Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

24 4) Policy and/or Training Considerations • Members agreed that this case provided an opportunity to look at how EPD prepares and designates people into supervisory roles. A board member stated that someone familiar with the watch commander role was interviewed and asked about what training was required, and that they answered it was mainly based on experience, and very little training. He noted that this was a case in which someone was underprepared for the role they were given. • Trainings for both Supervisors were suggested, including trainings on leadership, watch commander role, vehicle pursuits, and BlueTeam. • A member asked who could make a request for EVOC to do a pursuit review when staff enter something into BlueTeam. An IA Analyst replied that any supervisor can request an EVOC supervisor to look at something and give an opinion. She added that it can be done informally before it goes to BlueTeam and that informal discussions happen routinely. • The analyst added that the pursuit policy does say that a supervisor should enter it and the EVOC supervisor should review it through BlueTeam. She explained that the question here was that it hadn’t been entered as a pursuit yet. 5) Adjudication Recommendations • A board member felt the first allegation asked the wrong question and found it unfounded. The second allegation was a communication breakdown and ambiguous instruction. He stated that it did not rise to the level of misrepresentation; he found it unfounded. In the third allegation, he found insufficient evidence. He explained that there was no concrete evidence, just speculation. • Another member agreed with the above-mentioned board member. He said there would have been other allegations associated with the first one, but they were not stated. The use of untruthfulness was also questioned, given how serious the allegation was. • A member felt it was the responsibility of Supervisor A to know when to punish or coach and that coaching may have led to a different attitude and outcome. He concluded that a higher level of leadership is needed up the chain of command and that this case felt borderline vindictive. 6) Additional Comments or Concerns • A board member noted that this case went down a path that was unnecessary and another member thanked the investigators for their professional analysis. • Mr. Gissiner stated that he typically tries to keep a distance from internal investigations. He asked the CRB their opinion on his involvement when allegations are poorly written. OCTOBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATION OF DISPARATE TREATMENT, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, AND UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE BY AN EPD SUPERVISOR Summary of Facts • Supervisor A responded, along with several officers, to a call reporting a fight in the street. Supervisor D (an employee from another agency) was first to arrive on the scene. He saw several people pointing at Reporting Party and observed a second male nearby who was bleeding from his head. Supervisor D detained RP in handcuffs before EPD employees arrived. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2