Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation Process Alana Holmes, Human Resources, said in response to the council’s direction, recommended criteria for evaluating the Police Auditor had been developed in conjunction with the Civilian Review Board (CRB). She said one set of criteria would be used by the CRB in its evaluation of the Police Auditor and a separate, similar set was recommended for the council’s use. Police Auditor Chris Beamud said the CRB had approved the criteria and felt it was an adequate instrument for reporting to the council pursuant to the CRB’s evaluation responsibilities. Ms. Ortiz asked if the council would receive feedback from complainants in order to complete evaluation element D related to complaint intake and adjudication. Ms. Beamud said the system was currently informal, but eventually the council would receive that information. She said the sample size of complainants at this point was too small to be statistically valid. Ms. Ortiz felt that was an essential component of the evaluation in order for the council to determine if the Police Auditor was meeting the community’s expectations. Mr. Clark asked if there was a comprehensive job description for the Police Auditor beyond what was included in the ordinance. Ms. Holmes said the City had information that was developed for the recruitment brochure when Ms. Beamud was hired; that could be transposed into a more formal position description. Mr. Clark asked if the council had clearly formalized its expectations of the Police Auditor, other than in the recruitment materials. Ms. Holmes said that nothing had been formalized beyond those materials. Ms. Taylor stated that she would need more information about the Police Auditor’s activities before she would be able to complete the evaluation form. She suggested regular reports from the Police Auditor to keep the council informed. Mr. Poling agreed with the need for more feedback from complainants and that there should be a mechanism for everyone who used the system to report on their experience with it. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were formal position descriptions for the City Manager and municipal judges. Ms. Holmes said the City Manager position was defined in recruitment materials and the employment contract, the same as for the Police Auditor. She said position descriptions did not exist for municipal judges. Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy of the employment contract and recruitment brochure for the Police Auditor. He noted that Ms. Beamud’s second employment anniversary was in October and hoped that an evaluation process could be completed by then. He wanted to see the CRB evaluation before the council conducted its evaluation and agreed with other councilors that more feedback from complainants was needed in order to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the complaint intake and adjudication process. Ms. Beamud said she was developing a report for the quarter ending March 3, 2008, which incorporated statistics on the number and nature of complaints her office had received. She had not conducted a formal survey to obtain feedback from complainants, but could do that. She said there had been about 200 complaints filed since October 1, 2007. Ms. Solomon observed that 200 complaints should be sufficient for a statistically relevant evaluation. She regarded complainants as customers and wanted to know how they felt about their experience with the Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 3 Work Session