Item B: Police Auditor/Civilian Review Board Update

Home Browse Search

Of the ten cases reviewed, four were in response to requests from complainants. In our reviews, we have sometimes agreed with the Chief and sometimes not; we have also sometimes agreed with the Auditor and sometimes not. At present, the sample is too small to draw any statistically reliable conclusions. However, it has become apparent that we are compiling a number of cases from which themes appear to be emerging. We have provided feedback to the Internal Affairs team on their investigations and believe we have seen improvement in the quality of the investigations. For example, we now see noticeably fewer leading questions asked of the witnesses and, while there is still room for improvement, the general tone of questions asked in interviews seems more neutral. The lieutenant in charge of IA regularly attends our meetings, observes our case reviews and then takes information back to IA staff and Police Chief. We have developed a set of procedures so that at our public hearings we do not disclose names of complainants or officers. Unfortunately, on the rare occasion when a name has become public through other means, the CRB and the oversight process has been unfairly blamed. The Board and Auditor are working on this important issue and hope to develop additional safeguards for confidential information while preserving transparency in the oversight system. Reviewing trends: We are fortunate in that the AIC Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, has experience in market research. She has initiated a program to help us develop a framework for collecting and analyzing the information we are gathering. She recruited David Murphy, Ph.D. and Associate Professor in the Criminal Justice Department at Western Oregon University, to help with this task. The initial task was to develop and refine an instrument for use in our case reviews that should provide a range of data, including how our response to investigations and outcomes reflects: 1) The thoroughness and fairness of the investigation. 2) The degree to which we perceive the Auditor's recommendation to have been based on relevant facts and applicable legal and administrative standards. 3) The degree to which we perceive the Chief’s final adjudication to have been based on relevant facts and applicable legal and administrative standards. Dr. Murphy is now volunteering with the Auditor to setup a similar framework for other studies applicable to the civilian oversight process here in Eugene. Because our system is relatively new, we cannot claim to have identified specific trends. But we believe that now is the time to establish the tools for analyzing the data we are collecting. We are appreciative of Ms. Reynolds’s initiative in this area and the support of Dr. Murphy. As we perform our duties in support of the oversight system, we hope our discussions will become increasingly reflective of the values of the community. Ms. Reynolds and Dr. Murphy are working to consider the best means to understand what the expression “community values” means within the context of Eugene public safety and police oversight, and how we might reach out to different parts of the community for their understanding of what community values are. Providing a Public Forum for Oversight Issues and Concerns Through the first part of the year we continued our outreach program. The Auditor and at least one CRB member would visit various organizations and groups around the city, both to explain and