photo by: Nick Krug

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

City leaders will consider allowing the Community Police Review Board to review police investigation files related to racial or other bias complaints under some circumstances.

A revamp of the board meant to give it more oversight has been underway since 2016, and the Lawrence City Commission considered taking the final step to establish the new version of the board Tuesday. Instead, after Commissioner Jennifer Ananda raised questions about the board’s access to investigations, the commission voted unanimously to defer the board’s creation and reconsider the board’s review capabilities. But police union representatives said expanding the board’s access to investigations could create issues.

As currently set up, the police department could only provide the board a summary of its bias investigation for review. In explaining her suggestion that the board have access to the police investigation file, Ananda said she thinks the board is the city’s opportunity to show it is committed to equitable policing.

“I think that here is our opportunity to say, ‘Look at how well our police department does,'” Ananda said. “‘Look at how open and transparent they are to having this review done, and committed to equitable policing in our community.'”

Last fall, the Lawrence City Commission voted to move forward with the creation of the board, which will help the city handle misconduct and bias complaints against the police department. As proposed, the new board will have the ability to accept complaints against the police from the public, which are forwarded to the police department for review.

The board can also review the findings of bias investigations if the person who filed the complaint disagrees with the findings and submits a written appeal. Those reviews would take place in executive session. If the board disagrees with the police department’s finding, it can then make a recommendation to the city manager that more investigation be done. The city manager then decides whether to reopen the investigation.

As currently written, the ordinance creating the board states the board shall “review the police department’s investigation to determine if further investigation is needed.” The ordinance isn’t any more explicit than that about what exactly will be provided to the board to review. When asked for clarification from the Journal-World, Assistant City Attorney Maria Garcia said in an email that, depending on the complexity of the case, in some cases it may be sufficient to provide a written summary of the investigation. Garcia said that in other cases the board may elect to hear testimony from a witness or the investigator.

But Ananda said she thinks it’s important for the board to see the police investigation file to be able to make an informed recommendation.

“I think that it’s important to ensure that we aren’t just taking the word of either the complainant or the investigative body,” Ananda said. “So it’s not because I distrust either, but the more information that board members have in a review, the better recommendation they can make to the city manager.”

The local chapter of the NAACP was behind the push for a more powerful police review board, and NAACP leaders agree with Ananda. Lawrence NAACP President Ursula Minor said the issue with the previous board, the Citizen Advisory Board for Fair and Impartial Policing, is that the investigation summaries provided by the police to the board offered “very limited” information. Though Minor said she is not saying the police department would do anything to alter the information provided, she thinks there is no reason to revamp the board if it doesn’t get more review power.

“I believe the board should be able to review the entire file,” Minor said. “I know that in the past, the data that they looked over was already scrubbed by the police department prior to seeing it. It was very limited. I believe in that situation, why have a board?”

The Lawrence Police Officers Association has some concerns regarding the board potentially having the ability to review the police file. LPOA Chairman Drew Fennelly said in an email that the LPOA believes that would have unintended legal consequences, and that the ordinance as proposed is sufficient.

“We will wait to hear from city legal staff on the topic before determining how to proceed, but are confident that the draft (ordinance) proposed Tuesday night addresses the concerns that initiated this discussion approximately 18 months ago,” Fennelly said.

When asked what are the potential legal issues if the board were to have the ability to review the police investigation file, Garcia said that city legal staff are reviewing the comments made at the commission’s meeting and will be conducting research. The Journal-World also asked the police department whether it has a position, and Capt. Anthony J. Brixius deferred to Garcia, saying that the city attorney’s office will be developing a response and recommendation.

Sgt. Amy Rhoads, the police department’s liaison to the current review board, previously told the Journal-World that there were two reports of alleged racial profiling last year, and the officer was exonerated in both cases.

The ability for the board to review the police investigation file in event of an appeal was one of several suggestions Ananda made. Others included expanding the definition of bias to be as expansive as the definition in the city’s discrimination ordinance, clarifying the standard of bias used, and clarifying whether the complainant and the officer accused of bias will have the ability to speak to the board as part of its review.

Both Ananda and Minor noted that there is a disproportionate number of minorities in the Douglas County Jail, and that the board could be one way to consider that issue. Ananda said she thinks the board is an opportunity to continue the community’s wider conversation around race.

“This is an opportunity to show, not only are we following best practices, but we want to be better than that,” Ananda said. “And that’s really what I’m hopeful for regarding this board.”