Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence police review board debates outreach, whether to expand complaint scope
Summary
Members of the Community Police Review Board discussed a draft set of public talking points and whether the board should broaden its role beyond reviewing appealed complaints; city staff said any scope change would require city commission approval and pointed members to a recent work‑group report.
The Community Police Review Board discussed a draft set of public talking points and whether the board should seek authority to take a larger role in community outreach and complaint intake.
The board chair (name not specified) opened the agenda item and asked for feedback on a one‑page “elevator” description and frequently asked questions intended to explain what the board does and how residents can make complaints. Board member Brenda said the draft “meets the need” but might be streamlined; other members urged a succinct single‑sentence description the board can use at community events.
Board members and several members of the public argued the board should do more outreach and act as a gateway for residents who do not feel comfortable filing complaints directly with the Lawrence Police Department. “If I go to the Rotary Club…they’re probably going to have questions,” a board member said, arguing that members should be able to bring community concerns back to the department or the city commission. Eric Hyde, a resident, suggested community education and volunteer‑run workshops to explain how to file complaints and what police work entails.
City staff and the police chief told the board that expanding investigatory authority would require action by the City Commission. Chief Lockhart and staff described a months‑long reform work group that drafted the current ordinance governing the board and said the commission chose the board’s present role: reviewing appealed citizen complaints and engaging in outreach about that process. “They looked at whether the board should be a review board, an oversight board…and settled on the board being able to review level 1 and level 2 complaints,” a staff member said.
Board members agreed to continue the conversation at the next meeting and requested practical follow‑up: the chair or staff will circulate the reform work‑group report for members to review before the next meeting, and members asked that monthly complaint reports include incident date, date the complaint was received, and date complainants were notified of dispositions so the board can track timelines.
Why this matters: board members said clear, consistent talking points and visible outreach would help residents understand how to use the complaint and appeal process and could increase community trust in the system. City staff cautioned that policy or scope changes would require a formal request to the City Commission.
The board agreed to continue the topic at its next scheduled meeting on Feb. 19; no formal change to the board’s ordinance or authority was made at this session.
