English

Audit uncovers limited public transparency for police oversight

the Auditor at your service

Timothy M. O’Brien, CPA, Auditor of Denver

Haga click aquí para leer la versión en español

For decades, tension has existed between the public and the Police and Sheriff Departments — fracturing the trust placed in the departments that are intended to protect and serve the public.That’s why my office recently audited the Office of the Independent Monitor, the civilian oversight agency for the Denver Police Department and the Denver Sheriff Department. The office makes recommendations on the sufficiency of misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions involving both departments.

Our work found that the Office of the Independent Monitor is not publicly reporting its recommendations regarding misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions. It also not publicly reporting its evaluations of the departments’ policies and practices. The office cites deliberative process privilege for withholding this information. Deliberative process privilege is a legal term that allows governments to communicate internally and confidentially.

Audit uncovers limited public transparency for police oversight

Residents can suggest which programs or contracts should be audited Wage investigation leads to gig app company policy overhaul Denver Labor protects the rights of all workers, including those at strip clubs Denver Labor helps 4,500 people recover more than $2M in restitution Shelter security and financial disorganization highlight Housing Stability issues My office recovers $500,000 for workers to start the year Auditor's Office Works for You

However, asserting deliberative process privilege prevented us from reviewing the office’s recommendations and assessing its impact on the discipline review process, ultimately reducing public transparency. We also found the office’ annual reports are reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, the Mayor’s Office, and the Department of Public Safety before being published. But due to the deliberative process privilege, we could not access the City Attorney’s Office’s review of those reports.

Additionally, the office does not differentiate between mandatory and discretionary case reviews and, therefore, it cannot easily determine how many reviews were required by ordinance. It also does not comprehensively report on the timeliness of completed investigations and lacks a formal strategic plan.

The Monitor’s Office agreed with all of our recommendations, including reviewing city ordinance requirements about publicly sharing recommendations, reassessing its report review process, and developing a strategic plan. The office’s ability to impact law enforcement depends on how well it informs the public. I hope it takes our recommendations seriously and reconsiders how it delivers transparency in its oversight. My office will follow up to ensure it meets its commitments.