Merit board raises questions about adopting Indiana Code language, seeks clarity on disciplinary hearings

The Greenwood Merit Board Commission on March 12 debated a proposed ordinance that would align local merit-board procedures with the Indiana Code and asked for legal clarification before taking further action. Commissioners said the follow-up stakeholder meeting will include municipal attorneys and outside counsel to resolve procedural ambiguities.

Board members said the draft ordinance is easier to read than the current local code but leaves several operational questions unanswered. Commissioner Richard Jones said he wants attorneys to clarify how the draft treats the board’s attorney role and the mechanics of disciplinary hearings. "Who the attorney is going to be?" Jones asked, noting the proposed ordinance does not explicitly call for a board attorney as the current ordinance does.

Commissioners focused much of the discussion on disciplinary procedures. Jones and others contrasted the current ordinance — which they said requires a hearing once charges are filed — with their interpretation of state law, which requires an officer to request a hearing within five days or allows the board to act without it. Jones said the statutory approach can reduce wasted attorney time when an officer will resign rather than pursue a hearing. He asked the follow-up meeting to clarify whether hearings are meant to be internal to the department, held by the merit commission, or conducted by a third-party designee.

Members also raised a procedural item involving hiring: the existing ordinance appears to require a doctor's sign-off for a physical agility test, while in practice the department has used a liability waiver. Commissioners asked that the language reflect actual practice or be intentionally revised. Another concern flagged was the proposed ordinance’s omission of the mechanism used to verify political-party representation that is currently tied to voter registration in recent primaries.

Attorney Linda Meyer and others will be asked to review the specific language. The board listed expected attendees for the next stakeholder meeting, including Assistant City Attorney Terry Swinhardt and outside counsel Beth Copelan, and said the meeting is intended for clarification rather than immediate adoption. As one commissioner put it, "If you adopt the state statute, you can't change the statute," underscoring concern about ceding local flexibility.

The board made no final decision on adopting the ordinance at the March 12 meeting; members agreed to convene a follow-up meeting with attorneys and stakeholders to produce clearer draft language before any formal vote.