Limited public transparency for police oversight

Limited public transparency for police oversight

Published on September 18, 2025

Lea el artículo en español(PDF, 217KB)

DENVER - The Office of the Independent Monitor is not publicly reporting its recommendations involving Police and Sheriff Department misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions, according to a new audit from Denver Auditor Timothy M. O'Brien, CPA. The office is also not publicly reporting its review and evaluation of the departments' policies and practices. It cites deliberative process privilege for withholding this information.

"Because the public doesn't know what guidance the Monitor's Office is giving to the Police and Sheriff Departments, the public doesn't know whether those departments are responding. There is no visible proof of accountability," Auditor O'Brien said. "The lack of transparency is a disservice to law enforcement oversight."

We audited the Office of the Independent Monitor's oversight of Police and Sheriff Departments to determine whether the office is effectively carrying out its oversight responsibilities.

Recommendations on the sufficiency of investigations and disciplinary actions are not publicly shared

The Office of the Independent Monitor is Denver's civilian oversight body. The office makes recommendations on the sufficiency of misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions involving the Police and Sheriff Departments.

Denver city ordinance requires the office to prepare annual reports on its work and these reports should include the office's recommendations. But the ordinance also says the recommendations are subject to the deliberative process privilege.

The office did not include recommendations in its annual reports from 2018 through 2024 based on legal interpretations from the City Attorney's Office citing deliberative process privilege. This includes whether a recommendation was made, even without disclosing the context of the recommendation.

Deliberative process privilege is a legal term. It allows governments to communicate internally and confidentially. Discussions and documents from these conversations may not be subject to public information requests. It is cited to allow for honest and frank discussions on sensitive legal matters.

"Asserting deliberative process privilege prevented us from reviewing their recommendations and evaluating the impact the Monitor's Office is having on the discipline review process. More importantly, it reduced public transparency," Auditor O'Brien said.

The Monitor's Office reviewed 2,766 misconduct complaints received from 2023 through 2024. Of those, 1,225, or 44%, were related to the police and 1,541, or 56%, were related to the Sheriff Department.

Police and Sheriff Departments policies and practices reviews not publicly shared

The office's public reports from 2018 through 2024 had limited discussion of policy and practice reviews - including any concerns with existing policies and practices. In our audit of the office's procedures, we found very little guidance on why, how, and when its evaluations of the departments' policies and practices would be included in public reports.

The office also did not publicly share any assessments and recommendations on its review of these policies and practices.

"It's impossible for the public to measure the true impact and value of an independent monitor if information is restricted," Auditor O'Brien said. "Oversight should not be done in secret."

The office agreed with our recommendation to review city ordinance and city charter requirements about publicly sharing recommendations for investigations, discipline, and policy reviews. It is also reviewing its limits related to deliberative process privilege and public communication.

Perceived conflict of interest in report reviews

We found the office's procedures require its annual reports be sent to the City Attorney's Office for a review and feedback before being published. The Monitor's Office then sends these revised reports to the Mayor's Office and to Public Safety for additional reviews and input before publication.

But by asserting deliberative process privilege, we could not see the City Attorney's Office's review of the Monitor's Office's reports - including the affects those reviews may have had on the final published reports.

Without this information, the extent of the City Attorney's Office's influence on the office's reporting remains unclear. The reasons for any revisions cannot be evaluated.

"It's challenging to maintain independent oversight when legal compliance impacts transparency," Auditor O'Brien said. "The optics for how this could be perceived by the public is not good."

City charter allows for the Monitor's Office to retain independent counsel to provide legal advice, in place of the City Attorney's Office. The office agreed with our recommendation to review its policy of sending reports to the City Attorney's Office.

Mandatory and discretionary cases not tracked

We found the Monitor's Office's record keeping does not differentiate between mandatory and discretionary case reviews. Some case reviews meeting certain criteria are mandatory and other case reviews falling outside of that criteria are discretionary. Because the office is not tracking which case reviews are mandatory, and which are discretionary, it cannot easily determine how many reviews were required by ordinance.

The office agreed with our recommendation to track the difference between case review types.

Investigation timelines incomplete

The Monitor's Office does not comprehensively report on the timeliness of completed investigations in its annual reports.

We found that police misconduct cases took an average of 221 business days, while Sheriff Department-related cases took an average of 161 days. While the office does report on portions of the discipline process - days associated with the Police and Sheriff Departments - the public reports do not include the office's own review times spent on the intake of cases, investigation reviews, or discipline reviews. Without this information, the public doesn't know how long the whole process takes from start to finish.

Untimely investigations may lead to longer than necessary suspensions and longer periods of uncertainty for subject officers and complainants.

The office agreed with our recommendation to conduct an analysis of the review process and include it in its annual report.

No strategic plan

The Monitor's Office does not have a formalized strategic plan. An official plan would help the office determine how to best carry out its oversight responsibilities. Without one, it is not clear how the Monitor's Office will efficiently and effectively meet its oversight responsibilities.

The office agreed with all six of our recommendations.

"Because the office does not have the authority to implement policy changes within the departments, the office's ability to affect law enforcement improvements lies in its ability to inform the public about concerns. This can be done if the office takes our recommendations seriously and reconsiders how it provides transparency in its oversight of these departments," Auditor O'Brien said.

Our office will conduct a follow up audit to review whether our recommendations are implemented.

AUDITOR TIMOTHY O'BRIEN, CPA
Denver Auditor

Denver Auditor's Office

201 W. Colfax Ave. #705 Denver, CO 80202 Email: [email protected] Call: 720-913-5000 Follow us on Facebook Connect with us on Twitter

• Auditor