Item B: FY07 Police Commission Work Plan

Home Browse Search

hoc committee did not directly involve the commission, its accomplishments are not included in this report. However, committee members gave monthly status updates to the Police Commission and asked for its input on several issues under discussion, including an appropriate salary range for this position. The following month, the commission submitted a work plan proposal for the remainder of the fiscal year to the City Council containing the following major tasks: craft operating principles/procedural details for the model to address outstanding issues and create framework for ordinance development; develop recommendations for review board membership qualifications, selection and training; discuss the structure and role of the Police Commission in relation to the new oversight system. The work plan was approved as submitted and in March, two committees were formed to begin work on the ordinance framework describing the authorities of the Auditor’s Office and Civilian Review Board. Both committees received sample civilian oversight ordinances from other communities and, based on those examples, developed an outline of the main areas of responsibility thought to be relevant to the system under development. The committees then drafted language for each section of the outlines, with the intent that once completed, the work of the committees would be merged into one draft document for review at a joint meeting. The City Attorney’s office provided comment to the committees throughout the development process with an eye towards ensuring the proposed language was consistent with the voter-approved Charter amendment. The committees both agreed that their charge was to create a framework describing the basic authorities for the oversight bodies, and that the to-be-hired auditor should have the opportunity to review and refine the draft document prior to it being presented to the City Council for possible adoption. Through this process, the committees identified and proposed resolutions to several outstanding procedural issues that were not addressed in the commission’s July 2005 oversight report, such as the size of the review board and membership qualifications. While further refinements will be necessary to translate the committees’ work into a draft ordinance, this process has been helpful to further define the oversight model consistent with the Police Commission’s recommendations. Staff integrated the work of the committees into one document for review and discussion at joint th meeting held on June 29. This meeting was an opportunity for the committees to discuss and possibly resolve procedural questions that were raised during the process, remove any redundant language resulting from combining the committees’ work into one document, and determine if any additional responsibilities or procedures should be added to the draft. Also at the joint committee meeting, City Attorney Sharon Rudnick was invited to discuss which portions of the framework would be mandatory subjects of bargaining and would need to be negotiated with the EPEA prior to implementation. In summary, Ms. Rudnick advised that the framework as proposed implicated two major mandatory subjects of bargaining: 1) the time frame for investigation and adjudication, and 2) confidentiality of personnel records.The full commission was scheduled to discuss the draft framework and City Attorney’s opinion at its July meetings with the intent to take action to forward its recommendations to City Council in August. Page 6 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report