Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, civil-rights leaders press Las Cruces City Council to revive citizen police review board discussion
Summary
Multiple residents and community leaders at the March 17 Las Cruces City Council meeting urged the council to return consideration of a citizens police review board to a future agenda, citing recent officer-involved trials, litigation costs and distrust of current independent review processes.
Dozens of residents and civic leaders asked the Las Cruces City Council on March 17 to reopen discussions about creating a citizen-led police review board, saying the existing outside-audit process does not adequately involve community members.
At the meeting’s public participation segment Dr. Earl Nissen said the group that proposed a citizens police review board years ago wants the council to “be put on the next regular meeting agenda for a discussion on implementation of a police review board.” He noted prior council interest and asked for renewed consideration.
Others expanded on that appeal. Michael Hayes said the council has been unwilling to confront problems in the Las Cruces Police Department, arguing the city’s contract auditor “whitewash[es] police departments” and that citizens need an oversight body that can hear complaints and discuss policies affecting the public. Bobby Green, president of the Dona Ana County NAACP, and other speakers asked councilors to revisit the resolution and working session held in 2023 and restart citizen–staff conversations with fresh membership on council.
Several speakers cited recent costly litigation and officer trials as motivating factors. Peter Goodman told the council a citizen board could “help prevent some of this, as well as helping to reinstate trust between the community and the police department.” Delanor Quinn, a former teacher and frequent meeting attendee, said she supports “citizen involvement” to bring transparency and help the department improve.
Councilors did not take a formal vote to create or charter a board at the March 17 meeting. Multiple speakers requested that staff place the subject on a future regular meeting agenda and that the city resume the stalled discussions from 2023. The council’s public record shows earlier work on an ordinance and a 2023 working session, and several speakers said at least four councilors then indicated willingness to continue the conversation.
Council responses during member reports signaled some continued openness: at least one councilor said they remain “in support of that” and encouraged further conversations involving the city attorney and police chief.
The council did not adopt a new policy, direct staff to draft an ordinance, or schedule a specific date on March 17; speakers said they would submit a written request to place the item on a future agenda.
