In its first use of its authority to review discipline of a police officer, Cleveland’s Community Police Commission changed nothing.
The commission’s first evidentiary hearing, held Monday, involved a case from 2024 in which a Cleveland police officer got a six-day suspension following an Internal Affairs investigation that concluded he lied to a police department in another county that was investigating a stalking complaint made by his now-former wife.
The hearing centered on two “specifications,” similar to a charge in a discipline setting. In 2024, Chief Public Safety Director Dornat “Wayne” Drummond reduced the seriousness of one of the specifications and dropped the other one altogether.
Monday evening Drummond explained his rationale to the commissioners.
“When the officer was brought into internal affairs, [he was] forthright to the investigators and took responsibility for misleading the Medina Police Department,” Drummond said. Drummond’s disciplinary letter to the officer, Todd Kilbane, available in the case file, also indicated that the officer’s honesty was the reason for reducing the severity of that specification.
Drummond said he dismissed the second specification, for stalking, after determining that “there was not sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt.” Kilbane had not been charged with any crimes in Medina or Brunswick, another city where his estranged wife had filed complaints.
The commissioners seemed satisfied with Drummond’s responses.
Kilbane did not attend the hearing or send a representative to speak on his behalf. His former wife also didn’t attend. She did not ask the commission to intervene; the commissioners can choose to review cases on their own without a complaint from a citizen.
How the discipline review hearing unfolded
There were a few minor delays and moments of confusion during the hearing as commissioners worked through the newly developed process.
After about an hour, the commissioners left the public meeting room to discuss the case in private. When they returned, they voted and seemed somewhat confused about the process.
There were two votes, one for each of the specifications.
The commissioners could have increased the severity of the punishment for lying but voted 8-3 to let Drummond’s six-day suspension stand.
The second vote was on whether to override Drummond’s decision to dismiss the specification related to stalking. That vote ended in a 5-5 tie, with Commissioner Tera Coleman abstaining. With no majority, that vote also resulted in no change to Drummond’s decision.
Coleman said she abstained because she disagreed with “the motion [to vote] as presented.” Commissioner Shandra Benito-Moriera started to ask for clarification, but Co-Chair John Adams proceeded with the vote.
The vote was followed by public comment. Brenda Bickerstaff, co-founder of Citizens for a Safer Cleveland, criticized the commissioners for taking an hour to deliberate.
“But I’m giving you a pass because this is your first time,” said Bickerstaff, who was a leader of the movement to pass Issue 24, the legislation that gave the commission final authority over police discipline
Bickerstaff also seemed to chide the commissioners for not using their power to increase the penalties.
“Drummond should not have the power to do anything, he should not have that power to dismiss,” she said. “This is why we wrote Issue 24 – we don’t want the police to have all this power.”
“But you did what you needed to do,” she added. “You did what you were charged to do. I’m just bringing up my two cents.”
The commission’s next discipline review hearing will focus on the 2022 arrest of Antoine Tolbert, leader of New Era Cleveland. That hearing is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 24 at 6 p.m. Commission staff is looking for a location big enough to handle the expected high community turnout.
