
 Attended NACOLE committee
meetings
 Completed log and summary of
oversight community engagement

 Time commitment of staff
 Ongoing

The Office continues to seek
opportunities for
collaboration with other
oversight entities within
Virginia and across the
nation and to learn from their
experiences and research.

(revised Dec 1, 2025)

2026 Work Plan
Police Civilian Oversight Board
The City of Charlottesville Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB) was established
pursuant to Virginia Code § 9.1-601 and Charlottesville City Code Article XVI to provide
objective and independent civilian-led oversight of the Charlottesville Police Department
(CPD). As stated in Section 2-453 of the City Code, the purpose of the Board is to
establish and maintain trust between and among the Department, the City Council, the
City Manager, and the public.
This 2026 Work Plan serves as the guiding framework for the Board's activities and
priorities. The plan outlines how the Board and the PCOB Office will fulfill statutory
obligations within Article XVI of the City Code. The plan establishes a monthly cadence
of community engagement, analysis, oversight, and reporting, enabling the Board to
remain responsive to community concerns while systematically advancing oversight. The
plan also delineates the respective roles of the Board and the Director in carrying out this
work, ensuring accountability and coordination between the Board and Office staff.
Police Civilian Oversight Board Members
Dr. Jeffrey Fracher, Chair
Dr. Kyle Dobson, Vice Chair
Andrew Frye, At Large
George Dillard Jr., LE Rep
Ruairi Vaughan, At Large
Albe LaFave, At Large
Office of Police Civilian Oversight
James Walker, Acting Director
Glossary of Terms
As part of the PCOB’s ongoing effort to make its work more accessible to the
community, the Board has developed a Glossary of Terms which helps to define and
provide understand both internally and to the community what is meant by certain
terminology and phrasing related to the Board’s work.

Purpose
This work plan establishes a monthly process by which the Police Civilian Oversight
Board organizes and conducts oversight work aligned with the regular monthly meeting
schedule. The process ensures that meetings are responsive to community experiences
and needs related to law enforcement while enabling meaningful prioritization of efforts
given the Board's limited time and volunteer structure.

Process
The work plan follows a four-step cycle: (1) Seek Understanding from the community, (2)
Conduct Analysis to identify themes and priorities, (3) Conduct Oversight through
structured Board action, and (4) Report Outcomes to stakeholders. Each step builds on
the previous, creating a continuous feedback loop between community input and Board
action. The Director of the PCOB Office supports the Board throughout this process,
facilitating research, conducting audits, and managing administrative functions.

Step 1: Seek Understanding
Engage in regular community outreach and collaboration to understand the community's
experiences with the Charlottesville Police Department and identify which law
enforcement topics the community prioritizes for oversight work. Seek the assistance and
input of community members while providing education, awareness, and guidance on
policing matters and the role of the Board.
Contacts
•
•
•

Utilize the Community Connections Directory to identify candidates for outreach
Structure outreach to achieve a well-balanced sample across the City’s diverse
neighborhoods, business districts, and community demographics
Track connections and maintain relationships with community connections

Methods
•
•
•

Utilize outreach methods such as canvassing, surveys, listening sessions, and
interviews
Host public community listening and discussion sessions on policing matters of
pressing public concern
Reference and build upon past work of the Board

Locations
•
•

Engage at community events, town halls, neighborhood association meetings,
organization-led events, and individual meetings
Host or participate in public police-community relations meetings

Messaging
•
•
•

Utilize the Outreach Process to guide conversations
Prioritize listening rather than explaining
Be prepared to answer questions, but also note questions requiring later or Officeled response

Documentation
•
•

Record understanding gained from the community using the Community
Understanding Survey or the Internal Community Insights form.
Document public input and recommendations received during listening sessions

Step 2: Conduct Analysis
Utilize shared community experience and understanding, along with available data and
Director-conducted audits, to identify themes, establish context, and determine focal
points for oversight work.
Collation
•
•

Summarize experiences gathered through community understanding efforts
Establish clear themes and throughlines across community input

Data Collection
•

•

Identify data sets that speak to and provide context on the themes identified
 Relevant data may include: complaint records and patterns, internal affairs
investigation outcomes, use of force data, arrest and detention patterns,
department expenditures, policies and procedures, training records, and crime
statistics
Request the Director conduct or provide audits examining patterns relevant to
identified themes

Discussion
•
•
•

Hold internal Board discussion to understand experiences at a narrative level
Establish connections between identified themes and the Board's oversight
authorities
Consider which type of oversight action is most appropriate for each identified
concern

