{"id":321,"date":"2025-07-28T16:25:46","date_gmt":"2025-07-28T16:25:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sleepystork.com\/?p=321"},"modified":"2025-07-31T10:35:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T10:35:15","slug":"denver-deserves-better-than-a-backroom-deal-that-eases-police-accountability-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/sleepystork.com\/index.php\/2025\/07\/28\/denver-deserves-better-than-a-backroom-deal-that-eases-police-accountability-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"Denver deserves better than a backroom deal that eases police accountability (Opinion)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Denver Police Department is quietly rolling out a significant change in how officer misconduct is handled<\/a>, and the public has never seen the policy or had a chance to weigh in. Under this new approach, called education-based development<\/a> (formerly discipline), officers accused of wrongdoing could be diverted into coaching or retraining instead of facing formal consequences. While this may seem reasonable at first, a closer look reveals concerning flaws.<\/p>\n

This policy wasn\u2019t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input. \u00a0Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor<\/a> wasn\u2019t even given an opportunity to review the draft policy, as is required by city ordinance. Even now, the community has yet to see any actual policy language. That\u2019s a problem.<\/p>\n

More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city\u2019s police discipline ordinance. The system centers on the Office of the Independent Monitor, community input, and a formal disciplinary matrix. But education-based development could bypass all of that. The current proposal estimates that up to 85% of misconduct cases could be diverted outside this structure, circumventing the independent oversight that voters demanded in 2004.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: This isn\u2019t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it\u2019s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What\u2019s more, it\u2019s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.<\/p>\n

In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is \u201coverwhelming support\u201d for this change. However, this \u201csupport\u201d is based on an incomplete understanding of the policy, as the chief has yet to release the full details to the community. During select meetings with public safety organizations, concerns have been raised about shifting the focus from accountability to training.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There\u2019s no clear research showing that education-based discipline improves outcomes for cities or communities. The model is loosely based on a program in Los Angeles County, known for poor police conduct, and smaller communities like Pasadena, California, which use education-based development but do not replace traditional discipline. In Denver\u2019s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.<\/p>\n

The city deserves better than a rushed, loosely copied model implemented behind closed doors. Police discipline reform is a serious issue that requires careful planning, evidence, and, most importantly, community trust. That trust is already fragile, and the process by which this change is being pushed forward only weakens it further.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve seen this before: changes made in the name of efficiency, without regard for long-term consequences. In the context of public safety and civil rights, the consequences can be profound. Decisions about police conduct need to reflect community values, not just internal departmental preferences. Meaningful community involvement in significant changes provides legitimacy and community buy-in, and should not be bypassed just because it\u2019s inconvenient.<\/p>\n