A police oversight board that was created at the height of racial justice protests in 2020 would be weakened under a Republican-backed bill.
Senate Bill 284 would strip away authority from the General Orders Board to set best standards and practices for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, including policies around use of force, critical incidents and arrest procedures.
Republican lawmakers want to make the board’s decisions non-binding, which would reduce it to an advisory role.
Sen. Cyndi Carrasco, a Republican who serves parts of Marion and Johnson counties and co-authored the bill, said she is concerned that a civilian-majority board “can result in risks to law enforcement and community safety.”
Critics also say the General Orders Board doesn’t meet every month as required and has numerous vacancies go unfilled for months at a time.
The board’s defenders say it provides an important layer of oversight over officers who harm members of the community.
“With this board in place, you have accountability, you have transparency, and this is a way to help bring about real change,” said the Rev. Darrell Brooks, co-chair of the board.
This isn’t the first time that Republicans have tried to weaken the city’s police oversight powers.
What is the General Orders Board?
The City-County Council created the General Orders Board in 2020 to give citizens a greater role in deciding IMPD policies and procedures.
The following year, state Republican lawmakers filed a pair of bills that would have given police chiefs the ultimate authority in setting general orders and handed the state greater oversight authority over Indianapolis. Both efforts were unsuccessful.
In August, Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, a Republican from the southeast side, introduced a proposal to make the General Orders Board an advisory body.
Democrats, who hold a supermajority on the council, voted it down in committee, so Hart and his colleagues turned to Republican state lawmakers for a solution.
“I used to be someone on council who didn’t want the state getting involved in local affairs. I think people get the governments they deserve,” said Councilor Josh Bain, a southside Republican. “That being said, we need your help in Indianapolis.”
‘Rein in Marion County’
The bill is the latest in a series of ongoing efforts by state Republican lawmakers to undermine the ability of Indianapolis residents to govern themselves.
Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, the bill’s co-author and a former city-county councilor, has frequently targeted Indianapolis through legislation.
He authored a bill in 2024 that would have jeopardized $150 million in federal funding for IndyGo’s Blue Line. In prior years, he pushed for legislation to give the Indiana Attorney General power to intervene in cases where county prosecutors are deemed “noncompliant.” The bill was inspired by Marion County’s Democratic prosecutor, Ryan Mears, after he promised not to prosecute simple marijuana possession cases.
In 2020, state lawmakers with ties to the real estate industry passed legislation that squashed Indy’s efforts to strengthen tenant protections and hold problematic landlords accountable.
Crista Lee Wells, a Democratic councilor who championed the city’s General Orders Board proposal in 2020, said the state legislature shouldn’t be impeding local rule.
“This isn’t new, and it’s failed before,” said Wells, who represents parts of the west side. “Aaron Freeman should stay in the Statehouse and allow the citizens of the city of Indianapolis to elect the people they want to elect, and have the boards and commissions they want to have.”
Rep. Susan Glick, a Republican from northern Indiana, said Senate Bill 284 is “an attempt to rein in Marion County once again.” Glick voted to advance the bill.
Carrasco said the change will apply to all 92 counties, but Marion County is the only county in the state to have a civilian-led law enforcement oversight board.
She said that law enforcement officers should be responsible for their own policies and procedures.
“This issue was borne out of law enforcement and asking what it is they need to be able to do their jobs to make our community safe. This was one of their number one priorities,” Carrasco said. “It’s affecting Marion County, but it’s statewide because it’s shown it hasn’t worked.”
What’s the status of the bill?
On Jan. 20, a Senate Committee voted 6-2 along party lines to send the bill to the Senate chamber. It needs to clear the Senate, which could happen as early as Monday, Jan. 26, before moving to the House.
The two Democrats on the Senate committee who voted against Senate Bill 284 said it was another attempt by the state to take away Indy’s ability to govern itself.
“My Republican city councilors seem to come over here every session and ask us to change something based on what you can’t get done at the local level,” said Sen. Greg Taylor, a Democrat who represents parts of Indianapolis. “I thought we were all about local rule. I really thought that.”
Brooks said he’s been told that local police officials are partnering with state lawmakers to get the bill passed.
IMPD Chief Chris Bailey, who is leaving the department to be Mayor Joe Hogsett’s chief of staff, declined Mirror Indy’s request for an interview. He also did not respond to a question asking if he had consulted with state lawmakers about the bill, though he has previously said that the board has lowered morale in the department and contributed to a negative public perception of IMPD officers.
Brooks, a member of the Black Church Coalition, said the group is mobilizing to stop the bill’s passage.
“This is a public safety issue. We want public safety,” Brooks said.
Indy Documenters cover police oversight meetings for the community. 📝 Read their notes.
Mirror Indy, a nonprofit newsroom, is funded through grants and donations from individuals, foundations and organizations.
Peter Blanchard covers local government. Reach him at 317-605-4836 or peter.blanchard@mirrorindy.org. Follow him on X @peterlblanchard.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
