Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Police Comp!a!~_!_System and Civilia_~_.9versjght Rec~_~!11endations <br /> <br />3) Unfounded: The claim is unsubstantiated. It was detennined by a preponderance of the <br />evidence that the employee(s) involved did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the <br />complainant. <br />... <br />4) Within POlicyN: It was detennined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the behavior <br />of the employee(s) involved did occur but was consistent with EPD policies, rules, practices <br />and! or procedures. <br />5) Mediated: During the process of an investigation, it was determined that the case would <br />likely be more succ,essfully resolved through mediation; all parties agreed to mediate the <br />complaint and the mediation process was completed. <br />6) Inactive: The investigation cannot proceed forward without additional infonnation. The <br />investigation may be reactivated upon the discovery of new, substantive information or <br />evidence. <br />7) Administratively Closed: The investigation is dosed prior to reaching a conclusion. For <br />instance, the complainant does not provide the infomlation needed or refuses to cooperate <br />'with the investigation. <br /> <br />Systemic Review <br /> <br />One of the primary strengths of the auditor model as proposed is to afford additional analytical <br />capacity that is not merely focused on individual complaints but strives towards systemic evaluation <br />of the complaint process and departmental practices in general. In fhrtherance of this objecti ve, the <br />commission recommends that th\:: auditor: <br />o be summoned to the scene of critical incidents to ~llable first-hand kno\'lledge of high <br />profile events should a complaint ensue; <br />o participate in deadly force reviev., boards (contingent on the resuJtofSB3(1) <br />o review risk/tort claims and develop risk/liability reduction plans <br /> <br />The City Manager's contracted annual audit of closed internal atTairs investigations would no <br />longer be necessary if the auditor model proposed is implemented. <br /> <br />The commission has found through its research that the ability to influence police policy is one <br />of the strongest accountability measures. \\lllile this authority may be vested in either the <br />auditor's oft'ice or the review board, experience nationally has indicated that the volume of <br />complaint investigations tends to diminish the capacity to conduct thorough policy reviews. As <br />such, the Police Commission recommends that it is retained as the department's policy review <br />bodya.."1d that the auditor is charged with reporting any policy issues to the commission. <br /> <br />The auditor's oft1ce "",'ill also develop an annual report of its workload, case handling and <br />investigative recommendations and suggestions for procedural improvements. The report may <br />also evaluate discipline decisions for consistency across personnel and relevant to specif1c <br />violations. The mmual report should highlight any situations ,>vhere the auditor recommended <br />actions that were not supported by the Chief of Police and how those disagreements were <br />resolved. The annual report should also enable both the review board and City Council to a.<;sess <br />the perfonnance of the auditor's office to ensure that it is fUnctioning as intended. <br /> <br />2 Replaces <<Exonerated" <br /> <br />19 <br />