My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A - ICMA/PERF Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 03/09/05 WS
>
Item A - ICMA/PERF Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:57:10 PM
Creation date
3/2/2005 3:34:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/9/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Unit Structure, Duties, and Training <br /> <br />There are currently two members of the department assigned to IA, one sergeant <br />and one civilian administrator. Both handle complaint intake and assign <br />investigations. This includes assigning case numbers to every case and inquiry. IA is <br />responsible for the review of completed field investigations, including checking for <br />thoroughness, correctness of closure, contacting Human Resource Services for <br />disciplinary consistency, and routing cases to the officer's chain of command for <br />approval. <br /> <br />In the past, any sergeant could conduct an IA investigation without training in the <br />processes and legal issues involved in these investigations. The review team heard <br />several accounts from sergeants that when they were assigned to an investigation, <br />they had to rely on word of mouth and examining previous investigations to <br />determine how to conduct one. This practice clearly lead to inconsistency in the IA <br />process and a general lack of quality in these types of investigations. Additionally, <br />the role of Human Resource Services in this process became ~nore prominent and <br />potentially too involved as a result. <br /> <br />Problems with incomplete and timely investigations, illogical findings and <br />conclusions, and inadequate managerial review have resulted in a lack of confidence <br />in the police department's ability to properly administer the complaint process. This <br />became evident in the number of concerns voiced at public forums on the police <br />complaint process sponsored by the Police Commission. In every aspect of the <br />process (intake, investigation, and discipline/review), the public expressed concern. <br />Issues ranging from a fear of retaliation to the mistrust of less than impartial <br />complaint investigators to a secrecy surrounding the process to a lack of <br />accountability and more were brought to light. The longer term implications of this <br />degree of distrust are that the public can be expected to expand their distrust to the <br />larger operational capacity of the police department. This type of decay of the <br /> <br /> 80 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.