The Denver Police Department is quietly rolling out a significant change in how officer misconduct is handled, and the public has never seen the policy or had a chance to weigh in. Under this new approach, called education-based development (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.
This policy wasn’t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input. Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor wasn’t 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’s a problem.
More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city’s 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.
Let’s be clear: This isn’t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it’s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What’s more, it’s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.
In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is “overwhelming support” for this change. However, this “support” 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.
What’s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There’s 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’s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.
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.
We’ve 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’s inconvenient.
While there is always an opportunity to offer officers additional training or learning opportunities, these should complement, not replace, a fair and transparent disciplinary process. Any significant deviation from the current disciplinary system must be done with full public transparency, clear evidence of effectiveness, and strong community involvement.
Right now, we have none of that.
We urge Mayor Mike Johnston, Chief Thomas, and the Department of Public Safety to pause the policy’s implementation and allow it to be brought into the open for a genuine community discussion. Let’s involve the Independent Monitor, the Citizen Oversight Board, the City Council, and — most importantly — the public. If we are going to change how police are held accountable, we must do it the right way.
Denver has led the way on police oversight before. We can do it again — but only if we follow the charter, the evidence, and the people.
Julia Richman is chair of the Denver Citizen Oversight Board. She wrote this op-ed on behalf of seven other members of the board: Vice Chair Tymesha Watkins, Karen Collier, Rufina Hernandez, Dawn Holden, David Martinez, Larry Martinez, and Alfredo Reyes. One seat on the nine-member board is currently vacant.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.