Council inches closer to police oversight board
A resolution before council would establish a working group to define the make-up, powers of any eventual civilian oversight board. But council has not yet voted on that resolution.
As Laramie inches closer to establishing a police oversight board, the community is debating what role the police themselves should have on that oversight body.
The Laramie City Council heard public comments on the issue of an oversight board during its special meeting Tuesday. While the meeting was technically meant to be about a separate working group that will define and shape the oversight board throughout the next 12 months, discussion focused largely on the make-up of the eventual board itself.
No major vote was taken Tuesday, rather the two-hour meeting was opened up as a forum to hear resident opinions on Resolution 2021-18, which would establish the initial working group.
“At the federal level, as here locally, we see the deep complexity and concern surrounding policing and the manifestation of potentially embedded injustices within the criminal justice system,” City Manager Janine Jordan writes, justifying the resolution. “The need for the city to provide more robust information about our municipal policing services is clear and evident and, without it, residents can neither form fully informed opinions, nor provide knowledge-rooted recommendations about policing services.”
Many have vociferously advocated for the inclusion of law enforcement on the eventual board, citing the need to represent expertise in the profession itself.
Others argue just as vociferously that including law enforcement on the oversight board would allow the police to police themselves, and hinder any real accountability.
Here are some key highlights and takeaways from the Laramie City Council’s Tuesday meeting:
Much of the debate was essentially asking: ‘Who watches the watchmen?’ “You’ve got to have the average joe policeman work with this from the beginning,” Tom Mattimore said, adding that if a civilian oversight board instituted new rules or regulations without input from police, officers might resist those rules or even resign. Laurie Hill, who said she was close personal friends with several officers, said that members of the board or working group ought to read up on the relevant law, or they would risk opening up the city council to lawsuits. Sandy Rees went further, accusing police accountability advocates of not caring what happens to Laramie, alleging that they were “socialists” and social “justice warriors,” influenced by the University of Wyoming and planning to leave town as soon as they completed their “indoctrination.” Another commenter suggested that if Police Chief Dale Stalder did not personally want an oversight board, the city should not establish one.
Advocates for police oversight pushed back against these ideas. “Some folks are complaining that there’s not enough police representation on the proposed committee; I would argue the opposite: that there is too much,” Taylor Norton said. “What is being suggested is that the police should have a say in what kind of oversight they should receive.” Others followed this up by saying a police presence on the board would be intimidating for people who felt wronged by police, and discourage them from coming forward. Still others argued that a police member on the board would only serve to defend a misbehaving officer, should that specific scenario arise. Amanda Pittman, a member of Albany County for Proper Policing (ACoPP), said that a board without voting police members would still be able to consult with law enforcement when appropriate. “It’s just that for this board to work and operate properly, it would need to be independent in order to have the confidence of the public,” she said.
It’s been about 10 months since advocates took to the street to demand accountability and transparency from local law enforcement, nearly as long since the council agreed to take up the issue, and it could be another 12 months before the city actually establishes an oversight board. That pace could simply reflect the pace of government reform, but the process is draining for the activists who show up to council meetings every time there is discussion on the issue. Local defense attorney Linda Devine summarized this best: “We’ve been invested in this, many of us for over a year, and quite frankly, as you can probably tell from tonight, some of us are kind of worn out. We’ve talked to council, we’ve provided evidence-based information on the need for a board and here we are a year later, just starting an ad-hoc committee. If that’s what we need to do, that’s fine, but it’s really starting to get discouraging.”
What does the police chief himself think? Stalder has previously stated that his department is “not afraid of any scrutiny,” but reiterated at this meeting that he views a civilian oversight board as unnecessary. “As I indicated back on the 23rd of February, as well as meetings last year, I believe that the police department has adequate oversight at this time, and a citizen oversight board is not necessary.”
The board voted to table the resolution, and wait to take any concrete action until a later meeting. Council member Andi Summerville said she has questions about the working group’s make-up and some of the points in the resolution. “I would recommend we bring this back at our next regular meeting to actually vote on it and give everyone a minute to just sit and think on what we’ve heard tonight,” she said. Other councilors raised concerns about fitting the necessary discussions into other meetings. Anytime the issue is raised, there will likely be a flood of public comments, as there was Tuesday. “If it’s on an agenda with other items, it will take a majority of the time,” Mayor Paul Weaver said. This could be circumvented by hosting another special meeting solely devoted to the working group resolution. Ultimately, the council voted to do this, setting a special meeting for 6 p.m. Wednesday, April 7, with some councilors adding they will likely have amendments. Every amendment raised will necessitate its own public comment period.
-