Denver’s elected leaders will consider a policy next week that would expressly give the city’s police watchdog the ability to investigate the police chief and sheriff after the mayor’s controversial finding last year that excluded the Office of the Independent Monitor from such investigations.

The proposed changes to city ordinance would override an argument the mayor’s office used to block the independent monitor from being involved in a disciplinary decision for a former police chief. The changes also would clarify the monitor’s powers and expand the citizen board that oversees the watchdog, said Robin Kniech, councilwoman at-large.

The independent monitor’s office is a civilian agency that watches over investigations into Denver police and sheriff’s deputies, makes disciplinary recommendations and suggests policy changes.

City officials said in May that the monitor’s office did not have oversight of the chief or sheriff because both positions are appointed by the mayor, though the monitor was involved in at least 12 previous investigations involving sheriffs and police chiefs.

The decision came in the middle of an investigation into whether former Police Chief Robert White improperly denied a public records request and whether he violated the department’s car chase policy when he pursued a driver who hit his SUV and fled. Mayor Michael Hancock, who did not consult the monitor, did not discipline White for his actions but said he should have acted more professionally.

“I think that the community found it shocking to learn that the monitor would not be able to ensure the integrity of an investigation into a chief or a sheriff, just because of how they were appointed,” said Kniech, who is proposing the changes along with councilmen Paul Kashmann and Paul López.

In their review of similar policies in other cities, the council members did not find any other jurisdiction where chiefs and sheriffs were exempt from independent monitor investigations, Kniech said.

Chiefs and sheriffs should be held to the same policies as their employees, Kniech said.

“There should not be a double standard or an exception for the boss,” she said.

The proposed changes come less than a month after the Department of Public Safety announced the creation of a new division tasked with investigating alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies and mayoral appointees in the city’s law enforcement agencies, including the police chief and the sheriff. By contrast, the independent monitor’s office is not part of the public safety department.

The city recently hired new safety leadership: Police Chief Paul Pazen and public safety director Troy Riggs both took their jobs last year. But the new ordinance isn’t a reaction to that, Kashmann said.

“I think we’ve got a good team in place. So this has nothing to do with keeping an eye on these individuals,” Kashmann said. “But a time may come when we’re not as happy with who we’ve got in those positions.”

The proposed changes also include a specific ban on retaliation against people who report concerns to the independent monitor and a requirement that law enforcement respond in writing to policy changes suggested by the watchdog. The changes also expressly allow the office to publish policy papers and in-depth investigations, like the report the office compiled on the case of Michael Marshall, who died after being restrained by deputies while he suffered a psychotic episode at the downtown Denver jail.

Council members also want to change who appoints members to the Citizen Oversight Board, which oversees the independent monitor. The proposal would expand the board from seven members to nine. Instead of the mayor having the sole power, the council and the auditor would also get to appoint members.

Nick Rogers, president of the Denver Police Protective Association, said the ordinance is an unnecessary attempt to solve problems that don’t exist.

“If you’re a dragon slayer, you’ve got to have some dragons. He has a solution, but there is no problem,” Rogers said. “That’s the problem with this ordinance … It’s unnecessary. The system works as it is. There’s nobody, no one saying that the system does not work as it is. The community doesn’t say that.”

Rogers agrees that it would be “common sense” to allow OIM oversight of investigations into police leadership, but he argued that the monitor’s office doesn’t have the expertise to weigh in on police policies about subjects such as arrests and firearms.

Nick Mitchell, the independent monitor, said council members and the Citizen Oversight Board consulted his office during their work and that he supports the changes.

“I think this is a good proposal,” he said. “The oversight has evolved and will continue to evolve, and I think the changes proposed reflect that this agency is now 15 years old and there have been changes over the years.”

Hancock issued a written statement on Thursday about the proposal: “We fully support the mission of the OIM — an office I helped to create while serving on City Council. Accountability and transparency are central to all we do as public servants. We look forward to digging into the details of this proposal with this Council.”

Councilmembers are scheduled to discuss the proposed changes at a committee meeting at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, but no official vote will be taken until a later date.