Councilors advance proposal for ‘citizen review’ board

The board would not provide oversight, but it could review use-of-force incidents. The board’s seven members, which would include the police chief himself, would advise the chief on matters of policy.

A proposed “citizen review board” would allow appointed community members to advise Laramie Police Chief Brian Browne about his agency’s policies and procedures.

The Laramie City Council advanced a proposal for such a board during its meeting Tuesday, voting 8-1 to pass the ordinance on first reading.

Browne said he and his sergeants support the creation of this police-community board, and that such a board serves the long-term goal of building better relationships between civilians and cops.

“It is only part of what we’re doing as a police department,” Browne told the council. “We are actively engaging our community in a plethora of ways, including our new community-policing sergeant position … We are actively out there trying to engage our community.”

The new board would not have the power to hire, fire or discipline police officers, review personnel records, or any other powers reform activists would label ‘oversight.’

Efforts to pass a board with some of those powers stalled out last year, as Mayor Brian Harrington reminded the council and the public.

“It’s important to distinguish this from what council failed to move forward with, which was a civilian oversight board,” he said. “I think there is an important distinction to be made there. Regardless of your feelings on those, this is not that.”

Publicly, councilors argued an oversight board would be illegal and unnecessary; privately, they talked about fears that officers would resign if their activities started being reviewed by an oversight board. In the end, that argument won out and the oversight board was nixed.

The citizen review board now on the table exercises no control over the police department. Its members could, however, examine some specific scenarios in which officers used lethal or nonlethal force.

Could the board review use-of-force incidents?

By the letter of the law, yes. But it’s complicated.

According to its draft bylaws, the seven-member board would review use-of-force incidents during which “an officer engages in conduct which results in the death or serious bodily injury of another person” as well as review “any use of force deemed by the Chief of Police to be of high public interest.”

(These standards — “serious bodily injury” or “high public interest” as defined by the police — are also found in state law, and describe scenarios during which body camera footage is obtainable through a public records records request.)

But “reviewing” is all this board could do. They would not have the power to discipline officers they felt acted inappropriately, and any suggestions they make to the chief of police are simply that: suggestions. The police chief — and by extension, his boss, the city manager — are and will remain the decision-making authorities.

The board could make recommendations to the city council regarding use-of-force incidents they have reviewed, but the council exerts no direct control over the police department. In Laramie’s form of local government, the elected council hires a city manager, who in turn hires the police chief, who in turn oversees the hiring and firing of police department employees.

The power of review enjoyed by this board would also be limited by a lack of access to personnel records.

The city has maintained, for years, that much of the information surrounding use-of-force incidents is privileged under Wyoming public records law.

The argument is this: A use-of-force incident could, in theory, result in the discipline or termination of the involved officer, so documents surrounding that incident would fall under the categorization of “personnel files” — and thus not be released to the public.

This is the opinion of Laramie City Attorney Bob Southard. Other lawyers have landed on a different interpretation, arguing that “personnel files” needs to be more narrowly defined — but those other lawyers do not serve as the city’s legal counsel. So Southard’s interpretation is likely to guide the police chief in determining what can and cannot be shared with a citizen review board.

Okay, but what does the board actually do?

It mainly advises the chief of police.

The citizen review board would be a permanent body tasked with promoting “greater trust and understanding of municipal law enforcement training, policies, practices, and procedures,” according to the ordinance.

“It shall be the purpose and mission of the Board to expand public transparency and further accountability in the effort of promoting greater trust and understanding of law enforcement training, policies, practices, and procedures,” the ordinance states. “The Board shall promote the highest principles of professional police conduct including, but not limited to, training, hiring practices, policy, consistency in policing, community relations and outreach, use of force, and the review of citizen complaints.”

The board would have seven members. Three of those members would be the police chief himself, City Manager Janine Jordan, and a retired member of law enforcement. The other four seats would go to members of the public — appointed by the city council with a preference shown for those who bring a unique perspective regarding mental health, the justice system at large, or personal experience with incarceration.

This membership scheme was a point of contention both for those generally supporting the board and for those opposed.

Tracey Rosenlund helped to craft the police reform recommendations that led to this very proposal. During the meeting Tuesday, she said the citizen review board would be “a wonderful start that could be something great.” But she added that the inclusion of the police chief and his boss, the city manager, means that the board would lack independence.

