There certainly is no reason for the city to create a new citizens review board for the Lawrence Police Department if the goals of such a group could be met by expanding the duties of an existing city board.

When City Manager Tom Markus raised the possibility of establishing a new review board, attention was drawn to an existing board that was established in 2005 as part of a statewide effort to review police procedures and policies related to racial profiling. The existing group, the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing, no longer is required by state law but continues to monitor racial profiling complaints, as well as examining use-of-force reports filed when officers use TASERs.

The board meets only every other month, and many local residents aren’t even aware of its existence. Now its members are volunteering to take on new responsibilities in an effort to build a stronger relationshp between local residents and their police department. The first step, according to the board’s chairman, is to make local residents aware of what the board does and that it can serve as a resource for people with police-related issues.

It also may be desirable to change some of the board’s procedures. Currently, any complaint filed with the city goes first to the police department’s Office of Professional Accountability, which reviews video and audio recordings, conducts interviews and reviews reports. The department’s findings then are passed on to the advisory board.

That process seems backward and encourages the advisory board to act only as a rubber stamp for the police reviewers. As the city manager and some board members have noted, having complaints reviewed by an independent group instead of by the police department itself might give the public more confidence that their complaints are receiving impartial consideration.

If the role of the advisory board is expanded, it would be important that its members are willing to put in the time and effort to complete those expanded duties. The board was unable to take any action at its June meeting because only three of its seven members were present. To deal with complaints in a timely fashion, the board might have to meet more often and place added emphasis on meeting attendance.

Still, the discussion of increased citizen input for the police department should start with the existing Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing. Its name already implies a broad role for the board, and expanding its duties to match its name may be the best strategy.