Greenwood chief proposes ordinance rewrite to align police hiring and discipline rules with state law

Greenwood commissioners spent the bulk of their regular meeting reviewing proposed changes to the city’s police ordinance intended to align hiring and discipline processes with state statute. Chief of Police James Isent presented the draft and outlined several substantive edits.

Isent told the board the hiring changes are “pretty straightforward,” including a requirement that applicants possess an Indiana driver’s license or obtain one within 60 days, exclusions for certain convictions (including domestic‑violence convictions), a two‑year lookback window for recent crimes or intoxicated‑operation incidents, and a provision that dishonorable military discharges would bar appointment. He also said the draft moves the physical‑agility test to the first phase of screening and adds a hold‑harmless waiver the commission must approve before candidates test.

The planning move on testing is procedural, Isent said, and “we already use one… it protects the city if they have a medical event during” testing. He indicated legal counsel will prepare the waiver form for commission approval and that the changes largely document practices the department already follows.

The most contested portion of the discussion concerned discipline and appeals. The draft attempts to reflect state timelines for short disciplinary actions versus more serious formal charges. Isent summarized that short penalties fall under an initial 48‑hour request window while formal charges that seek longer suspensions or termination allow a five‑day period to file for a hearing.

Commissioners pressed how the draft differentiates a commission “review” of a written request from a full hearing that accepts evidence, with one commissioner saying, “I don’t see how you can review anything without a hearing.” Commissioners asked that the ordinance consolidate overlapping subsections, rename subsection E as a “request for review hearing,” and remove cross‑references that point to the wrong paragraph so the process reads clearly. The group also noted a likely typographical cross‑reference and discussed the cited statutory authority (read in the meeting as "Indiana code 3683.5").

Isent emphasized the commission retains authority to overturn the chief’s disciplinary decisions and said the draft now explicitly gives the commission the ability to do so. “It gives you complete authority to override a decision that I make,” he said, adding that the change provides an additional safeguard for personnel actions.

Next steps: commissioners asked the chief and counsel to redraft the contested subsections for clearer flow (particularly d, e and g in the draft) and return the revised language to the commission for further review. No formal ordinance was adopted at this meeting.

The commission also handled unrelated business at the meeting, including candidate and claims votes (see separate article).