Columbus Inspector General Jacqueline Hendricks and Mary Younger, a member of the Columbus Civilian Police Review Board, described how their charter-created civilian oversight system investigates police complaints and makes recommendations to the police chief during an Anchorage Assembly work session on Feb. 7 requested by the Alaska Black Caucus.

Hendricks said the Columbus Department of Inspector General investigates allegations and furnishes reports to the civilian review board, which votes on findings and forwards recommendations to the Division of Police. “The Department of Inspector General is a city agency, and with that, it tells you that it also has to be confirmed by the mayor. But the Department of Inspector General is independent,” Hendricks said.

The presenters traced the board’s origin to a 2018 Community Safety Advisory Commission and a ballot question that Columbus voters approved by about 76% in 2020. “It started in in 2018. Our mayor, Mayor Ginther, organized a, Columbus Community Safety Advisory Commission,” Mary Younger said, explaining the commission’s review and recommendation process that led to the inspector general’s office and a civilian board.

Under the model Hendricks described, the inspector general’s office conducts investigations — using body-worn camera footage, CAD and arrest reports, and interviews — then prepares reports for the board. The board may request additional material, hold hearings, and make nonbinding recommendations to the chief of police and director of public safety; it does not impose discipline. “When it talks about the city code, the thing I love too is not just in the city code, I mean, not just in the charter, but also the city code defines what, and delineates what responsibilities and what jurisdictions,” Hendricks said.

Speakers highlighted operational limits and practical constraints: the office typically accepts complaints only for incidents within 90 days and works under collective-bargaining rules that set timelines and disciplinary procedures. Hendricks said the Division of Police has agreed with roughly 96% of the office’s findings in one characterization of the data, and elsewhere she described agreement rates “around 90%,” noting the office’s reporting and data collection are still evolving.

Presenters cited concrete changes tied to oversight: Hendricks and Younger said their work helped secure funding and policy changes that place body cameras on special-duty officers. They also described staff and budget growth: Younger and Hendricks said the inspector general’s office began with roughly a $1 million budget, later rising to about $2 million or more, and now employs roughly 16 staff, including eight investigators.

Assembly members asked about subpoena power, data on sustained allegations, training of board members and how disagreements with the police chain of command are resolved. Hendricks said the charter gives the office authority to request documents and that most materials are provided without a subpoena; she described training that includes ride-alongs, role-playing at the police academy and constitutional- and policy-focused coursework for board members.

Hendricks and Younger offered to answer follow-up questions in writing through the Alaska Black Caucus and encouraged assembly members to read the office’s annual report for greater detail. No formal action or vote was taken during the Anchorage work session.