By Cassis Tingley
Last week, the Denver Department of Public Safety announced a new directive rolling back independent oversight over the Denver Sheriff Department for a range of deputy misconduct offenses.
Misconduct complaints against DSD have been handled by the Public Integrity Division, which is composed of the Conduct Review Unit and the Administrative Investigation Unit, since 2018. Under the new directive, some offenses will only be reported to the AIU if they result in “actual harm” or “an incident,” while others will be cut out of AIU’s purview entirely.
In an email announcing the change, safety department head Al Gardner said the changes were about efficiency. It was “necessary to realign responsibilities and ensure that the Public Integrity Division functions as originally envisioned” and “reaffirm the Denver Sheriff Department’s authority over personnel matters that should rightfully be addressed and resolved by DSD,” he wrote.
Though PID falls under the umbrella of Denver’s Department of Public Safety, it operates independently from the sheriff department. It also shares its findings with the city’s Office of the Independent Monitor, which was established in 2004 to improve accountability for officer misconduct in the sheriff and police departments.
Gardner said the change was necessary because low-level investigations could take 18 months to complete. In contrast, Independent Monitor Lisabeth Pérez Castle said it’s a dangerous step back for public accountability.
“What they're doing with this directive is eliminating transparency, eliminating accountability and violating the public's trust,” Pérez Castle said in an interview. “The directive is in violation of the city ordinance and it essentially hides misconduct from the Office of the Independent Monitor.”
What does this change?
Under the previous disciplinary system, AIU, the safety department investigations unit, would conduct investigations of alleged misconduct. Those investigations were then certified by the independent monitor’s office, which would then send them to the Conduct Review Unit for review. The CRU would give a penalty recommendation based on the disciplinary matrix for approval by the OIM.
The matrix weighs factors like severity of misconduct, effect of misconduct on other people and the offender’s record of previous violations, with penalties ranging from “notice of improvement” and written reprimands for low-level offenses to 90-day suspensions and dismissal for the most serious offenses.
Now, that oversight for some lower-tier violations is going away.
Executive Director Directive 2026-001 completely removes the following offenses from the purview of the AIU and OIM:
- late reporting
- uniform violation
- and soliciting money for political purposes and business.
For more serious offenses like using a cellphone or having unauthorized weapons in secured areas, the watchdog bodies will only be notified “if an incident or actual harm occurs.” Deputies who fail to secure doors or miss their rounds will get referred to the AIU and OIM if the violation results in harm or for repeat violations.
Previously, these violations would have been investigated by the AIU and the reports would have been shared with the OIM regardless of whether or not they resulted in an incident or harm or were repeat offenses. Under the new directive, DSD will handle those investigations internally.
Gardner defended the changes in a statement to Denverite.
“My office will continue to hold accountable any employee who violates policy and will always prioritize the wellbeing of our staff and those in our custody. The Independent Monitor will also continue to oversee investigations and be notified of matters as set forth by the Charter and Ordinance,” he wrote.
“Currently, investigations regularly take between 12-18 months to complete. This includes low-level policy violations which are better addressed at the supervisory level to ensure deputies are provided with the mentoring and guidance necessary to ensure similar mistakes do not reoccur in the future. I appreciate the feedback received from the Independent Monitor and Citizen Oversight Board and look forward to working together in the future.”
But to Pérez Castle, this was about transparency. “They are turning back the clock on accountability to the time where there was little to no accountability coming from the sheriff's department,” the independent monitor said.
Communication has been lacking, oversight community says
According to the city charter, the sheriff department is legally obligated to provide the independent monitor’s office with “reasonable notice and an opportunity to make recommendations” before implementing new policies affecting the OIM’s work.
Pérez Castle says the OIM received a copy of the directive on May 14 with a deadline to set recommendations by May 22. Her office requested an extension to June 5 because of the directive’s significance, but the safety department published the directive on May 26 without any OIM recommendations. DOS declined to comment on their decision to publish without OIM recommendations.
The Citizen Oversight Board, the OIM’s community-led counterpart, also criticized the safety department in a June 1 open letter to Gardner for failing to tell them about the planned overhaul, despite their repeated questions about potential changes to DSD’s disciplinary system over the past year. Gardner said the directive was based on a “comprehensive review of the disciplinary process,” though he hasn’t shared the review in question and Pérez Castle says she hasn’t seen it.
The independent monitor and the oversight board have called for the Department of Safety to rescind the directive immediately, citing lack of transparency and proper notice, violation of city law, and overall shirking of public accountability. So far, the order remains in place.
