My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 01/18/06 WS
>
Item B: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:17:05 PM
Creation date
1/12/2006 11:53:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/18/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Police Complaint ?1stem and Civilian OV~~~9..~t Recomme~~.~_~.~~!:!s <br /> <br />Civilian Review Board Role <br /> <br />JDfUyidllal Case Review <br />A fundamental responsibility of the review board is to oversee the work of the auditor's office <br />and, from a civilian perspective, ensure that the case recommendations developed promote high <br />quality, objective investigations. The board's oversight ftmction can occur in t\.vo ways. First, <br />the auditor's oft-lce wiiI develop quarterly reports for board review that document the auditor's <br />case handling decisions, input on investigations, adjudication recommendations, and <br />identification of departmental procedure and/or training issues. The board may also participate <br />with the auditor in more specific, periodic evaluations of the complaint system. These may <br />include satisfaction surveys from complainants &11d other involved parties, ca.<;e handling audits., <br />and investigation trends analysis, etc. <br /> <br />Secondly, the board ca.'1 review closed investigations upon request of the complainant, at its own <br />discretion through a majority vote of board members, or by the auditor's recommendation. <br />Additional criteria to guide board decisions to accept or decline the review request should be <br />developed. For example, can police employees request the board review a case or should they be <br />required to use the established grievance proceJures? The closed Cll..<;e review is prospective in <br />nature, the focus of which is to establish if the complaint system worked as intended in that <br />particular case and to develop recommendations for process improvements. The board's case <br />findings wHl be provided to the auditor and Chief of Police. <br /> <br />If the board agrees to a dosed case review> it will be provided access to the full investigative file <br />so that it C,ill make a reasoned judgment about the quality of the investigation and the rationale <br />for the case disposition. To enable more transparency into the process, actual discussion of the <br />closed case will occur in a public meeting. A case summary that redacts identifying information <br />will be provided at the meeting to protect confidentiality of involved employees. More fonnal <br />procedures for closed C~lse reviews in a public setting will need to be developed (i.e" auditor/lead <br />investigator reporting requirements, questions and conunent period, public input, etc,). <br /> <br />The board, in turn, will develop and pre.sent an annual report to the Mayor and City Council <br />evaluating the auditor's work, assessing whether the auditor's office is functioning as intended, <br />and recommending improvements to current policies and procedures. The report will also note <br />concerns about complaint investigations and/or the adjudication recommendation made by the <br />auditor, which may precipitate policy and practice changes as directed by the Council and/or <br />indicate deficiencies in performance expectations within the auditor's oUice. <br /> <br />Community Jmpac!.(;'?'~Q~ <br /> <br />The commission had a thorough discussion on the function ofthe review board as it related to <br />monitoring "community impact cases." The commission had considered a model where the <br />board had access to these cases prior to the adjudication decision so that its comments and <br />recommendations could be formulated and shared before the outcome of the case was decided.. <br />However, upon City Attorney review of this process, the commission recof:,lllized several <br />significant risks with the proposal: <br /> <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.