Item B: Police Auditor Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mediation. Copies of any resolution agreements. developed will be provided to the partidpants, but are not retained by the mediator'or the City. o Neither an "agreement to mediate" nor "resolution agreement" should be required for facilitated conv~rsations, although an agreement may be an outcor:ne of such a conversation. . o Participation in any alternative complaint resolution process is. completely voluntary for both parties. Before offering mediation in lieu of .an internal investigation, the auditor will consult with the involved erru>loyee's supervisor and internal affairs staff to determine the appropriateness of mediation .for that employee/incident. o Alternative complaint resolution should focus on the involved parties and their concerns. As such, parties should recognize the increasing degrees of complexity when additional people are in the sessions and be encouraged to limit participation to those directly involved in the incident. However, by mutual consent, the parties can agree to have other support people present at the mediation or facilitated conversation. .Through the development of ground rules, mediator should work with the involved parties to determine what the roles and expectations of any additional participants will be, striving to achieve safety and ~ balanced environment for all. o If a complainant fails to appear for a scheduled mediation session without good cause, the involved officer should be provided with the choice of either attempting to reschedule. the mediation or having the case dismissed. If the involved officer fails to appear for a scheduled . session without good cause, the officer's supervisor should be notified and the original complaint processed through by Internal Affairs. o MAlT discussed whethet the program should use a co-mediation model, as is done in a few other program~ reviewed. Members recognized the potential benefits of co-mediation: having two mediators guide the discussion can bring complementary styles and more options to the table, which reduces the likelihood that the conversation gets "stuck" and often increases participants' perceptions. of neutrality and bala.nce. Using a co-mediation model can also assist in retaining a pool of experienced practitioners' by partnering new mediators with those who have conducted multiple police complaint mediations. However, it was brought to the group's attention that a single mediator might offer more. safety to participants as there. would be fewer people in the room. privy to confidential and potentially sensitive conversations. Further, it was felt that these sessions would require highly experienced and skilled mediators and it could be counterproductive to have new'mediators at the sessions, even if under th~ guidance of seasoned 'practitioners. For these reasons, MATT recommended against using co-mediation at this time. .:. Selection of Mediators An overarching goal of the MATT was to help establish an expanded police compiaint mediation program that reflects best practices and is. a viable, trusted alternative to the traditional co~plaint . process. To achieve this goal, MAn-emphasized that the program be regarded as safe, objective, and professional, which would help build credibility and trust in the process. Currently, the Human Rights Program arranges mediations and facilitated conversations with complainants, Internal Affairs and police employees, and assigns volunteers to conduct these sessions. In discussing this process, MATT noted several concerns around the perceived neutrality of this arrangement. Concurring .with Human Rights Progra-m staff, MAlT recommended that mediations be coordinated by an entity independent of the city organization. If adopted as practice, this recommendation could . Paoe 6 o '----: ;,-, }