Resident tells Chandler council police response to canal reports was delayed and records inconsistent

Brook Beal, a Chandler resident, told the City Council on July 17 that police responses to reports of violations along a city canal were delayed and that the city's call-for-service records do not match his account of events.

Beal said he notified police while walking on the canal near Pine Lake Park and recorded a sequence of texts and timestamps that he said differ from entries in the department's database. "I arrived at, 04:24, let them know I had arrived. Call for service database says that someone arrived at 04:31, while I was sitting on the stone there on the bridge, and then I left 4 minutes later at or 3 minutes later at 04:34. Clearly, that's inaccurate information in the database," Beal said.

The discrepancy, Beal said, continued later in the week: "On Tuesday this week, I sent 4 texts that only got 1 entry in the database. So the other 3 were ignored. They were never responded to, never entered in the database." He also said he requested guidance from the city attorney and had not yet received a reply.

The matter was raised during the unscheduled public appearances portion of the meeting. Council member Harris asked the City Manager to take a closer look and to continue coordinating city departments to address the issue. The City Manager responded that staff have been working across departments and that "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 manager also credited the assistant city manager, Ted, for work so far.

No formal motion or vote occurred on the public comment. The City Manager's statement constitutes staff direction to form an internal subcommittee to review reporting and response procedures and to return with follow-up information.

Beal named a specific location (the bridge at Pine Lake Park) and provided a sequence of times he says show delayed or inconsistent responses: he said he texted at 03:45, again at 04:04, arrived at the bridge and notified dispatch at 04:24, the call-for-service record showed arrival at 04:31, the sergeant was recorded as en route at 04:36 with an arrival time later listed as 05:08, and he received a phone call at 05:21. He asked the council for an explanation of the mismatches between his records and the department's logs.

Council members did not take formal action beyond asking staff to investigate. The City Manager indicated the subcommittee will be convened "very shortly" and will aim to provide direct answers. Beal's request for a response from the city attorney was noted but not resolved during the meeting; the record shows the attorney had not responded by the time of Beal's remarks.

The city did not provide a timeline at the meeting for when the subcommittee's findings or any follow-up guidance from the city attorney will be delivered.