20 hours Ago By Michael A. Hancock
In the ongoing debate over police reform in Aurora, it appears that confusion has overshadowed clarity. At the heart of this misunderstanding is the Aurora Consent Decree Monitor’s Community Advisory Council (CAC), created by the independent monitor to serve as a conduit for community sentiment — not a platform for activism. Far from a powerless or symbolic body, the CAC was deliberately designed with a single mission: to communicate the genuine concerns and insights of everyday Aurora residents back to the monitor, and to faithfully report the monitor’s progress to the community.
Unfortunately, some have sought to enlarge that role far beyond its intended scope. The misinterpretation begins when factions within the CAC step beyond their rightful boundaries. These factions contend the CAC should morph into a powerful agent of reform, wielding influence over police policies and city governance.
Yet that vision was never part of the original blueprint. Rather than embodying a consensus-based perspective for all citizens, these activist voices demand radical changes and use the CAC’s platform to champion personal agendas. In the process, the singular reason for the CAC’s existence — serving as a neutral channel of communication — has been compromised.
When activist fervor supplants measured dialogue, everyone suffers. The monitor’s task, essential to Aurora’s future, is reliant on trust — trust that recommendations arise from careful assessment of the city’s needs, not from the loudest or most extreme proposals. The CAC, if it remains true to its foundational purpose, can strengthen that trust by providing community-based feedback that reflects daily life in Aurora.
But when individuals use the CAC as a springboard for sweeping demands, the conduit is jammed with ideas having little to do with the council’s formal charge. At its inception, the CAC’s role was never vague: it would inform the monitor of honest reactions to reform efforts and keep citizens updated on noteworthy developments. This arrangement acknowledged that lasting reform emerges from reliable information and mutual respect.
The monitor, in turn, is charged with collecting perspectives, evaluating them through an independent lens, and then offering viable recommendations to improve policing under the consent decree. None of these mandates called for the CAC to become a central power broker or ideological pressure group. Some might argue that activism is necessary to spur change.
In many cases, that claim holds water — our nation’s history is punctuated by beneficial reforms initiated by outspoken activists. Yet activism must operate in the proper venue. The CAC was carefully constructed for a narrower, though no less vital, task: to relay factual insight and local sentiment to the monitor, who retains the authority to recommend remedial measures.
By design, the council is not a direct instrument of policy creation. Those who desire wide-ranging policy influence would do better to engage or become elected officials, organize within the community, or propose changes through recognized political channels. Regrettably, some recent media coverage suggested that the CAC stands torn between the “institutional needs” of the police and the “community needs” of Aurora.
In reality, the CAC’s formal purpose is less about mediating conflict than about offering a faithful barometer of citizens’ views. The mischaracterization emerges when activists presume to speak for all residents and transform the CAC into a platform for their cause. The result is a false narrative that pits an imaginary, monolithic community agenda against institutional prerogatives.
Ultimately, the CAC can thrive if it refrains from drifting into battles it was never designed to fight. Returning to its foundational role allows the monitor to receive credible, balanced input, which it can mold into pragmatic recommendations. By resisting attempts to co-opt the CAC as a tool for political agitation, Aurora’s residents will benefit from a calmer, clearer discussion of police reform — one based on trust, objectivity and an unwavering commitment to the public good.
Michael A. Hancock is a member of the Aurora Consent Decree Monitor’s Community Advisory Council. He is a retired high-tech executive, visionary, musician, and composer, who explores diverse interests—from religion and arts to politics and philosophy—offering thoughtful insights on the intersections of culture, innovation, and society.
.
