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

Home Browse Search

could occur, but the commission had left that decision to the council. He asked for direction from the council on how the commission should proceed and a decision on the commission’s extended work plan. Mayor Piercy commended the commission for its work. She called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly added his thanks to the commission for the extensive amount of work it did. Referring to the issue of warrants and records checks, he asked if IA would have to act on an outstanding warrant discovered during the investigation of a complaint referred by the auditor and if so, under what authority. Ms. Newbre said it was her understanding that warrants were orders issued by a judge and police officers were required to act on them. Mr. Kelly indicated he was impressed by the integrated nature of the recommendation and the unanimous support for it and was interested in pursuing a charter amendment for a council-appointed model. Ms. Taylor asked if it was necessary to check on the existence of warrants. She opined that some of the people who were likely to have complaints were likely to have been in trouble with the law in the past and were afraid. Mr. Laue replied that a records check on all parties involved would be the first step for an officer when a complaint was referred by the auditor’s office; that was a standard practice in policing. He said that failing to follow standard investigative protocol or best practices in that regard would open the officer and the City to liabilities. Ms. Sifuentez pointed out that the auditor was not obliged to arrest a person if there was a warrant, but could advise the person that there was an outstanding warrant that should be resolved. She said that did not mean that the auditor would not follow through on the complaint. Mr. Laue added that there was a distinction between minor warrants and those that needed to be acted upon immediately, such as warrants for violent felonies. Mr. Brown said that an anonymous complaint could be filed. Ms. Taylor observed that external police review almost passed when it was on the ballot six or seven years ago, which indicated strong interest in the community. Mr. Pryor commended the commission’s work. He referred to the three full-time staff positions that were recommended to support the auditor function and asked if the commission had discussed the caseload that was anticipated. Mr. Laue said that historically, 50 to 60 complaints that required full investigative files to be opened were received each year. He expected that number to increase somewhat in the first years the model was implemented. He said the commission did not discuss the dollar amounts associated with the required staffing, which could consist of two additional investigative officers, plus an auditor, management analyst, and administrative aide. Mr. Poling complimented the commission’s efforts and asked if the management analyst and administrative aide positions could be filled by qualified personnel currently within the department or be kept completely separate. Mr. Laue replied that the commission felt the auditor’s office should be separate from the Police Department as it required some form of structural independence to gain the necessary credibility. Mr. Poling asked if there was a breakdown in the communities that used an external auditor system between those where the auditor reported to elected officials and those where the auditor reported to a city manager or administrator. Police Commission analyst Jeannine Parisi replied that she could provide that information but it was not a straight comparison because different municipalities had different governance structures. She said that typically where there was a strong mayor form of government, the auditor reported to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 5 Work Session