Iowa City community police review board urges council to create citizen advisory option after state law limits review

Members of the Community Police Review Board told the Iowa City Council on June 16 that a recent state law has removed the board’s ability to review individual police conduct and asked the council to form a citizen advisory process and improve public guidance for filing complaints.

The board members, led by incoming chair Melissa Jensen and current chair Saul Mekas, said they did not reach a single board recommendation at a June 10 meeting but offered ideas including a city-appointed volunteer committee to recommend a non‑statutory advisory board, more timely public outreach and clearer instructions on where to file complaints now that the board’s review role may change.

"The civil service commissions do not provide checks and balances or transparency to police departments," said Marie Braddock, a recent board member, and recommended the council "appoint a committee of citizen volunteers . . . for the purpose of creating recommendations to the council for an advisory board for public safety." Braddock characterized the proposal as advisory and nonbinding: any structure would be returned to council for approval.

David (identified in the meeting as a CPRB member) told the council the CPRB had discussed how to encourage public reporting of officer misconduct even if the board loses review authority and recommended the board’s website explain statutory changes and point residents to the correct filing locations.

City Attorney Eric Horace told the council that because Iowa City has a civil service commission established under chapter 400, the recently passed legislation (referred to in the meeting as Senate File 311) would likely prevent any citizen body appointed by council from reviewing the conduct of individual officers. "If your question is, could we have a less formal, not‑governmental body . . . I think the answer remains no" for citizen review of individual officer conduct under the statute, Horace said. He added that informal discussion groups that are not governmental bodies may be permissible but would not be empowered to review officer conduct.

Board members and councilors also urged greater involvement by social‑service providers in police responses. Mekas said he had seen repeated police contacts with individuals where there was little or no apparent social‑services involvement; he recommended better coordination and suggested an advisory body could aid community outreach and education.

Council members asked whether the city could challenge the state law; Horace said he and other metro city attorneys had considered that question and did not identify a clear legal path to invalidate the statute. He recommended against leaving obsolete code text in the municipal code and suggested an ordinance repealing the CPRB could include explanatory "whereas" language to preserve the record of the board’s work without keeping nonfunctional code on the books.

Council members asked the CPRB to meet again and submit a formal recommendation to the council before the board’s scheduled sunset (the board noted it expected at least one meeting before the board’s authority ended in August). The council and staff also discussed alternatives that could operate within state law, including police‑led advisory groups, quarterly town‑hall events to hear policy questions and improved online guidance for filing complaints.

No formal council action or vote was recorded in the work session on June 16; the council requested the CPRB return with a formal, body‑level recommendation.

Ending — The mayor closed the CPRB discussion by inviting the board to continue deliberations and to submit a recommendation to the council; the session moved on to the next agenda items.