Council extends interim police chiefappointment amid criticism of repeated short terms

The Lawrence City Council on Tuesday voted to extend the city’s temporary appointment for the interim police chief while the search for a permanent chief continues, after heated discussion about repeated short extensions and department leadership needs.

Council President Rodriguez brought item 94‑25 forward as an emergency request because the 90‑day temporary appointment of the interim chief had expired the day before. Councilors voted first to suspend the rules to consider the item immediately, then approved the extension. The motion, as recorded on the roll call, carried with eight votes in favor and one against.

Why it matters: Councilors expressed concern about continuing to extend temporary leadership at the police department and urged a faster conclusion of the search for a permanent chief. Members emphasized the operational risks of having a sergeant performing duties they said should be handled by a higher rank.

What the council discussed

Councilor Luzon said the repeated 90‑day extensions were problematic and argued the council needed an update and a firm timeline from the administration. “I’m concerned about this process, about taking a vote every 90 days to extend something that should have stopped months ago,” Luzon said. She also noted that the acting chief had reverted in rank to sergeant and warned that a long interim period sends a bad message to the department.

Councilor Del Rosario, who serves on the search committee, reported the committee had screened candidates and narrowed the field. “We had 12 candidates to review,” Del Rosario said, noting six moved forward and interviews were scheduled; the committee planned to recommend three finalists to the mayor for consideration and council confirmation. He urged patience with the process while saying he expected the mayor’s selection and a council confirmation vote soon.

Councilor LeBlanc raised charter timing concerns and recommended that, if the council adopts an emergency measure, it be aligned with the charter’s 61‑day emergency expiration or be amended to cover the full 90‑day period the administration requested. The council amended the motion to align with the charter timing and additional days to reach the requested 90‑day extension.

Vote and outcome

The council voted on the emergency appointment extension after discussion and roll call. The clerk read the roll call: Councillor Levy — yes; Councillor LeBlanc — yes; Councillor Luzon — no; Councillor Del Rosario — yes; Councillor Santiago — yes; Councillor Marmol — yes; Councillor Reyes — yes; Council Vice President Infante — yes; Council President Rodriguez — yes. The chair announced the motion carried.

Next steps and committee updates

Del Rosario summarized the search committee’s work: the committee reduced an initial pool to six candidates and planned interviews; after interviews three finalists would be forwarded to the mayor, who then chooses a nominee for council confirmation. The HR director told councilors the timeline provided by the consultant aims to conclude the process by April. Councilors asked for written clarifications on quorum rules for the search committee, tie‑breaking procedures and a copy of the vendor/consultant timeline; staff agreed to email that information.

Ending

Councilors who opposed repeated extensions said they would continue to press for a final selection quickly. The council voted to approve the emergency extension with the amended timing; the interim chief remains in place while the search and confirmation proceed.