Lawmakers kill bill that would have stripped control of IMPD away from city

Legislation that would have stripped control of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department from the city’s mayor is dead for the year.

The Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee on Tuesday amended Senate Bill 168, which would have created a five-member board to oversee and govern the police department, to recommend the issue be discussed in a summer study committee.

As initially written, the governor would have been responsible for appointing four of the five board members, and the fifth member would have been the mayor in an ex-officio capacity.

But before stripping the bill to send it to a summer study, the committee approved an amendment from the bill’s author, Sen. Jack Sandlin, that changed the make-up of the board to be all Marion County residents and only gave the governor one appointment. The other members would have been appointed by the Indiana House speaker, the Indiana Senate president pro tem and the Indianapolis City-County Council. The fifth member still would have been the mayor in an ex-officio capacity.

The board would have been responsible for any ordinances governing the police department, overseeing the budget, assuming responsibility for the Indianapolis Police Merit Board and appointing the police chief.

Those are all duties currently delegated to Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett, a Democrat, and the Democratic-controlled Indianapolis City-County Council.

Sandlin, who served on the Indianapolis City-County Council from 2010-2016 and as a police officer with IMPD from 1973-1993, said he filed the bill after hearing complaints from residents about crime and perceived lack of action from city officials.

The committee also discussed—and ultimately killed—Senate Bill 394, which would have taken away power from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department General Orders Committee.

In October, the Indianapolis City-County Council approved a controversial proposal that added four civilians to that committee, which guides and approves department procedures. It had previously been made up of two members appointed by the police chief and one appointed by the police union.

SB 394, authored by Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, would have given control over all department procedures to the chief of police.

Blair Englehart, owner of public relations firm The Englehart Group, was one of the only members of the public to testify in support of either of the bills authored by Sandlin and Freeman.

Englehart said he’s leaving the city because crime has gotten out of control in recent years.

“COVID may have accelerated this issue, but the problem was already festering,” Englehart said. “The problem is the lack of leadership from the 25th floor.”

Edward Merchant, of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, spoke in support of Freeman’s bill, which would have applied statewide.

“It’s common sense, and it will lead to increased consistency in policing throughout the state of Indiana,” Merchant said.

Officials from Eli Lilly and Co., Cummins Inc., United Way of Central Indiana, the African American Coalition of Indianapolis, the Indy Chamber, Indy Urban League and the Indiana Public Defender Council spoke in opposition to the bills.

Anne Valentine, vice president of government relations for United Way of Central Indiana, described the bills as “out of touch.”

“We know that police reform is a highly charged issue,” Valentine said. “This is not an issue where one size fits all.”

IMPD and Hogsett’s office also opposed the bills.

Chris Bailey, assistant chief of police for IMPD, said the department has been focused on improving technology, strengthening relationships with other law enforcement agencies and improving transparency and accountability with the community.

“These are what’s necessary to continue improving the safety of Indianapolis and protecting the places people love to live, work, play and visit,” Bailey said.

Republican Sen. Mike Young, who chairs the committee, said he supported Sandlin’s bill but it had to be changed to a study committee, because it had a fiscal impact and the Senate Appropriations Committee wasn’t going to hear the bill before the committee-reading deadline on Thursday.

The committee also amended Freeman’s bill to be a summer study committee topic—against Freeman’s wishes.

“I had no desire for this to go to summer study committee,” Freeman said.

At Freeman’s request, the committee voted down the bill after amending it.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

7 thoughts on “Lawmakers kill bill that would have stripped control of IMPD away from city

  1. Could it be that some people would like to shift control away from the Mayor who was in drug/alcohol REHAB during the riots and told the police to stand down?

    1. There’s a way to get Joe Hogsett out of control. It’s called “defeat him in the mayor race in 2023”.

      It amazes me we don’t have a Marion County GOP that can’t come up with an alternative to what Hogsett is doing.

    2. The police are just as responsible for escalating protests to riots as anyone else. Nobody started rioting until teargas came out. Protests didn’t turn to riots when IMPD grew a pair and embraced the protesters instead of fighting them. And that’s the thing: adding teargas to a protest just causes chaos, which provides cover for bad actors to act badly.

    3. This bill doesn’t have a lot to do with Hogsett. It has a lot to do with nipping in the bud the idea that civilians should have some say in how police act towards civilians. If you’re the police with three seats on a seven member board and you can’t convince one civilian out of four that what you’re doing is a good idea, then it’s likely a bad idea. And if you can’t convince civilians that what you’re doing is needed, you’re not going to get the buy-in needed to support you.

      I still find it humorous that the only place that has such a policing system is Kansas City… they have the exact same problems as Indianapolis does and are trying to figure out how to return their police department to local control. But we’re going to copy what they’re doing?

    4. Excuse me, but where do you have proof that the Mayor was in rehab during the riots? I’m guessing I’ve got just as much proof that Donald Trump was at a Klan Rally on inauguration night.

  2. This seems to me to be a power grab by the state legislature. This is just one in a series of power grabs which includes a bill to curb the Governor’s authority to declare emergencies, as well as a bill to take control of the distribution of federal funds, such as covid relief. The latter situation, if passed, might be declared unconstitutional because it’s the legislatures job to legislate and the executive branch’s job to execute. In all of these cases, the state legislature is overstepping its authority in order to take control of everything they can, and that we allow them to do. Kudos to the business community for exerting their solidarity and purse strings to reverse the decision on the IMPD bills. The people win this one.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.