Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

3 Introduction Ordinance 20374 which enables Eugene’s Civilian Review Board, requires the Board to “…prepare and present an annual report to the city council that: (a) Summarizes the civilian review board’s activities, findings and recommendations during the preceding year; (b) Assesses the performance of the police auditor…; and, (c) Evaluates the work of the auditor’s office, including whether the office is functioning as intended.” [ORD 20374; 2.246 (7)] Eugene’s Civilian Review Board (CRB) is designed to provide transparency and help ensure public confidence in the police complaint process. The Board evaluates the work of the independent Police Auditor, and reviews complaints to provide a community perspective about whether complaints are handled fairly and with due diligence. This annual report contains a summary of the work that the Civilian Review Board (CRB) undertook in the year 2017. As set forth in the ordinance case reviews and assessment of the police auditor and the auditor’s office are set forth in the case summaries. As in years past the bulk of this report centers around the cases reviewed by the CRB. While detailing the allegation, setting forth the issues discussed and outlining (briefly our discussions and findings) this report only touches on the work that we have put into our job. Our meetings are open to the public and provide an opportunity to review the complaint process and hear input from members of our community. Discussing complaints in public allows the community to learn about the complaint intakes, classifications, investigations and determinations as they are discussed openly and critically. We are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the involved parties. It also allows members of the public that have filed complaints to ask the board for review of their case at a future meeting. In our reviews full, open, and at times lively discussions have occurred. We hope that we have reflected the tenor of all parts of the community when we have these discussions. This means at times we have disagreed with findings, but we have attempted to the best of our abilities to be cordial and respectful of varying points of view. However, we must also be respectful of those who are not there whether it be the complainant or the officer of the alleged police misconduct in question. This requires a balance to the confidentiality to which we have all agreed to as a board member and the expectations of transparency in order for there to be public confidence in the system. This balance is an ongoing discussion of both procedure and performance. Our meetings are open to the public, yet rarely attended. We have detailed minutes, but some members expressed a preference for audio or video recordings. We strive to balance the actions of an officer (performance) with the expectations of action of the officer (written policy). We believe that we have, as in years past, found a way to balance transparency with confidentiality. There was open discussion that remained respectful of individual personnel matters. September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2