My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Police Auditor Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 11/13/06 Work Session
>
Item B: Police Auditor Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:15:22 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 10:16:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/13/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
<br />o participant satisfaction survey results <br />o case summaries (one-paragraph brief descriptions) <br />o process improvements made (if .any) <br />. 0 annual trends and analysis <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />.:. Incentives for Participation; Promotion and Outreach <br /> <br />During the. Police Commission's early con.versations around mediation, concerns were raised about the <br />current practice of ~nding the complaint process when mediation' is selected. As MATT discussed this <br />point in more depth,. it considered whether changing this practice would create a significant <br />disincentive. for . police employees to agree to mediate complaints. Offering mediation.in lieu of <br />potential discipline and/or an unfounded complaint. on their record is a tangible benefit used to <br />encourage employee participation in mediation. For this reason, several programs consider me'diation <br />the end of the complaint process. Alternately, MATT questioned to what extent the fact that <br />mediation closes off options to seek resolution through the standard complaint process was a <br />disinc~ntive for, community members to choose mediation. <br /> <br />. . <br />In the report Mediating Citizen Com'plaints against Police Officers3, the authors cite getting both sides ~ <br />to the table as one. of the greatest obstacles facing a successful mediation program. The fact that <br />neither party is likely to have an on-going relationship, resolving the conflict in order to maintain a' <br />good relationship is not a compelling reason to commit the time and emotional energy to revisit a <br />negative interaction. Also noted is the fact that most internal.investigations are not sustained, so <br />officers are more likely to "let Internal Affairs address the issue than participate 'In' mediation, <br />. especially if the threat of an investigation is still a potential outcome. .1 <br /> <br />The report recommended a combination of incentives and persuasion targeted at both officers and . <br />community members, which is summarized . below: <br /> <br />a Tangible incentives for officers, including that a successful mediation removes the complaint <br />from personnel/disciplinary file and that officers mediate on-duty with pay. <br /> <br />o Informational material targeted for both community and officers that is clear and. brief and <br />explains the process and advantages and assures confidentiality. <br /> <br />o Personal contact to offer mediation and provide further explanation and assurances - the . <br />author notes the importance of who' makes the contact to the" likelihood that mediation is <br />acc;epted. . <br /> <br />o Promotion/encouragement from union officials and peers' that mediation is a good option <br />recommended. Frequent turnover in Internal Affairs with people.who do not buy into the <br />concept of .mediation was cited as a potential problem. <br /> <br />a Convenience for community members -scheduling flexibility, time limits. <br /> <br />MATT agreed with these recommendations in concept, and specific to' the question of whether <br />mediation should be offered in lieu of discipline, concurred that this practice should continue. While <br />"members acknowledged concerns that mediation ending the complaint process c~uld" be perceb/ed as <br />'overly-restrictive to community members,. changing this practice would be counter-productive. to the <br /> <br />3 Sam. Walker, Carol Archibold, Leigh Herbst, Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2002. <br /> <br />P~nA 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.