Today, the Topeka Police Department promoted Jennifer Cross and Donna Eubanks, with both reportedly moving into Criminal Investigations.
Promotions are not just title changes. They are messages.
They tell officers what leadership values. They tell the public what kind of judgment is being rewarded. They tell the rank-and-file whether work product, credibility, decision-making, and institutional trust actually matter.
That is why these promotions deserve scrutiny.
Jennifer Cross is not simply another name on a promotion list. She has already been at the center of litigation involving the City of Topeka and the Topeka Police Department. In the prior federal case, Cross claimed she was passed over for captain in favor of Jerry Monasmith and Aaron Jones. But the court record showed that Cross, Monasmith, and Jones were all marked promotable.
The department’s own stated reasons for selecting Aaron Jones were significant. His experience, public speaking ability, proven track record, high level of community engagement, past successful collaborations, and excellent reputation were all cited as reasons supporting his selection.
In plain English: Aaron Jones was not some random pick. He was experienced, respected, proven, and qualified.
Jones is not the only comparison point.
Jerry Monasmith and Colleen Stuart both attended the FBI National Academy, a major professional development credential in law enforcement leadership. That matters when the department is deciding who should be elevated, who should lead sensitive units, and who has demonstrated the broader professional investment expected of command staff.
Cross’s promotion-related claim did not survive summary judgment.
Now Cross is being promoted and moved into Criminal Investigations.
That alone raises questions. But the bigger issue is what reportedly comes with it: Lt. Kerry Connell, who was central to issues raised in Cross’s later lawsuit, will now reportedly fall under Cross’s chain of command.
That is a leadership decision worth questioning.
Connell filed a bullying complaint involving Cross. That complaint appears to have played a role in the disciplinary-plan dispute Cross later used in her second lawsuit. Whether one agrees with Cross, Connell, or neither, this is exactly the kind of history that should make leadership pause before creating a direct supervisory relationship.
Who looked at that history and decided this was the right move?
This is not just about Cross getting promoted. It is about judgment. It is about optics. It is about whether the department is creating avoidable conflict inside Criminal Investigations. It is about whether officers are being asked to trust a chain of command that appears to reward controversy while placing prior internal conflict directly back into the management structure.
The same questions apply to Donna Eubanks.
Many inside the department have long viewed Eubanks as aligned with Cross and not known for decisive leadership when it mattered. Yet she is also being moved into Criminal Investigations.
That move raises another concern.
Donna Eubanks’ husband, CJ Eubanks, is already assigned to CIB. If Donna’s new role places her anywhere in his direct or functional chain of command, that creates obvious concerns about favoritism, assignments, discipline, evaluations, internal complaints, and whether other officers can trust the fairness of the unit’s leadership structure.
Even if no improper decision is ever made, the appearance alone is damaging.
Police departments should understand that better than most. Perception matters. Credibility matters. Conflicts matter. The public is expected to trust the judgment of the department, and officers are expected to trust that promotions and assignments are handled fairly. These kinds of decisions make that harder.
So what exactly is being rewarded?
Work product?
Leadership?
Investigative judgment?
Professional development?
Credibility?
Or loyalty to the right circle?
Criminal Investigations is not the place for political placement, recycled conflict, family-chain-of-command concerns, or command favoritism. Victims depend on that unit. Detectives depend on competent supervision. Prosecutors depend on clean cases. The public depends on leadership that can make hard decisions without dragging old internal battles and obvious conflicts into new assignments.
If TPD leadership wants morale to improve, these decisions matter.
If the City wants public trust, these decisions matter.
And if officers are expected to believe promotions are based on merit, leadership should be able to explain why these moves make sense — especially when one promotion reportedly places Cross above someone connected to complaint and disciplinary history later used in federal litigation, and another places Eubanks into the same bureau where her husband already works.
Promotions should inspire confidence.
This one raises questions.
Truth over politics. Officers over ego.