My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 03/09/09 Work Session
>
Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:15:11 PM
Creation date
3/6/2009 10:30:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/9/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
ARE THERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, WHAT SPECIFIC <br />ALLEGATIONS MIGHT BE OMITTED AND WHY IS THERE AN ASSUMPTION <br />THAT THE AUDITOR COULDN'T HANDLE THOSE? IT IS THE AUDITOR THAT <br />SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT FOR AN "INDEPENDENT" <br />INVESTIGATION OF THE CHIEF, IF THERE IS EVER A SITUATION WHERE <br />AN INVESTIGATION IS WARRANTED. THE PUBLIC WANTS ALL <br />INVESTIGATIONS OF EPD WRONGDOING TO BE INDEPENDENT AND <br />EXTERNAL TO THE CHIEF'S CHAIN OF COMMAND. I BELIEVE <br />TRANSFERRING THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT THE INVESTIGATION <br />(THE MANAGER, UNDER THE RECOMMENDED REVISION, WOULD NOT <br />HAVE TO CHOOSE TO GO OUT OF HOUSE FOR AN INVESTIGATION, HE <br />COULD ASK THE DA TO DO IT) TO THE MANAGER, IS CONTRARY TO THE <br />CHARTER. <br />THE AUDITOR IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO GUARANTEE AN UNBIASED <br />INVESTIGATION. <br />```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` <br />`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` <br />PROPOSED REVISION SECOND HALF OF PARA; (dc) The auditor’s office <br />conducts the preliminary investigation <br />of all complaints lodged with the auditor’s office or internal <br />affairs to appropriately classify and route the complaint and <br />any accompanying information accordingly. The auditor <br />has exclusive authority to classify and route complaints as <br />well as to reclassify complaints if, upon further investigation <br />and receipt of additional information that was not available <br />at the time of intake, the Auditor finds reclassification is <br />warranted. <br />[Amendment #1: The Police Auditor shall have exclusive <br />authority to classify and route complaints, as well as to <br />reclassify complaints if upon further investigation and <br />additional information, no available at the time of intake, the <br />Auditor finds reclassification if warranted.] <br />QUESTION; DOES ANYTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE CREATE AN OBSTACLE <br />OR ADDITIONAL HOOP TO JUMP THROUGH FOR THE AUDITOR? <br />THIS NEEDS TO HAVE "RECEIVE" ADDED TO IT. THE AUDITOR HAS <br />EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO 'RECEIVE, CLASSIFY, AND ROUTE <br />COMPLAINTS ETC. <br />JUST LIKE THE CHARTER SAYS. <br />```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` <br />```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.