Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

26 4) Unsatisfactory Performance – that Supervisor A failed to conform to the standards of his rank in ensuring a thorough and fair investigation of the involved incident. Issues for CRB 1) Complaint Intake and Classification a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct • A board member expressed that he would like to see a lack of courteous behavior added as a type of allegation. • A second member voiced he had no problem with the allegations and the way they were assigned. He noted that this case brought up a reoccurring question about what a supervisor is supposed to do, and he thought the Police Chief reaffirmed that more was expected from a supervisor. • Someone noted that the fourth allegation cleared up things that were difficult to get into with the second allegation and wondered if there was a protocol review being done by the Chief. Mr. Gissiner stated that the Chief is still learning nuances to this system and felt as though the second allegation was a strong indictment of Supervisor A’s behavior. • A question was made about a formalized way to add a fourth allegation and Mr. Gissiner replied that he did not know if it would be formalized. He added that there was no union to challenge the addition of a fourth allegation in this case because it involved a supervisor. • A board member asked if there had been an in-service on S.T.O.P.’s and the IA Lt. confirmed that there had been. 2) Investigation and Monitoring • A member mentioned he thought some of the questions in the investigation went beyond objective fact-finding and put the supporting officer in an awkward position to answer questions about a supervisor. • There was also concern that there was not an effort to investigate where the conflict took place, which person struck the first blow, and how much time had transpired. A member suggested that a better investigation could have been done by the supervisor on the scene and noted that there was no attempt to identify witnesses. • Mr. Gissiner replied that there was no investigation, which is why no witnesses were contacted. He added that once Supervisor A determined that Party E did not cause the cut on RP’s face, Supervisor A made the decision not to investigate. • A board member stated that UO Police should be required to have body-worn cameras, and any police in the City of Eugene should have to go through an auditor’s process. • A suggestion was made that instead of asking someone directly if they were biased, they be asked open-ended questions. The board member explained that there was other evidence of biased treatment, but the phrasing of the interview questions was not helpful. She highlighted that S.T.O.P.’s policy does not include protections for homeless people because homelessness is not a protected class. • Mr. Gissiner was asked if it was protected in Eugene’s ordinance. A member replied that socio-economic status and homelessness are not protected, but source of income is. She added that bias against homeless people is something the city tracks, but that there are no additional criminal charges added in such cases. 3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2