Lawrence City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St., is pictured on May 3, 2016.

There are a few things lacking with Lawrence’s board of citizens appointed to examine racial profiling complaints lodged against the city’s police department, audience members said on Monday.

In fact, some members of the board — the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing — happen to agree.

For starters, members of the board should be able to receive complaints independently from the Lawrence Police Department, said Barbara Johnston, a Baldwin City resident who spends much of her time in Lawrence.

“If I had a complaint, I would be intimidated by going in to the police department and telling them about it,” she said. “They’re going to look over the report and there could be some bias.”

Other audience members suggested if the board could expand their responsibilities, they might heighten their impact and create more trust within the community.

The board was founded in 2005 as a part of a statewide effort to review police department policies and procedures regarding racial profiling. The group meets once every two months and representatives from LPD attend in order to present members with any new racial profiling complaints that have already been investigated by the department’s Office of Professional Accountability.

The board also reviews use-of-force reports the department files any time an officer uses a Taser.

The board does not currently accept complaints, however. Rather, complaints must be submitted to the city, though changing that process has been a recent topic of discussion with the City Commission. And in the past, City Manager Tom Markus has said there may be advantages to allowing the board to accept complaints.

During Monday night’s meeting, Lawrence Police Sgt. Amy Rhoads said the department received one racial profiling complaint in June of 2016. However, because the complainant did not feel comfortable discussing the matter with LPD, they instead went to the office of Kansas’ attorney general.

In late October, the AG’s office submitted a letter to LPD saying its investigation determined the complaint was unfounded, Rhoads said. However, little additional information was available.

Board Member Adrian Jones questioned the role of the board if so little information was available with these types of outside investigations.

Responding to Jones, Lawrence Police Capt. Trent McKinley said generally more information is available; however, because LPD did not investigate the complaint, it did not have any information to share.

Aside from the single racial profiling complaint, Rhoads said there was one use-of-force report from Nov. 17 when officers used a Taser on a man armed with a knife.

The June 1 racial profiling complaint and the Nov. 17 Taser reports were not discussed earlier because the board’s December meeting did not have a quorum.

In addition, only five of the board’s seven spots are filled. Vice Chair Nicole Rials said she believed they would not be filled until the board’s role was better defined.

Jones noted that the board is pressing the mayor to make those appointments, and member Jo Anderson expressed her frustration with the current process and her desire for a “more cogent and clear role.”

Jones also said board chair Baha Safadi had intended to update the group on his discussions with city staff and City Commission members regarding expanding their role. Unfortunately, Safadi had to leave town for an emergency and could not attend Monday’s meeting, Jones said.

As the board’s meeting came to a close, several audience members piped up with questions and comments, though Rials noted the board would not host a public comment session.

Instead, Rials asked the audience to submit their questions and comments online.

Former Lawrence police officer Michael Monroe questioned that process, arguing that an open discussion is a better way for community members to let their concerns and questions be known.

“I think everybody here has come to this meeting because they have comments or concerns or input we would like to give to you,” he said. “I think several of us came because we thought we’d have the opportunity to address the board. That’s why I’m here, I’ve done it in the past.”

“I addressed the board through the website and received no response,” he added. “I’ve emailed the mayor about other issues and I’ve been referred to the city attorney because they don’t want to respond to me … The next meeting isn’t for two more months, so I’m going to have to wait two more months before I can comment.”

Jones said for the future, the board could potentially have an opportunity for public comment; however, members want to avoid any possible debates that could create a “long back-and-forth.”

After the meeting was adjourned, both Anderson and Rials said they were open to having more frequent meetings.

Another member of the audience, Tamara Cash, asked whether the board could review additional ethical issues with the department. As a hypothetical, she wondered if the board might be able to look into an officer’s behavior if a large number of their traffic stops came into question.

“I think there needs to be some avenue outside of the actual police hierarchy for people to discuss their concerns,” she said. “Otherwise, I don’t know …”

In response, Rials said if any responsibilities were added to the board, that directive would have to come from the City Commission.

“We’re trying to get it added,” Anderson said.

The board is scheduled to meet next on April 10.