Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC FORUM <br />Police Auditor Ordinance revisions <br />February 19, 2009 <br />One thing not mentioned tonight is how important an effective Police Review is for the <br />credibility of our police—critical for their effective performance. I want to strengthen the <br />police force and this external auditor would be the single best thing that could happen to <br />move this effort forward in support of the police work. <br />***** <br />I support a robust and aggressive police auditor system. Specifically, I support your <br />recommendations for the first 11 or 12 items, and further I support items 14-18 as <br />well. <br />Whenever possible, give final authority to the independent auditor, esp. in relation to <br />the Chief. <br />***** <br />Very important that Police embrace the need for an independent auditor with power and <br />authority. <br />(Marcy Cauthorn) <br />***** <br />The auditor should have subpoena power; should not be impeded from investigation in <br />any way the by the city manager. <br />***** <br />In my circles of influence, I’ve seen a loss of trust in this process due to perceived & <br />actual weakening of the Auditor’s jurisdiction, especially over the Police Chief; the <br />actions of a series of Chiefs have shown bad faith with lack of adequate <br />transparency. <br />If the Amendment says flat out that the auditor shall have access to all the <br />information, what is this talk about a “compromise position” as referred to by Claire <br />Syrett? Another breach of trust? <br />I feel encouraged the Committee’s support of the appeal option. <br />(Lisa-Marie DiVincentlmdv@efn.org) <br />***** <br />(A) Receiving and Classifying Complaints <br />I favor the language, “The definition for ‘police employee’ shall include the Police <br />Chief.” Otherwise, this first slide looks good. It is likely that citizens in passing the <br />charter thought of the Police Chief as an employee of the department. <br /> <br />