Laserfiche WebLink
<br />__m......__m~_olice Complaint__~y~tem and Civilian O~~~~~ght Recomm.~ndations <br /> <br />In spite of these challenges, committee members agreed that community expectations for an <br />independent, credible complaint process that is accountable to the public \v{mld not be met with <br />just an auditor in place. Similarly, the committee did not believe that a review board alone <br />\vould help identify the procedural and training changes that \\fould improve not only the <br />complaint system, but enhance police services to the public. <br /> <br />With a focus on hybrid oversight models, the committee developed four distinct civilian review <br />board models and requested City Attorney advice on the legal and employee contract challenges <br />associated with implementing each variation, Several common characteristics were shared <br />between all the civilian review board models tmder consideration: <br /> <br />o The review board would be comprised of community volunteers appointed/selected <br />by the Mayor and City CounciL <br /> <br />o StatT support to the board would be provided through a pOlice auditor's office, which <br />at a minimum, reports to the board on complaint trends/statistics and other work <br />relevant to the auditor's office. The review board and the auditor would provide <br />trends and policy information to the Police Commission. <br /> <br />o Investigations \vould nomlaJly be conducted by the internal affairs unit and monitored <br />by the auditor, although the auditor would have the authority to request additional or <br />outside investigations. <br /> <br />o Final decisions t\.lr employee discipline would remain with the Chief of Police. <br /> <br />o A charter amendment would be required to enable the City Council to appoint a <br />civilian review board that reviews complaints sun-ollnding employee conduct and to <br />allow the hiring of an auditor that is answerable to the City Council. <br /> <br />o Review board meetings would be open to the public; confidentiality issues should be <br />addressed through procedural or contract negotiation avenues. <br /> <br />Of the four models discussed, the committee was least interested in a system that allowed <br />complainants to appeal the outcome of their investigation to the civilian review board. These <br />systems posed the most potential for legal and employee contract problems, could become a <br />costly, adversarial and duplicative quasi-judicial proceeding, and were unlikely to create <br />improved satisfaction from those involved in the process (appellants, review board members, and <br />employees alike). <br /> <br />The committee agreed tha.t its preferred options were a: <br />o Bifurcated Investigation A.fodel, \vhere the board would oversee specific ca.ses as they <br />\\fere being investigated and \\'ith the auditor, would develop findings on those cases <br />prior to the Chief developing an adjudication; and <br />o Closed Complaint Reviel-ll, where a complainant can present concerns about the <br />outcome of tht:~ case to the review board, which will review the file and develop <br />findings on the case for delivery to the auditor and Chief ofPoiice, but \vould not <br />impact the outcome of the investigation. <br /> <br />7 <br />