Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Re: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model July 8, 2005 Page 2 Employees Union v. State of Oregon, 14 PECBR 746, 769 (1993). h~ OPEU, the Employee Relations Board found that employees had a strong interest in either being charged or cleared in a timely maimer and, therefore, the time frames within which investigations must be initiated and completed was a mandatory subject of bargaining. We do not expect that this would be a difficult agreement to reach with the Association. B. Are time line concerns significantly different for open versus closed case review? Answer: No. The timing issue would arise because a completed investigation is reopened, renewing the employee's vulnerability to discipline, not because of the nature of the CRB review. Regardless of which model the Commission ultimately decides upon, if the board has the ability to request further investigation, the timeframe for case resolution potentially is extended and therefore has implications for collective bargaining. C. Would the board be able to fully discuss a closed case in a public meeting setting under existing contract and public records law? Answer: Yes, if the case under review resulted in an unsustained adjudication. What the board may lawfully discuss in a public meeting depends on whether the investigation resulted in a disciplinary action or not. A complaint that does not lead to discipline or criminal investigation becomes a public record as soon as the file is closed because it does not fall within any of the exemptions listed in ORS 192.501 or ORS 192.502. Files which involved a disciplinary action are potentially subject to the conditional exemption for disciplinary records, which would include investigations and Internal Affairs files, unless the public interest requires disclosure. ORS 192.501(12). If the closed case resulted in disciplinary action, the records relating to the investigation and discipline would be exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501(12). Although disclosure of an otherwise-exempt public record is not illegal, the City's current contract with the police union requires that the City assert any applicable exemptions to protect personnel records from public disclosure. (Article 37.2) Thus, implementing a model of civilian review that required or permitted public discussion of exempt records would require bargaining with the Eugene Police Employees Association. If the complaint at issue were initially unsustained, then those records would not be subject to exemption from disclosure because no disciplinary action is pending or imposed, and therefore could be discussed in public. However, once the CRB decided to reopen the case, those records would then fall under the exemption because a disciplinary action would be pending. Therefore, without a change in the current collective bargaining agreement, the board could only discuss the investigation in executive session, for the reasons outlined in our June 7 opinion.