Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

Topics & Stations A.Receiving and Classifying Complaints (issues 1, 6, 8 and 10) Ms. Reynolds gave a detailed analysis of the nature of the issues under the Receiving and Classifying Complaints classification for the benefit of the public and committee members. She further noted that item ten, which amended the ordinance definition of the term “police employee,” would be a significant departure from previous City policies. [NAME REDACTED] noted their concern that presenting the 18 amendment issues under discussion under the six listed categories rather than in sequential order would be confusing to the public. They further clarified the that the actual draft language of Item 10 was to "change the definition of EPD employee to include the chief of police" and that the section of the ordinance to which the item referred to should be explicit in its direction of authority to the police auditor, and that the current ordinance language circumvented the intent of the City Charter. [NAME REDACTED] thanked the committee for their efforts, but hoped that the PAORC would more adequately have mapped its approach to finding solutions. They felt the process was affected by a “political merry-go-round, that the limited number of public hearings was insufficient, and that the City’s police commission meetings and civilian review board meetings should be broadcast to the public in the same manner as the City Council meetings. They further related personal experiences with the EPD that had affected their perceptions of police oversight in the community. They advocated for the creation of an audio archive that might allow the public to investigate unresolved police issues. Ms. Teninty encouraged the community members present to fill out and submit comment cards so that their concerns might be more accurately passed along to staff and committee members. [NAME REDACTED] felt it was important that the chief of police was subject to the same oversight as EPD employees and was concerned that such complaints were the purview of the City Manager rather than the police auditor. They were similarly concerned that police oversight concerns were addressed more by City staff than by the City’s elected representatives. [NAME REDACTED] hoped the City would adopt a police auditor ordinance with the “greatest amount of teeth possible” and agreed with the position that the chief of police be subject, without caveats, to the same oversight as EPD employees. [NAME REDACTED] was interested in a continuing dialogue regarding effective police oversight and agreed with the position that the chief of police be subject without caveats to the same oversight as EPD employees. Mr. Ahlen noted that the PAORC had been carefully reviewing the language and intent of Item 10 with the intent of simplifying it. He looked forward to further discussion on the item at the next PAORC meeting. Mr. Brissenden clarified that the primary difference in the manner in which complaints against the police chief had been handled as opposed to those complaints against sworn officers was that they had been investigated by the city manager’s office and not the EPD’s internal affairs division. Ms. Syrett noted that the PAORC’s discussions had primarily dealt with the dynamics of the City government with respect to how one administrator or executive entity would investigate another.