Alexandria City Council voted unanimously to disapprove proposed revisions to the city's police oversight ordinances after a lengthy staff presentation and a public hearing that drew more than a dozen speakers on both sides of the issue.

The vote came after a staff presentation from Amaratou, acting director of the Alexandria Independent Policing Auditor (AIPA), and Megan Roberts from the city attorney's office, which outlined proposed clarifications to the auditor and review-board ordinances and a compromise on subpoena language. The presentation traced the oversight effort from 2020's council discussions through the ad hoc committee that met weekly in mid-2024 to resolve implementation problems.

Councilmembers and residents said the central disputes were whether the Independent Community Policing Review Board (ICPRB) should retain the ability to initiate mandatory investigations and whether subpoena power should remain available as a backstop. The staff-recommended compromise would have the city manager compel APD cooperation and, if the manager declines, authorize the auditor to seek a subpoena from the circuit court. Megan Roberts summarized the legal baseline: "The subpoena power was always with the auditor."

Supporters of stronger civilian oversight said the proposed changes would strip the board of the investigative authority voters and residents expected when council created the review board in 2021. Tenants and Workers United and several board members urged restoring mandatory initiation power and keeping subpoena authority. Jonathan Kroll and Alexis Stackhouse, vice chair of the ICPRB, told council members the board's subpoena power is a necessary safeguard. Chris Lewis, chair of the ICPRB, told the council the board voted to press three fixes: an explicit statement that the board can review auditor investigations, a requirement that the board be able to initiate mandatory investigations, and restoration of subpoena authority.

Opponents, including Alexandria Police Department representatives and the local police union, said giving the board direct subpoena power would create legal conflicts, delay investigations and undermine officer protections. Sergeant Damon Minnick, representing the police labor union, said using the chief of police to compel cooperation instead of an independent subpoena "affords certain guaranteed protections" to officers and helps preserve timely fact-finding.

Council members asked technical questions about training, quorum thresholds for board actions and the practical workload of investigations. Staff said the ad hoc committee relaxed some training and quorum rules to let the board handle routine business while preserving a higher quorum for official case reviews. Amaratou described the workload for a major administrative investigation: intake, witness interviews, scene canvass, review of police records and often hundreds of hours of body-worn camera footage.

After public comment and council discussion, Councilmember John Aguirre moved to disapprove the ordinance as adopted on first reading and direct staff to form a subcommittee of two council members to revise the ordinance and return with proposed language. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Council action details are recorded in the meeting record. The council directed staff to bring a proposed subcommittee charter and timeline back at the next available docket so members can set work scope and a sunset for the subcommittee's work.

The decision preserves the status quo ordinances while staff and the appointed subcommittee negotiate language on investigatory initiation, subpoena procedure and implementation details such as training and memoranda of understanding with APD.

Councilmembers said they expect to complete the subcommittee's work quickly but did not set a firm deadline during the meeting; staff indicated a resolution to create the subcommittee can be docketed for the next regular meeting.

The council's action leaves the auditor and review-board structures in place while the parties attempt to resolve the operational and legal questions that surfaced during implementation and the public hearing.