Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee approves bill to make civilian general orders boards advisory, shifting final policy control to chiefs
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 284, which would prevent civilian-majority General Orders Boards from issuing binding directives and make them advisory, was approved by the committee after contested testimony. Supporters argued it preserves chiefs' operational control; opponents warned it would erode community trust and oversight.
A House committee voted to approve Senate Bill 284, which would bar civilian-majority General Orders Boards from issuing binding directives over police departments and make such boards advisory only.
Senator Carrasco, the bill sponsor, told the committee that "police chiefs and sheriffs should have operational control and responsibility for policies and their agencies," and argued that civilians without law-enforcement training should not issue directives that replace officers' judgment in high-risk situations. "This bill merely establishes that these types of boards may only operate in an advisory capacity and cannot issue binding directives to a law enforcement agency," she said.
Opponents, including Josh Riddick of the Black Church Coalition, urged lawmakers not to strip authority from boards that he said have produced concrete policy changes. "Passing this legislation would be a gut punch to trust between our law enforcement agencies and the community," Riddick told the committee, noting the board has enacted changes to foot- and car-pursuit policies and to race/gender tracking of stops.
Rick Snyder of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police also supported the bill, arguing the city already subjects IMPD to multiple review layers and contrasting training hours for officers and civilian board members. Snyder told the committee IMPD receives roughly 4,160 baseline and field training hours for recruits and that civilian reviewers typically complete about 40 hours. He said some civilian-majority policies have conflicted with state law or national case law, prompting state intervention.
Members debated whether the bill would preclude municipal innovations such as a public-safety director and whether improving appointment and meeting practices (rather than removing authority) would address the underlying concerns. Representative Gore voiced concern that the bill could remove a tool that helped build public trust after high-profile incidents. The committee voted to pass SB 284 by recorded roll call, 9–2.
The bill will move forward in the House process for additional consideration.
