Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

by Chief Kerns, resulting in his subsequent vote in opposition, to the proposed language revisions in 2.454(5)(b). In this regard the Chief felt that it was inappropriate for one department head to be monitoring complaint investigations against another department head. The Chief also expressed concerns that ambiguity in added language in Section 2.454(5) could result in allegations against the Chief for carrying out administrative functions of the office. b) – Investigations [Items: 2, 4, 11] Proposed Revisions: These revisions relate to the Auditor’s ability to: 1) ensure the timeliness of complaint investigations [2.456(2)(b)]; 2) require concurrent related administrative and criminal investigations when the Auditor (after consultation) deems it necessary [2.456(2)(c)]; and 3) adequate budget allocations to the Auditor’s office to arrange for outside investigations [2.450(5)]. Committee Discussion and Votes: Again, the committee was largely in agreement on the proposed ordinance revisions. Nonetheless, particular exception was taken by Chief Kerns regarding concurrent investigations because he felt, on rare occasions, administrative investigations that occur before the completion of criminal prosecutions might jeopardize the outcome of a criminal or prosecution. He also stated that he believed the decision to undertake an investigation should rest with the person who is responsible for conducting the investigations. c ) – Monitoring Complaints [Items: 3, 5 and 9] Proposed Revisions: The committee is proposing three language revisions to Ordinance 30274 relating to the Auditor’s in role monitoring complaints. All the revisions in this area are intended to clarify and enhance the auditor’s ability to ensure fair, thorough, complete and unbiased complaint handling. These revisions concern the following: 1) access to IA records [2.456(3)(a)]; 2) access to the IA database [2.450(6)]; 2.456(3)(a); and 3) review of service complaints [2.452; 2.454(1)(e)] Committee Discussion and Votes: The committee discussion on these revisions resulted in different language options being discussed and evaluated. Ultimately, the committee unanimously agreed on the revisions. IV. Item Recommendations Over the course of its work, PAORC discussed a variety of issues related to Ordinance 20374, the office of the Police Auditor, and the implementation of civilian oversight in Eugene. While some of the committee’s discussions resulted in proposed revisions to the ordinance, others were felt to be more appropriately expressed as recommendations: d) – Adjudicating Complaints [Item 13] Committee Discussion and Votes: Item 13 from the Council adopted motion of th November 17 proposed that the authority to determine “final adjudication” of complaints be given to the Auditor. The committee had a brief discussion and voted unanimously against recommending language to accomplish this change.