Laserfiche WebLink
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations <br /> <br />VI. Oversight Model Frequently Asked Questions <br /> <br />1. What is a hybrid police oversight system and why was it selected? <br /> <br /> A hybrid system combines two distinct components into one system. In this case, the two <br /> components are a professional police auditor and a civilian review board. The commission is <br /> recommending a hybrid system of civilian oversight to build on the strengths of each <br /> component to best meet the community's expectations. The full time auditor monitors <br /> investigations for quality assurance and identifies systemic changes needed to improve the <br /> overall performance of the organization. The civilian review board creates opportunities for <br /> community members to review and comment on how the department investigates and <br /> responds to complaints, promoting a fair and transparent process. <br /> <br />2. What makes this model independent of the police department? <br /> <br /> To ensure structural independence of the oversight system, the commission recommends that <br /> the auditor be hired and report to the City Council, and that the City Council, with <br /> community input, appoints the review board members. The auditor's office will provide the <br /> staff support to the review board. So while the auditor and his/her staff are city employees, <br /> they will not be employed by the police department, physically located in the police <br /> department, or supervised by the Police Chief. <br /> <br />3. How does this model assure that all complaints are handled appropriately and that <br /> complainants are protected from retaliation? <br /> <br /> The intake and classification of complaints, which determines how a complaint is handled, <br /> will no longer occur within the police department. Instead, based on clear protocols, the <br /> auditor's office will decide how a complaint would be classified. The review board will <br /> monitor these decisions through review of quarterly reports. In addition, the ability to lodge <br /> complaints in the auditor's office is intended to provide a safe and neutral environment for <br /> complaint intake. People who are still anxious about the possibility of some form of <br /> retribution for filing a complaint may choose to lodge their concerns anonymously. <br /> Anonymous complaints will be taken seriously and will be classified. However, the auditor <br /> will not be able to conduct follow-up communications with an anonymous complainant. <br /> <br />4. Why does this system still allow police to investigate police? <br /> <br /> One of the fundamental values for the complaint system is the desire that investigations are <br /> impartial, thorough and fair. Misconduct investigations, which carry the possibility for <br /> discipline up to and including employee termination, must meet rigorous standards for <br /> objectivity and integrity. The outcome must be based on a preponderance of evidence. For <br /> these reasons, the commission believes that the investigations should be conducted by trained <br /> professionals, but monitored for quality assurance by an outside, independent civilian <br /> employee, i.e., the auditor. To help protect these investigations from real or pemeived bias, <br /> the commission is also recommending that the involved employee's supervisor no longer <br /> conduct internal investigations. Instead, the internal affairs unit should be restructured so <br /> that it has the capacity to conduct investigations of employee misconduct. <br /> <br /> 23 <br /> <br /> <br />