Prioritization
•
•
•

Set the focus for the following month based on collection and analysis of
community experience, trend discussion, and context identified
Establish oversight work priorities through Board consensus
Assign specific oversight tasks as needed to Board members and the Director

Step 3: Conduct Oversight
Execute the prioritized oversight work through structured Board action, with the Director
supporting implementation. Work culminates in findings, recommendations, or public
reports as appropriate to the type of oversight conducted.
Scope
•
•

•
•

Define the specific oversight question or focus area based on the prioritized topic
Identify the type of oversight work to be conducted:
 Internal affairs review: Reviewing department investigations for accuracy,
completeness, impartiality, and sufficiency of discipline
 Policy, practice, or procedural review: Investigating policies, practices, and
procedures of the department
 System review or audit: Examining patterns in system use, application, and
impact, internal affairs investigations, arrests and detentions, expenditures, or
other public-police interactions
 Expenditure review: Analyze annual department expenditures and making
budgetary recommendations
Establish clear boundaries for the inquiry, including what is and is not within scope
Identify the intended output: findings, recommendations, disciplinary
recommendations, or public reporting

Research
•

•
•
•

Engage the Director to gather relevant information from authorized sources
 Sources may include: department policies and procedures, complaint and
disciplinary records, internal affairs files, use of force data, training materials,
department data systems, contracts and agreements, industry standards and
best practices, and comparable jurisdiction approaches
The Director may actively monitor department investigations of complaints with
access to records
Request additional information from CPD or through the City Manager as needed
If information cannot be obtained voluntarily, consider whether to seek subpoenas
through the Circuit Court

Analysis
•
•
•
•

Examine gathered information through the lens of community experience and
oversight objectives
Identify gaps, concerns, policy violations, or areas for improvement
Develop preliminary findings and potential recommendations
The Director may prepare an analysis report summarizing circumstances,
evidence, and suggested findings

Deliberation
•
•
•
•
•

Present findings to the full Board for discussion and refinement
Conduct closed session deliberations or public review hearings as appropriate to
examine facts, issues, and findings
Consider diverse perspectives and potential unintended consequences
Refine recommendations to ensure they are actionable, timely, achievable, and
measurable
Develop written findings with supporting rationale

Action
•

•
•

Issue findings through formal Board vote:
 For IA reviews: state concurrence with findings, non-concurrence with
recommendations, or finding of incomplete/unsatisfactory investigation
 For systems, budgetary, policy, practice, or procedure reviews: develop
written findings and recommendations with supporting rationale
Document the Board's decision, including any dissenting views if applicable
Assign responsibility for implementation or follow-up as appropriate

Step 4: Report Outcomes
Provide transparent reporting on the activities of the Board to relevant stakeholders,
maintaining accountability to the community that informed the work. Make public reports
on reviews, audits, hearings, findings, recommendations, determinations, and oversight
activities as appropriate while protecting confidential information.
Community
•
•
•
•

Summarize Board actions through community events, newsletters, or public
communications
Communicate outcomes in accessible language, showing how community input
shaped the work
Report findings to specific complainants within required timeframes
Engage news outlets as appropriate for broader public awareness

Chief of Police
•
•
•

Report findings and recommendations in monthly Community Statistics meetings
Provide written policy recommendations with supporting rationale
Track CPD response to recommendations; if declined, request written explanation
within 30 days

City Council
•
•

Communicate through brief presentations or written reports
Board members lead communications with Council on policy matters

•
•
•

Submit budgetary recommendations during the annual budget process
Present proposed state legislative recommendations by August 15 annually for
consideration in the City's legislative program
The Director provides an annual report detailing Board and Office activities for the
preceding calendar year

City Manager
•
•
•
•

Communicate through brief presentations or written reports
The Director leads administrative communications and provides reports on
oversight activities
Report findings from audits, reviews, and hearings
Escalate resource or structural concerns as appropriate

Work of the Board vs. Office
While Charlottesville City Code Article XVI provides a high-level delineation of the duties
and authority of the Board and the Office, this detailed list is meant to focus on more
specific duties of each side of the PCOB.

Public Relations & Community Engagement
Shared
•

•
•
•
•

Engage in outreach to community organizations, businesses, leaders, advocates,
and residents to ascertain the needs and priorities of the community related to
law enforcement
Host or participate in public community listening and discussion sessions on
policing matters of pressing public concern
Participate in public police-community relations meetings
Provide education, awareness, and guidance on policing matters and the role of
the Board
Track outreach connections made using the Community Understanding Survey
or the Internal Community Insights form.

