Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hursey provided an overview of the commission's work on the department's crowd control <br />policies, emphasizing the complexity of the effort. He briefly discussed the four crowd control <br />policies considered by the commission: 1) video tape policy, 2) field force policy, 3) public <br />assemblies and demonstrations policy, and 4) civil disturbance policy. He announced that the <br />commission anticipated completing the crowd control policy review in the next few months and <br />would request a work session with the council to review the results. <br /> <br />Mr. Prozanski provided information about the Use of Force Committee, reporting it had been <br />formed because of concerns about the department's use of pepper spray. He discussed the <br />committee's objectives and its activities to this point. He reported that the committee held a <br />public forum the previous week, which had gone well. The committee would submit its final <br />report to the full commission by May 2001. Mr. Prozanski said the committee process allowed <br />the commission to do greater analysis of selected topics and helped it keep to its schedule. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue reviewed the commission's plans for studying community policing and briefly noted <br />elements of community policing already in place, such as CAHOOTS. He indicated the <br />commission's recommendations in this area would come directly to the council. Mr. Laue noted <br />a reduction in police personnel over the last ten years and said that the City did not have the <br />resources to fully implement community policing at this point. Retirements and the fact that one- <br />third of the force had been hired in recent years also affected the City's ability to implement the <br />program as the concept called for community familiarity on the part of officers. He said the <br />concept of community policing was a moving target and no one seemed to know what it was. Mr. <br />Laue asked the council to consider its own concept of community policing. He wanted to bring <br />the idea of partnership both to the community and the police and to return to a time when citizens <br />were comfortable when the police were present. <br /> <br />Dr. Katul noted the commission's close work with the Human Rights Commission and said more <br />coordination was planned for the upcoming year. The commission also planned to do some <br />follow-up work on the Hobson Report. He hoped the commission could forward a <br />recommendation on policies related to civil disturbances and the use of force to the council in <br />May 2001. He invited questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that the commission review the meeting minutes from past council <br />and Budget Committee meetings to gather suggestions for community policing. A lot of <br />discussion had occurred about what community policing could be, and about individual <br />councilor's goals for community policing. She wanted to honor the work that had already <br />occurred and to build upon it. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the City could not expect community cooperation with the police on "big <br />projects" or serious crimes if there had been a lack of attention to the "small stuff," or quality of <br />life issues. She cited the fact police did not take reports of small incidents or attempt to track <br />crime patterns as examples of her comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said it had been a pleasure being part of the commission. He said the commission <br />faced challenging and complex issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted his support for the committee process, saying it had been a useful tool for the <br />commission. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />