Advocates ask Cedar Rapids to lobby against Iowa bill to dismantle citizen police review boards

CEDAR RAPIDS — Members of local nonprofit Advocates for Social Justice are asking the city of Cedar Rapids to lobby against a bill — which advanced Tuesday in the Iowa Legislature — that would dismantle citizen boards that review local law enforcement functions like the one Cedar Rapids created in 2021.

The bill required Iowa’s five cities with civilian review boards to disband those boards and preventing new ones from forming in the state. The Iowa cities with the citizen review boards are Dubuque, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Coralville and University Heights. In addition, the bill would change civil service rules to make it harder for police chiefs to fire, suspend or demote officers they have determined to be “unsuitable or unfit” for their positions.

The House Local Government Committee advanced Senate File 2325 on a party-line vote of 13-6, with Democrats opposed and Republicans in favor. It passed the Senate last week 37-9, with Democratic support.

The bill’s advancement means it will survive a looming legislative deadline to remain eligible for consideration this session. The bill is now eligible for debate and a vote by the full House.

The bill restricts the removal or suspension of civil service employees to violations of law or city policies. It also would allow employees appealing disciplinary decisions before a civil service commission to request documents and depose witnesses.

Rep. Jon Dunwell, R-Newton, chair of the subcommittee, and other Republicans argue the state needs to ban the citizen review boards to protect police officers from “political interventions.” Dunwell did not cite any examples in Iowa of police review boards being politicized.

“The Civil Service Commissions are filled with citizens,” Dunwell said, responsible for overseeing the testing, hiring, promotion and discipline for police officers, firefighters and other civil service positions.

“And so this just creates a process that makes sure there's a fair and equitable” review of the actions of law enforcement, he said of the bill. “I mean, these are people's jobs, their careers.”

‘Commitment’ to community policing

Cedar Rapids advocates reached out to city officials last week to take issue with Cedar Rapids lobbyists being registered as “undecided” on the legislation.

After the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked nationwide calls for police reform in 2020, the advocates pressed the city to create a review board and worked with city staff on the ordinance establishing the panel.

The Cedar Rapids board doesn’t discipline or investigate officers. The police department’s Professional Standards unit investigates incidents and delivers findings to the chief, who reviews that report and provides it to the review board.

Angel Ramirez, a member of the advocates, asked the council to register to lobby against the bill. “Your inaction has indicated to constituents that you have just voted in favor of the CRB as a performative way to appease protesters and keep them off your back, not to actually keep your community a safe and just place for all,” Ramirez said Tuesday.

Cedar Rapids City Manager Jeff Pomeranz wrote in an email Monday to the advocates: “As a general practice, the City’s stance on proposed legislation leans toward neutrality. We find that registering as ‘Undecided’ on developing legislation provides greater opportunities for the City to share and listen to our lawmakers, keeping the door open to positive conversations while legislation develops.

“Along with the City Council, I continue my ongoing commitment to providing an environment where our citizens can work actively alongside the Police Department. The City will continue to work with our lobbyists to ensure lawmakers understand our community’s interest in supporting the Citizen Review Board.”

In a statement, Pomeranz said “the bill's complexity poses challenges in forming a definitive position based solely on specific elements” as it both updates civil service employee and procedures and affects citizen review boards.

“Not registering in opposition to the proposed bill does not diminish our commitment to listening to and addressing our community’s concerns,” he said.

Rep. Sami Scheetz, a Democrat from Cedar Rapids who has not yet voted on the bill, in a statement asked the city to support him in opposing the legislation.

Cedar Rapids’ board has been “a key component in building a more inclusive, safer and just Cedar Rapids,” Scheetz said. “... Our community deserves leaders who are clear in their convictions and who are willing to stand up for the mechanisms that enhance our collective safety and trust.”

Rep. Jeff Cooling, D-Cedar Rapids, said “undecided” is not a clear stance and doesn’t give lawmakers an indication on the city’s position. He voted against moving the bill out of committee.

Cedar Rapids faces ‘political reality’

After Tuesday’s council meeting, O’Donnell and council members David Maier, Ashley Vanorny and Tyler Olson spoke with the advocates in the council chambers. Ramirez said individuals on the council informed the advocates that they personally are in support of keeping the board.

Council member Dale Todd said the council has shown support for the review board, but the advocates “should be at the Capitol, not at a council meeting.”

“There is a political reality that the city operates in, based on facts, and in today’s Iowa Legislature we have about much of a chance in stopping this legislation as I do in beating someone in a 3-point shooting contest,” Todd said.

Maier, who was not on the council when it adopted the panel, told The Gazette that the review board is critical to developing trust between city leadership, the advocates and communities of color.

“The lack of trust between ASJ, marginalized communities of color in Cedar Rapids versus the mayor and City Council shows how much more work and focus we need to address the impact of long-standing institutional racism in many organizations in our community,” Maier said.

Advocates question lobbying strategy

Advocates mentioned other instances where the city has registered against bills in the Legislature. Since the 2024 legislative session started in January, city lobbyists have registered against five bills, three of which pertain to a proposed ban on automated traffic enforcement cameras. One bill is paired with language to crack down on motorists who talk into their smartphones as they drive.

Speaker Ayla Boylen read a statement on behalf of Harold Walehwa, a current review board member. In that statement, he said it has been an “eye-opening experience” to serve as a link between the community and the police by reviewing investigations and data to better understand the police department.

“The city's lack of action and decision not to use our resources to stop this bill does not make me feel that the city sees the CRB as a priority, especially when other cities did take a stance,” Walehwa’s statement said.

Comments: (319) 398-8494; marissa.payne@thegazette.com