Iowa cities are one step closer to being blocked from maintaining citizen review boards that provide oversight of their police departments, under a bill that passed Monday in the Iowa Senate.
At least six cities — Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Ames, Coralville, Dubuque and University Heights — would be required to dismantle their citizen police review boards if the bill becomes law. The Senate passed it in a 37-9 party-line vote, with four senators excused.
The move would eliminate a mix of long-established panels operating for decades and more that were established in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, which sparked calls for police reform nationwide in 2020.
Iowa Sen. Scott Webster, R-Bettendorf, chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, said the bill would defend law enforcement from “unwarranted prosecutions of frontline defenders.”
“Today, we send a clear message to brave men and women who put on the uniform every day that we stand on that thin blue line,” Webster said. “We have their backs. We stand with them, we respect them and we are grateful for their willingness to put their lives on the line and protect our communities, our schools and our families.”
The bill, Senate File 311, says cities with civil service commissions, which includes any city of more than 8,000 people, shall not “establish a board or other entity for the purpose of citizen review of the conduct of police officers.”
It would take effect Aug. 16 if signed into law.
Last year, a similar bill passed the Iowa Senate but did not advance out of committee in the House. But this session, the House companion, House File 641, is eligible for debate — the furthest the chamber has pushed the attempt to ban citizen police review boards in Iowa.
Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, told reporters these decisions should be made at the local level.
Iowa City’s citizen police review board was established in the 1990s, so these panels are “not a new invention,” she said.
“If the city council and their constituents decide that this is what they want, then they should be allowed to do it,” Weiner said. “And if the citizenry decides that’s not what they want, they’ll vote the people out or they will change it.”
These panels vary in how they operate based on a community’s policies, but typically are structured to review complaints lodged against sworn police officers and work to improve community relations between citizens and the police department. They may recommend actions to the police chief, but lack authority to discipline officers.
Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said during debate that the bill is yet another move in seemingly unending “intrusions on local control for city and county government from the party that used to claim they cared most about local control.”
He said the Ames Resident Police Advisory Committee, which had its first meeting in 2022, was intended to foster communication and build trust between citizens and the police department.
Based on information he received from city officials, he said Ames’ board made zero referrals of an officer to the police chief for any kind of disciplinary procedure.
“That’s the kind of policing I like,” Quirmbach said. “That’s the kind of solution to problems I like. You head off the problem before it becomes a problem.”
Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, last week introduced an amendment to the House bill to strike language banning citizen police review boards, keeping only the remaining provisions. No similar language was proposed in the Senate.
The bill also would make other changes to civil service commissions, which control hiring, promoting, firing and disciplining law enforcement officers and other city employees.
It requires communities with a population of at least 50,000 to appoint five to seven members to their civil service commissions, up from the current minimum requirement of three members for cities with a population exceeding 70,000.
Additionally, city employees with civil service protections could only be removed from their jobs, discharged, demoted or suspended with just cause. The bill would require a finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee violated the law, city policies or rules or is physically or mentally unfit.
Under the legislation, any city or civil service employee could appeal a civil service commission’s ruling in district court.
Cities would have to hire outside counsel if there is a conflict of interest between the city council and the city’s civil service commission. A city attorney, assistant city attorney or attorney who has ever represented the civil service commission could not represent the city or its employees in an appeal before the civil service board.
Currently, the district court review would be limited to an appellate review without a trial or additional evidence.
On the Senate floor, Weiner said it was already hard at times for cities to find three qualified people to serve on a civil service commission.
She worried the provision changing the process of reviewing a commission ruling would essentially create “a duplicate process” that is more costly.
Webster countered that cities could shift members of their citizen review boards to the civil service commission.
Though these boards typically cannot unilaterally take disciplinary action against officers, Webster said officers’ ability to defend themselves in front of citizen review boards is limited on specific cases because of the legal requirements facing law enforcement.
“That’s not what the state’s about,” Webster said. “That’s not what this country’s about. We believe that … you have due process to defend yourself. When they’re gonna have to go up against another trial, to an extent, inside of civil service, there is no reason for them to spill all their defense in front of a civilian review board.”
Before Gov. Kim Reynolds can sign off on the legislation, the House would have to pass it.
Marissa Payne covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. Reach her by email atmjpayne@registermedia.com. Follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @marissajpayne.