Commenter Taylor Norton echoed this concern.

“It heavily skews the analyses of anything that might come before the board in favor of the police,” he said. “I’m not trying to say the police are inherently bad or anything like that. I’m trying to say that if a bad thing happens, it’s been shown historically throughout the country — and I don’t think Laramie is immune from this — that police will protect themselves and each other from consequences out of a sense of camaraderie.”

Those generally opposed to the board saw no issue with the police chief or city manager having a seat. They did, however, take exception to the idea that the board would welcome people who had been to jail.

“I find it peculiar that according to this resolution, you need to have a background check — and I assume you would want a background check to weed out the scum,” Commenter Tim Hale said. “And then you turn around in the same paragraph and (say) ‘Can we get someone who’s been incarcerated and probably has a criminal background?’”

Several councilors defended the idea of including voices from those most likely to be on the receiving end of police activities. Councilor Erin O’Doherty responded directly to Hale’s characterization of arrestees.

“Not everyone who has been incarcerated has committed a crime,” she said. “We have a justice system where sometimes people go to jail and they are found innocent. There’s no ‘scum’ among the citizenry of Laramie. All people deserve dignity. We’re human beings and we deserve respect.”

According to draft bylaws, all members would receive extensive police training — reading the department’s policies and relevant state statutes, participating in a 20-40 hour training program, and going for ride-alongs with on-duty cops.

The board would gather every other month for meetings that would be open to the public.

Does the board represent a meaningful change or is it just a PR stunt?

That depends on who you ask.

The difference between this “citizen review board” and an oversight board touches on the very core of the debate that’s been happening in Laramie for years. Activists, protestors, reformers and the families of those hurt during encounters with the police say that new oversight and accountability structures are needed to rein in very real problems.

But the citizens and officers opposed to those activists start from a different diagnosis: that the current division between police and civilians is driven not by real problems, but by misperceptions about what the police do and why they do it.

These are two separate conversations, but they often happen in tandem and result in a debate where arguments and counterarguments don’t quite line up.

For example, when a temporary committee was convened in 2021 to make police reform recommendations to the city council, that committee was divided between those who saw tangible problems with policing and those who saw public relations failures.

The end result was a list of discordant recommendations — some of which reflected attempts at reform and some of which simply sought to improve public messaging about police policy.

The oversight board — proposed and defeated last year — would have been an attempt at actual reform.

But the citizen review board now being considered is less about oversight and more about opening up channels of communication between select citizens and their police department.

And now that a citizen review board is on the table, the battle lines have shifted.

Who supports the creation of a citizen review board?

Most of the council, police accountability activists and the chief himself.

Some members of the public won’t accept any police board — regardless of its powers or lack thereof, and despite the police chief’s own support for the idea.

Commenter Rick Martin said oversight or review boards were unnecessary since Laramie has a good police force.

“Our police officers are dedicated professionals who stay within the boundaries of both the departmental policy and the law in the performance of their duties,” he said. “Review boards have the potential to lead activists with an ax to grind by exerting control over our local police force.”

Advocates for police reform, on the other hand, came out in support of this “citizen review” relations board — even though they would have preferred an oversight board. For local defense attorney Linda Devine, the citizen review board seems like a good start.

“Some might call me a community activist, but that doesn’t mean I have any ax to grind,” Devine said. “I don’t always agree with what law enforcement does. It doesn’t mean that I don’t like them or that I’m a cop-hater. What it does mean is that I sometimes see things that many of the public don’t see.”

As for the chief himself, Browne said he supported the creation of this board. He said he believes there already are sufficient oversight structures in place for his department.

“The notion that we do or we don’t have oversight — I can tell you, in the state of Wyoming, we do have a significant amount of oversight for policing,” he said. “It’s through Wyoming POST, it’s through the city council, it’s through our community members that we have to answer to every day, it’s through the city manager’s office.”

Councilors overwhelmingly supported the ordinance on first reading, with only Councilor Brandon Newman voting against. But some were more enthusiastic in their support than others. Councilor Joe Shumway said he was giving “a soft yes” as the council took its roll call vote, and Councilor Pat Gabriel said he was “open to persuasion” as talks continued.

The council will likely take up the issue again for second reading during its next scheduled regular meeting on June 20. The ordinance must pass a total of three readings.