Criticism after Community Police Review board meeting cancelations

SOUTH BEND Ind.— Calls to reform South Bend’s Community Police Review Board following the cancellation of a second consecutive meeting intended to discuss recommendations tied to a viral body camera video involving a 14-year-old girl.

The video shows a South Bend police officer taking the teen to the ground while handcuffing her. The South Bend Police Department conducted its own internal investigation and concluded the officer did not act improperly.

Black Lives Matter South Bend spoke out during a virtual press conference Thursday, calling the situation unacceptable and a delay of justice, but not because of the board members.

“The board is not properly trained. They have not done things that will be necessary in order for them to perform their duties properly. That’s not a fault of the members of the board that is the fault of the mayor’s office, that’s the fault of the council, and that’s also the fault of the director that’s over this particular department we asked for this department we work to get this department put in place.” Davis said.

Former South Bend Common Council member Henry Davis Jr., a co-author of the ordinance that created the review board, said the city has failed to fully implement and support the board, leading to repeated delays and quorum issues placing complaints at risk of expiring before review.

Davis and community members argue the board was intended to serve as an important check and balance by reviewing police practices and making recommendations to the Common Council.

Mayor James Mueller said the ordinance establishing the board is flawed, was flawed to begin with.

“Now that there is a new board that is not appointed or controlled by the mayor, I think it may be time to reconsider how all these things fit together and what is best for the community” Mueller said in an interview with ABC57 Thursday morning.

A city spokesperson said the Community Police Review Board does not have the authority to discipline officers or change policy regardless of its findings.

“The City is committed to building trust between our police department and the community. The Community Police Review Board does not have any authority to discipline officers or make policy changes regardless of its findings. The recently established Merit Board, in accordance with state law, is a strong collaboration between our officers and appointees from the Mayor and Common Council to ensure SBPD remains at the forefront of 21st century best practices.”

The board’s attorney told ABC57 the review board has been in close communication over the past 24 hours and is attempting to schedule a meeting before the 60-day deadline of Jan. 6. If a date cannot be agreed upon, the board plans to shift its focus to a broader review of police practices and policies which does not carry a deadline.

The South Bend Fraternal Order of Police also chimed in saying concerns about the review board’s authority and structure were raised before it was created. In a Facebook post, FOP Lodge #36 said the board’s powers were overstated to the public and did not align with state law calling the Merit Board a more effective collaborative model.

“Speaking about the Citizens Review Board (CRB), these problems were not unforeseen. The FOP leadership spoke to the previous council and directly to Lori Hamman and Henry Davis Jr. It is on record that FOP leadership advised of the Merit Board law that was coming. FOP leadership tried to explain the powers that a CRB would or would not have according to STATE LAW. FOP leadership specifically asked how a CRB would function under IC code 36-8-2.1-2.1 as well as IC code 36-8-2.1-5 and IC code 36-8-3-2. Those questions then led into, at the time, House Bill 1016, that was the impending Merit Board law which WAS GOING into effect. The FOP asked, to no avail, many other questions. The problem is that the authors of the CRB bill did not want any representation from any other entities. The CRB was going to fail before it even started. To get the bill pushed through, the powers of the CRB were extremely exaggerated to the public, which in turn forced political pressure. If any fingers need to be pointed it should be toward the author of the CRB and the inability to follow through with a bill that coincides with state law, rather than an agenda driven, chip on the shoulder bill. I will be very clear...the current City Council is not the problem...the Mayor is not the problem...the FOP is not the problem. The CRB was finished before it even started. I would welcome anyone to look at the current Merit Board. The current Merit Board consists of representatives from the CURRENT council, mayors office and FOP. All three entities worked together with equal input. The Merit Board is also made up of volunteers, the Merit Board deals with discipline, promotion and accolades. The Merit Board does NOT have problems due to not having a quorum. The Merit Board proves that when we ALL work together we can accomplish greater things.”

Black Lives Matter Responding to that post in a statement reading,

“Again, they always want to question the intelligence of people who disagree with the them, but who have far more or just as much experience in police oversight as they do.

From the very beginning, going back over 5 years ago, it has been clearly understood that Indiana state law reserves the authority to hire, discipline, promote, or terminate police officers exclusively to state-mandated bodies, formerly the Board of Public Safety and now the Merit Board.

The Community Review Board was never created to override or duplicate those powers, and no serious participant in this process has ever claimed otherwise. Repeating that limitation does not undermine the CRB—it simply restates a legal reality that was already accounted for when the ordinance was written.

What is at issue, and what the FOP statement avoids entirely, is resident participation in community oversight. The CRB exists to provide transparency, public review, and a meaningful avenue for residents to raise concerns and receive accountability when policing impacts their lives. That function does not conflict with state law. It was deliberately designed to operate within legal constraints while still centering community voice. Attempts to re-litigate the scope of police discipline are irrelevant to the present discussion, which concerns whether the City is honoring its own ordinance, timelines, and quorum rules in good faith.

Finally, comparisons to the Merit Board only highlight the contradiction in the FOP’s argument. The Merit Board is a state-mandated body with institutional power; the CRB is a civilian oversight mechanism intended to elevate public dignity and accountability. These bodies serve different purposes. We also intentionally use the term “residents,” not “citizens,” because public safety affects everyone who lives here, including immigrants and non-citizens. Community oversight is not an attack on any institution—it is a democratic necessity, and it must be respected as such.”