CC Minutes - 07/25/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

controversy in the community. She said the complaint-handling process emphasized two values: 1) improved access and safety and 2) facilitating the best resolution to a complaint. Mr. Brown reported that the Adjudication Review Model Committee, which he chaired, reviewed three models for civilian review and agreed that the hybrid system was the favored system. He noted that what the committee recommended was not what was before the council; the committee’s recommendation was modified at the commission level based on ongoing public input. He said the hybrid model consisted of professional civilian employees supervised outside of the Police Department who actively monitored investigations for quality assurance, plus a five- to seven-member review board of volunteers who reflected the community but did not represent any constituency to evaluate the work of the auditor; the review board could reopen closed cases. He said that in order to ensure that allegations of misconduct were investigated in a thorough, objective and timely manner, the commission was recommending that Internal Affairs (IA) be restructured to become a specialized investigative unit handling internal investigations so that supervisors were no longer both conducting investigations and making a recommendation for the outcome of that investigation. He reviewed the functions and authority of the auditor and the review board. He stated that while the hybrid system had checks and balances to ensure strong accountability, success of the system depended on the quality of the selected auditor, the committee volunteers’ ability to be impartial and fair in all aspects of the work, and adequate funding. Mr. Laue emphasized that one of the commission’s goals at the beginning of the process was the develop- ment of a system that it felt was best for the community, that was open and accessible, and that could build community consensus around the alternatives for policing. He said to achieve that goal community members and organizations were involved extensively in the process. He noted that there was unanimous support on the commission for the model as a whole that was presented to the council, but that did not mean every member agreed with every aspect; it did mean that the commission thought the model was the best way to move forward. With respect to outstanding issues, Mr. Laue listed the following: ? The model was a framework and required filling in of details as well as employee contractual and public records issues resolved before implementation. ? The system would need to be continually evaluated and retain flexibility for adjustments as it was implemented. ? Approval of the commission’s work plan by the council would allow work on refinements to con- tinue and a preliminary plan for implementation of the model to be developed. ? A decision from the council and possibly the community before the model can be finalized. ? Adequate funding to support the model. ? A charter amendment to allow the mayor and council to hire an auditor and appoint a review board. This governance approach was selected because the structural independence of the oversight model was important to engendering trust and building support in the community for both the Police De- partment and the auditor’s office. Continuing, Mr. Laue said that research indicated oversight models tended to fail, in part, because there were not adequate resources to implement them well. He noted that governance of the model would work either under the auspices of the City Council or the City Manager. He said that if a charter amendment failed at the ballot, the commission fully expected the council to move the model forward under the City Manager’s Office. He added that there were a number of ways that governance by the mayor and council MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 4 Work Session