Board Members
•
•
•

Represent the Board at community events, neighborhood association meetings,
and organization-led events
Build and maintain ongoing relationships with community members, inviting them
to participate in Board meetings through public comment
Communicate Board activities and findings to the public through presentations
and community engagement

Office Staff
•

•
•
•
•
•

Develop any digital or print materials needed for engagement, whether for
collection of input from community or creation of resources, educational
materials, or information to provide
Set up any event spaces or locations through the city and run any marketing or
news alert posts needed
Act as primary point of contact for media entities and ensure timely response to
media inquiries
Maintain the Community Connections Directory as a place to track outreach
connections
Document public input and recommendations received during listening sessions
Coordinate logistics for community events hosted by the Board

Evidence-Based Review of Policies, Practices, & Procedures
Shared
•
•
•

Identify themes and throughlines from community input that warrant analysis
Discuss audit findings and their implications for oversight priorities
Review department expenditure estimates and projections

Board Members
•
•
•
•

Request the Director to conduct additional audits by majority vote
Review and interpret audit findings in the context of community concerns
Make law enforcement budgetary recommendations to the City Manager and/or
City Council during the annual budget process
Prioritize data sets and topics for audit based on community understanding and
Board discussion

Office Staff
•
•

•
•
•
•

Conduct internal audits of prioritized data sets identified by the Board and/or by
the City Manager's Office and CPD.
Conduct retrospective examinations of patterns in internal affairs investigations,
arrests and detentions, department expenditures, and other public-police
interactions
Review department data systems to support oversight functions
Provide summary reports of any audits conducted to the Board and the City
Manager upon completion
Present department expenditure estimates to the Board for review
Prepare data visualizations and summaries to support Board analysis and
decision-making

Policy & Legal Review
Shared
•
•
•
•

Find specific general orders and policies related to the topic(s) of the month
Decide state legislative recommendations after considering what the biggest
challenges of the year were together
Make comments on the specific general orders and policies chosen for the month

Board Members
•

Review and make recommendations regarding policies, practices, and
procedures of the department

•
•
•

Present written findings and recommendations with supporting rationale to
Council, the City Manager, and Chief of Police
Approve retention of independent legal counsel from a list recommended by the
City Attorney
Authorize subpoenas by two-thirds vote when information cannot be obtained
voluntarily

Office Staff
•
•
•
•
•
•

Conduct and report on research on city policy, policing practices, and legal
implications related to the work of the PCOB
Draft and redline specific PCOB policy documents for preparation to City Council
agenda
Review department policies, practices, and procedures as part of ongoing
oversight activities
Attend department meetings relevant to oversight functions
Retain independent legal counsel on behalf of the Board after Board approval
and finance director endorsement
Apply for subpoenas on behalf of the Board when authorized by two-thirds vote

Direct Oversight of Law Enforcement
Shared
•
•

Discuss findings and suggested recommendations from monitoring and audit
reports
Consider whether to propose mediation or alternative dispute resolution to
resolve complaints

Board Members
•

•

Hold closed session deliberations or public review hearings examine facts,
issues, and findings of internal affairs investigations or law enforcement policies,
practices, and procedures
Issue findings on deliberations or public review hearing outcomes within 30 days

Office Staff
•
•
•
•

Receive, document, refer, and monitor citizen complaints of police misconduct
submitted to the PCOB
Participate in regularly scheduled use of force panel reviews
Decide when to include and ask PCOB members to join into aspects of the
processes above to gain additional perspective
Actively monitor department investigations of complaints with access to records

•
•

Prepare reports to the Board on selected review cases summarizing
circumstances, evidence, and suggested findings for each allegation
Participate in candidate interviews for CPD employment

Reporting & Administration
Shared
•
•

Ensure transparency in Board activities while protecting confidential information
Comply with all applicable FOIA requirements for public records and meetings

Board Members
•
•
•
•
•
•

Attend and participate in regular monthly public meetings and work sessions
Complete required ordinance training on ordinance-specified topics within the
required timeline
Maintain privacy of all confidential or privileged information indefinitely
Submit a written performance review of the Director to the City Manager for
inclusion in annual evaluation
Communicate with City Council through brief presentations or written reports on
policy matters
Participate in the Director interview and appointment process

