Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

26 Supervisor A separately and discussed their recollections of the incident. Those recollections were the basis of an HR report that was submitted to EPD in December 2015. • Our office’s preliminary investigation (conducted upon receipt of the complaint) included review of the HR investigative report. Finding that report to be inadequate, the complaint was classified as an allegation of misconduct; specifically, a violation of the City’s Respectful Work Environment policy. An outside investigator was retained to perform the investigation, which included recorded interviews with each of the involved parties and witnesses with whom they discussed the incident. The investigation was submitted to the City in October 2016. • Our office reviewed the investigation and found it to be unbiased and complete. Our recommendation to Chief Kerns, submitted later in October 2016, was that the allegation be sustained. • Chief Kerns issued his initial adjudication in January 2017; at that time, he stated that the evidence did not meet the threshold for violation of the City’s RWE policy. • Our office received new information related to this investigation in March 2017. At that time, the investigation was re-opened and re-assigned to the outside investigator for follow up. • At the conclusion of the re-opened investigation, our office found no need to submit an additional adjudication recommendation, as our recommendation had not changed. Chief Kerns re-adjudicated the case in July 2017. Allegations: APM 1.4 Respectful Work Environment: That Supervisor A’s actions violated the City’s policy promoting a respectful workplace. Recommended Adjudications: APM 1.4 Respectful Work Environment • Auditor’s Office: Sustained • Chief (initially): Did Not Meet Threshold • Chief (final): Sustained Issues for the CRB: Many members expressed concern that the issue had come to the Auditor’s Office. Had it been handled adequately or professionally by the Human Resource’s Office it would not have been handled by the Auditor’s Office. Many felt the Human Resource report should not have been accepted by the Chief of Police. The members also found it troubling that training on respectful work place and sexual harassment was only required at an employee’s initial hiring. Member’s agreed with the adjudication of the case, as the officer was clearly in violation of the policy. September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2