Is chief off limits to Citizens Oversight Board?
Mayor Michael Hancock did not consult the city’s police watchdog when deciding whether Chief Robert White should be disciplined over his handling of an open records request even though the independent monitor is a mayoral appointee charged with making recommendations in such cases.
The decision also is a reversal from the original investigation plan outlined by former safety director Stephanie O’Malley, and it is a departure from past investigations of police chiefs and sheriffs, who also are political appointees.
The Citizens Oversight Board, a public body that monitors police discipline and recommends policy changes for city law enforcement, is raising questions about why the mayor’s office determined — mid-investigation — that the monitor no longer has oversight of the police chief.
The board has more questions than answers at this point, said Katina Banks, the chairwoman.
“The Citizen Oversight Board is troubled the city determined the Office of Independent Monitor has no jurisdiction to make recommendations involving the chief,” Banks said. “The board’s position is if that is really what the law is, then we need to have a frank discussion over it. The interpretation seems contrary to the voters’ intentions.”
City officials declared the independent monitor, Nick Mitchell, and his staff did not have jurisdiction over the police chief because he is a political appointee and does not fall under the oversight of the city’s Civil Service Commission, which sets standards for hiring and firing the city’s police officers, said Amber Miller, a spokeswoman for the mayor.
“The unique aspect here is the chief is an appointee and the process is different,” Miller said. “The disciplinary decision lies with the mayor. The safety department is not involved.”
Miller did not offer further explanation as to who made the determination and why it came in the middle of White’s investigation. City Attorney Kristin Bronson referred questions to Miller.
The mayor announced last month that White had acted unprofessionally but had not done anything severe enough to warrant discipline in his handling of an open records request or his involvement in a car crash and chase.
White has since announced his retirement, although no date has been set.
However, when the investigation was announced on March 2, 2017, O’Malley issued a statement saying, “As Executive Director of Safety, it is my duty to provide civilian oversight to the Denver Police Department.” The statement went on to say an outside investigator would be hired and would work under the monitor’s oversight.
Interviews of people involved in the cases, including one with White, were held in the monitor’s office, which is housed in the former Denver Post building on West Colfax Avenue. A deputy monitor sat through every interview, including White’s, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.
In December, O’Malley’s office announced the outside investigator concluded her work and that the case was given to the Denver Sheriff’s Department’s conduct review office for analysis. The conduct review office typically studies sheriff’s department internal affairs cases and makes disciplinary recommendations. However, the sheriff’s deputies who work in the office do not have experience or training on the police department’s policies.
O’Malley’s announcement said the conduct review office would make disciplinary recommendations on Murray and when it came to White’s case it would “review the investigation for matters that apply to his conduct and organize it in a manner that can be presented for mayoral review with input from the Executive Director of Safety.” There was no mention of Mitchell or his office.
Banks said that is because the monitor was excluded when it came time to make recommendations in the White case.
“There is a reasonable question of what changed,” she said.
The independent monitor’s office was created in 2004 to make recommendations in disciplinary cases of police officers and sheriff’s deputies and to advise those departments in creating policies. Its duties are outlined in the city charter. While the monitor cannot impose discipline, the office must be consulted.
The office historically has participated in investigations into the police chiefs and sheriffs. The office took part in one investigation involving former police chief Jerry Whitman, one involving former Sheriff Gary Wilson and six involving former Sheriff Elias Diggins, according to an emailed response to The Post’s questions from Gia Irlando, the monitor’s community relations ombudsman.
The office also has participated in four investigations involving White, including the complaints filed against him for his handling of the open records request in 2016 and the car crash and pursuit in 2017.
White’s discipline hasn’t always been meted out by the mayor.
In 2013, White received a written reprimand from then-safety manager Ashley Kilroy for his involvement in a police car accident that was deemed preventable, according to his internal case file.
The Denver Police Protective Association, the union representing rankand-file officers, takes the position that what is good for every other officer at the department is good for the chief, said Nick Rogers, the PPA president and one of Mitchell’s critics.
“I believe if the monitor is allowed to make recommendations for the rankand-file officers of the Denver Police Department, he should be able to make recommendations for anyone who wears the badge of the Denver Police Department,” Rogers said. “There are double standards for the chief of police and the officers who respond to your burglary, your auto theft or your domestic violence call.”