My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm.
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 07/25/05 WS
>
Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:14:05 PM
Creation date
7/21/2005 8:45:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/25/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
Suggestions: <br /> · Want complaints to be taken by neutral party at neutral site (independent intake) <br /> · Publicize how process works and sincerely encourage participation in complaint process: <br /> "we want you to help us do our jobs better" attitude <br /> · Educate community on what types of behavior/performance/actions EPD wants public to <br /> report <br /> · Need system that is respectful and complainants believe they will be listened to <br /> · Treat all complaints as complaints, not as inquiries or something else <br /> · Complaint form/submission suggestions: <br /> o Simplify complaint form and make it just for complaints and questions, not <br /> commendations <br /> o Include process overview, what to expect and timeline on form - easy to <br /> understand <br /> c> Make complaint form and submission available on City web page <br /> c> Suggest officers carry complaint forms or mechanisms for comments in cars <br /> · Ensure that any retaliation by officer against complainant is treated very seriously <br /> · Want information in Spanish about complaint process in schools, retail businesses, other <br /> places that serve Latino population <br /> · Need to address issue of when and how anonymous complaints can be accepted <br /> · Intake process should include screening mechanism to eliminate spurious complaints and <br /> consistency differentiate between serious and minor issues <br /> · Require signed statement from complainant when serious allegations are filed <br /> <br />INVESTIGATION <br /> <br />Concerns: · Belief that immediate supervisors should not investigate their employees (conflict of <br /> interest) <br /> · Experience that timeline was not followed <br /> · Received misleading information as to action department would take <br /> · Concern that background check on complainant is first step of process - prevents people <br /> from participating in process <br /> · Perception of one-sided and biased investigations <br /> · Concern that if policy is not violated, officer discourtesy is ignored - investigations are <br /> narrowly focused and not thorough enough to uncover performance and attitude issues <br /> · Union involvement protects officers <br /> · Facts of case are lef~ out or documented in misleading ways - whole story is not <br /> presented to make complainant have less credibility and protect officer <br /> · Lack of notification about status of investigation <br /> · Sometimes "Tell Us About It" form is only method for collecting information from <br /> complainant - personal interview of complainant should be standard practice <br /> · IA sergeant is put in awkward position of assuming investigatory duties during <br /> assignment, then moves to another assignment with supervision responsibilities that <br /> might be in conflict <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.