I'm still unclear on what defines a citizen review board if not a board selected by someone elected by citizens. Could you state your disagreement with that explicitly?

Would you think it's a good idea if there were a Presidential Review Board that is named by the President? After all he/she is elected by the people!

The whole point of a review board is to be independent of the authority it is supposed to review. So, a police review board mustn't be selected by a member of the police forces, even an elected one.

While what you're describing is a bad model when you want independent review, its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work.

The FAA, USDA, NTSB, etc all regulate industry by quite often asking the industry what regulations are needed and how to enforce them. Its common for industry to even be expected to enforce regulations on themselves, leaving us with situations like Boeing.

> its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work

I think there's a seachange in sentiment reflected in this thread that says these norms should be revised.

I'll be very happy if that's a broad sentiment reaching beyond HN.

Our regulatory agencies are worse for all of us when they're owned and operated by industry.

A peaceful change seems really, really tricky. Its so much easier to create regulations than remove them. Congress would have to ignore industry money and want to push through change, these agencies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and industry would have to deal with all the churn without cracking our economy since GDP and employment numbers seem to be the only things that really matter to our executive branch.

Drugs are approved largely by asking the company that patented it if is safe.

Yes they are, and I'd you read the studies given as evidence of safety and efficacy they're almost entirely garbage.

I'm not the previous poster, but the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question. No citizen with a brain is going to select police to review their own behavior, even if they are selecting them to do policing. In fact, I don't think you're unclear on anything: you're just attempting to direct people away from the actual issue with some bad-faith feigned ignorance.

>the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question [about power derived from elections].

Do they not belong because they are untrue, or perhaps because they make your taking exception to their argument incoherent? Nah, it must be that everyone who disagrees with you on the internet has no brain in bad faith.

It would be a board of citizens.

Otherwise you are suggesting a Police Review Board, aka Internal Audit which already exists.

because a citizen review board is supposed to be representative of the citizenry, not a group of people appointed by the person/thing they are reviewing. Many jurisidictions have rules around the composition, so not just "anybody" can BE on the board, but typically anybody can TRY to be on the board. Example: the legislation could state "a member from the city/town council, and n members of the public" or something similar, intended to promote broad oversight. This is the opposite of that.