Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

required revisions in order to reflect community values. Ms. Miller said it was not the commission’s charge to continuously review all POM policies; it selected subjects based on emerging community issues or identified risk. She said the Lexipol review would screen all policies against Lexipol standards. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission for its public service. She suggested that the commission provide any draft policy recommendations to the council. She was concerned that being paperless would create problems for those without computer access. She understood that the impetus for moving forward with Taser was to use them in lieu of lethal force, based on an incident involving the fatal shooting of a mentally ill man. She wanted to see the six-month data and a report on how to reach the objective of limiting Taser use to cases of lethal force instead of facilitating an arrest. She was concerned that it appeared the technology problems with in-car video had not been resolved. Chief Lehner said most of the technical problems were resolved early in the process. He said the evaluation was delayed, not eliminated. Mr. Pryor saw the Police Commission as a valuable support mechanism for the interface between the police department and the community. He said the availability of reliable data could prevent misinformation from circulating and he hoped that the preliminary data in six months on Taser use would be helpful to the council and the community. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the Police Commission’s Fiscal Year 2009 Work Plan. Ms. Taylor said she understood the Police Commission’s role was to advise the council on policy. Mr. Alsup and Ms. Miller agreed that was the commission’s primary charge. Ms. Taylor remarked that the council had not been involved in setting Taser policy. She asked about a recent incident involving Taser use. Mr. Alsup said it would be inappropriate for him to speculate on that matter. Chief Lehner reminded the council that the incident was still under investigation and all of the facts on which to base a decision were not yet known; any discussions of the incident should be delayed until the investigation was concluded. Mr. Poling was in favor of a six-month initial review of the Taser project, followed by a full annual review, instead of a “knee-jerk” reaction to recent incidents. He said when the Taser policy was being developed, the commission discussed both use in lieu of lethal force and including Tasers as another step in the use of force continuum. He said the intent was not to limit Tasers to use only in lieu of a deadly weapon. Ms. Ortiz said she also was concerned about the ability of people without computer access to receive information about the commission. Ms. Miller said that the commission itself had gone paperless, but materials were still available in printed format, as well as online. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Poling for his remarks on the use of force continuum as part of the Taser policy. He encouraged councilors to attend the modified academy to gain a better understanding of the types of situations and decisions that officers were faced with. He was concerned about discussing the Taser pilot project before data was available. He asked if there was a reason to consider the use of force continuum instead of a policy that limited Taser use to in lieu of lethal force. He also asked if adequate data for a review would be available at six months. Chief Lehner said Taser operational policy was guided by State law and training criteria and guidelines. He said the department received and took into consideration policy recommendations from the Police Commis- sion, but the policy was the department’s policy. He noted that EPD was one of the last departments in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 5 Work Session