The Roman poet Juvenal famously asked, “quis custodiet Ipsos custodes?” or “who guards the guards themselves?” More commonly, it’s phrased “who watches the watchmen?”

Whatever translation you prefer, the modern usage of the phrase concerns power. Who holds authority figures accountable? What do you do to make sure those responsible for policing society aren’t themselves involved in wrongdoing? It’s a fair question, and one that’s been debated endlessly over the past decade. Unsurprisingly, much of the discussion revolves around law enforcement.

One fairly popular way to address this issue is police oversight boards. The boards, staffed with civilians, have varying degrees of authority. In some jurisdictions, they simply meet to advise the chief of police. On the other side of the spectrum, some boards have actual authority over police policy and discipline.

The city of Salem, Oregon, has a police oversight board, and it recently caused a firestorm. Scotty Nowning, the president of the local police union, told Fox News that two city councilmembers are reconsidering their recent decision to reappoint Kyle Hedquist to the board. Officers don’t necessarily have an issue with civilian oversight. Rather, they’re a bit uncomfortable with that oversight coming from a convicted murderer.

While Mr. Hedquist’s appointment has caused a stir in Salem, it is far from unique.

In 1994, Hedquist shot and killed a 19-year-old woman named Nikki Thrasher in southern Oregon. He later admitted to the crime. He served almost 30 years in prison, but was released in 2022 when Governor Kate Brown commuted his life sentence. He was appointed to the Salem Police Review Board in 2025.

While Mr. Hedquist’s appointment has caused a stir in Salem, it is far from unique. In fact, some activists actually view police oversight boards as a way for those with criminal pasts to gain authority within the criminal justice system. At one time, Boulder, Colorado’s Police Oversight Panel’s webpage stated that preference for membership on the board would be given to people of color, homeless individuals, members of the LGBTQ community and people who had been incarcerated. In 2017, city officials in Oakland, California, actively encouraged “formerly incarcerated individuals” to apply to their police oversight commission.

It’s easy to see why police officers (and their unions) would be wary of having convicted criminals in a position to critique their conduct or dictate their operating policies. In Salem, at least, it won’t be an issue. The prodding by the police union led several councilmembers to change their position on Mr. Hedquist’s reappointment to the board. It turns out that the city never conducted any background check on Mr. Hedquist when he was initially appointed to the board in 2024. In addition to voting Mr. Hedquist off the board, the city council mandated that background checks be conducted on board applicants going forward.

Despite the resolution in Salem, this likely won’t be the last time that police departments deal with these types of issues. While Mr. Hedquist’s appointment may well have been some sort of oversight, the situations in Oakland and Boulder show that many activists consider oversight boards a way for avowed opponents of law enforcement to gain influence in the criminal justice system.