Resident raises questions about police response and records at canal; city manager to convene subcommittee

Brook Beal, a Chandler resident, told the City Council on July 17 that he observed multiple violations along the canal and that police response and the department’s recorded timeline did not match his account. "Clearly, that's inaccurate information in the database," Beal said, describing call-for-service timestamps and delayed officer arrival times. "I would like an explanation for that." He also said he had asked for guidance from the city attorney and has not received it: "I have not heard anything from her yet. I would like to know when I can expect to see this guidance forthcoming."Councilmember Harris asked staff to continue work on the issue and to bring more stakeholders together for follow-up. "I just wanted to make sure that the city manager, continue to bring us together to work on this for September," Harris said.City Manager (unnamed) told the council that the assistant city manager has pulled together departments and that the next step is to form a subcommittee to address the reports and documentation issues. "The next step in that process will be getting the subcommittee together to work on addressing this issue so that we have better answers for you," the city manager said. He asked for a short period to convene the group and provide direct answers.The substance of Beal’s account: he said he texted police at about 3:45 a.m. while at Pine Lake Park and later received inconsistent entries in the call-for-service database. He said one database entry listed an officer arrival at 4:31 a.m. while he was still on the bridge and that a sergeant’s status showed "en route" at 4:36 a.m. with an arrival logged at 5:08 a.m.; he received a phone call at 5:21 a.m. The resident also said that on a later day he sent four texts to report violations but only one entry appeared in the records, and he asked for an explanation of the missing entries.The city manager described this as an interdepartmental issue being examined by staff and said the subcommittee will be convened "very shortly" to provide more detailed answers. No formal motion, vote, or ordinance was taken at the meeting; the council received the public comment and directed staff to follow up.The council discussion was limited to unscheduled public appearances and staff response; no policy was adopted, and the council did not vote on any policing or records-policy changes during the meeting.