Office Staff
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Manage all administrative and fiscal needs of the Board and the Office
Report to the Board on day-to-day operational activities of the Office
Report all oversight activities to the Board and the City Manager or designee
Provide an annual report to the Board, City Manager, City Council, and the
community detailing activities for the preceding calendar year
Provide additional reports as deemed appropriate to ensure transparency into
oversight activities and audits
Facilitate or provide Board member training on ordinance-specified topics within
the required timeline
Coordinate with the City Manager on operating procedures and standard
operating procedures
Maintain meeting minutes including date, time, location, attendance, discussion
summary, and vote records
Communicate with City Manager's Office through reports and presentations on
administrative matters

DECEMBER 2025 - JANUARY 2026
TASK
•

•

•

•

DUE DATE COMMITMENT BOARD MEMBER(S)

Identify requirements for stationary canvasing on the
Downtown Mall or other public venues. Organize
1/15/2026
Work Plan documentation for Board access.
Gain a historical understanding of community
experience from past Board documentation and
community input.
Create a glossary of terms to provide transparency
for all stakeholders of the City of Charlottesville.
Sharing reality through consultation of
asynchronous definitions through PCOB,
community, and literature
Choose an ordinance topic to understand and
summarize to the Board in lead up to a joint meeting
with City Council.

STATUS

4 Hours

Kyle Dobson

Complete
1/15/2026

1/8/2026

1 Hour

Andrew Frye

Complete
1/8/2026

2/12/2026

2 Hours

Ruairi Vaughan

Ongoing

1/8/2026

1 Hour

Jeff Fracher

Complete
1/8/2026

JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2026
TASK
•

•

•

•

•

Review the PCOB Outreach Process
 Ensure access to all related links
 Ask any clarifying questions about the process
or access to links
Identify and make at least one community
connections, following the established process
 Report progress back to Board and Director
Continue work on a Glossary of Terms to provide
transparency for all stakeholders of the City of
Charlottesville. Sharing reality through consultation
of asynchronous definitions through PCOB,
community, and literature
Review the Charlottesville City Schools
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding
School Resource Officers (SRO) to identify any time
the MOU refers or relates to a CPD General Order
 Provide a list and short summary of each CPD
General Order referenced in the MOU

DUE DATE COMMITMENT BOARD MEMBER(S)

STATUS

2/12/2026

1 Hour

All

Complete

2/12/2026

1 Hour

Vaughan
Fracher

Ongoing (5-6
made)

2/12/2026

2 Hours

Vaughan

Ongoing (2 short
reviews)

2/12/2026

2 Hours

Dobson

Ongoing (outreach
needed)

2 Hours

Dobson

Ongoing (outreach
needed)

Review the Charlottesville City Schools
Memorandum of Understanding regarding School
Resource Officers to identify responsibilities of CPD
and Officers where the Board could collect data and
establish metrics of accountability
2/12/2026
 Provide a list of specific requirements of CPD
Officers who serve as SROs that could be
monitored and provide ideas for what data would
need to be collected

FEBRUARY - MARCH 2026
TASK
•

Draft Ordinance Revisions
 Redlined version prepared for review by City
Attorney’s Office and independent counsel

•

Community Outreach and Messaging
 Messaging for public and media
 Participation in CPD community events
 Teen Expo event (3/20)
 Direct outreach to community leaders/groups
 Hispanic Community Police Academy (3/17)

•

Policy and Procedure Review
 School Resource Officer MOU
 Immigration-related procedures
 General Order: Use of Force

•

•

Direct Oversight of Law-Enforcement Incidents
 Use of Force Panel participation
 IA Case Review
Internal Process Development
 Glossary of Terms
 Small Group or Individual Member work product
templates
 Case review procedures and template

DUE DATE
(if applicable)

COMMITMENT

MEMBER(S)

STATUS

03/27/2026

Weekly 1-hour meetings
to review and refine drafts

Fracher

Draft language for
specific sections
developed

Engagement through cityOngoing with issued account for contact LeNoir-Kelly
LaFave
purposes and tracking
specific event
dates shared
Vaughan
Attendance at events for
weekly
Fracher
schedule timeframe

Some outreach has
taken place to
individuals, some
messaging drafted,
commitment to
specific events not
yet established

Asynchronous time as
At least one
available/desired and/or
before the April
established small group
meeting
meeting (2 members)

Dobson
Reaves
Frye

In person attendance at
Case review
PCOB Office or CPD for
before 4/2
at least 1 hour per
Panel as
specific incident
scheduled by IA
review/panel

Identification and
initial review of
some policies has
taken place with
planning to meet
with CPD reps

LaFave
Dillard

One case ready for
review

Ongoing with
aim to have
several
prepared by
April meeting

Vaughan
Dobson

Draft process
documents have
been developed

Asynchronous time as
available/desired and/or
established small group
meeting (2 members)