State law removes complaint review power from Iowa City's CPRB; members weigh advisory alternatives

Iowa City’s Community Police Review Board (CPRB) spent much of its meeting reviewing the effect of Senate File 311, a recently signed state law that will bar city boards from reviewing citizen complaints about police officer conduct.

Board members and city staff discussed options for preserving civilian input after the bill takes effect Aug. 16, including an advisory committee convened by the police chief, quarterly "listening posts" for community questions, and an informational website update explaining complaint options.

Senate File 311 and immediate effect Jeff (city staff) told the board the packet included a copy of Senate File 311 and highlighted a new subsection that prevents a city or civil service commission from establishing or administering a board to review officer contact complaints. He said the bill is effective Aug. 16 and that city council invited CPRB members to a joint work session on June 17 at 4 p.m. to discuss next steps.

Why it matters Board members said the review function has been the CPRB’s most distinctive role because it gave the public access to information not otherwise public. With that authority removed, members asked whether a continuing, smaller or differently structured civilian role still provides value — for example by reviewing policy, informing outreach, or offering the chief a civilian perspective on difficult incidents.

Options discussed - Advisory group: Several members proposed that the chief assemble a voluntary advisory panel (size flexible) that could meet informally, outside the strictures of open-meeting and records laws that apply to council-appointed bodies. That panel would be available to review department policies and provide feedback when the chief requests citizen perspective. David Schwint (vice chair) and other members described this as a potentially less formal channel for sustained conversation between civilians and the department.

- Listening posts/community outreach: Members suggested periodic public forums or listening posts — quarterly or semiannual meetings advertised on the city website — where residents could raise concerns, receive information about complaint pathways, and learn about department policy changes. Board members said this could be coordinated with existing outreach such as the Community Police Academy and neighborhood events.

- Policy review (remote): Several members noted that, once the CPRB’s complaint-review authority is removed, the remaining activity (policy review and feedback) could be done remotely by volunteers with internet access. That raised the question of whether a formally staffed board remains the right structure.

Other existing options for residents City staff and counsel reiterated that residents may continue to file complaints directly with the police department and may also contact the Human Rights Commission. It was not decided whether the city will take legislative or legal action to challenge the law; staff said such options would have needed to occur before the bill was signed and that no city position has been set.

Next steps and staff role Members suggested the CPRB develop a set of recommendations for city council to consider at the joint work session: (1) ask council to investigate an advisory or listening-post model, (2) request a public-information release listing complaint avenues and explaining changes created by SF 311, and (3) identify community partners (for example, NAACP representatives and mental-health liaisons) who could sit on an advisory panel. Board counsel said staff could attend the council work session to answer legal and procedural questions if the board desired.

Ending Board members agreed to prepare ideas for the June 17 work session; staff will consolidate suggestions and the board will decide whether counsel should attend the joint meeting. The board did not take a formal vote on any of the policy alternatives during the meeting.