Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

processes in place for complaints made against City executives that had significant involvement by the City Attorney’s office. B.INVESTIGATIONS (issues 2, 4, 11, 15) Mr. Alsup gave a detailed analysis of the nature of the four issues under the Investigations classification for the benefit of the public and committee members. [NAME REDACTED] noted that granting the police auditor effective subpoena powers was an essential part of the police oversight process and that the issue of the auditor’s lack of subpoena power had been left unresolved by previous Charter amendments. They further noted that the police auditor’s subpoena power would ideally be used very carefully and sparingly. Mr. Chase noted that a number of revisions would be necessary in order to grant the auditor effective subpoena powers and that the granting of such authority would require extensive restructuring of the goals and strategies of both the police auditor and the civilian review board. He added that the PAORC had not substantively engaged in any discussions regarding the revisions that would be necessary to grant subpoena powers to the police auditor. [NAME REDACTED] advocated that the 12 initial draft ordinance revision should be the priority of the PAORC and that the remaining six issues should be taken care of later as they dealt with long-standing unresolved police oversight issues. [NAME REDACTED] noted that Item 2 had been drafted in response to an incident where a complaint investigation had been completed before the police auditor had even been properly notified. They felt that this incident indicated a general lack of transparency in the police oversight process and that it was important to make the responsibility of complaint classification the police auditor’s and not any sworn police officers who might be involved in the complaint process. They further maintained that providing EPD officers the discretion to classify and address service complaints undermined the City’s charter. Ms. Piercy, following up on a comment made regarding the manner in which the ordinance motion items were presented, clarified that the initial directive of the PAORC had been only to deal with those 12 items and to address the friendly amendment items if time and resources permitted. Ms. Syrett noted she was sympathetic to public concerns about the discretion of police auditors to classify service complaints but further noted that the language of the Charter had consistently specified that the auditor retained the authority to reclassify complaints after any determinations made by EPD officers. Mr. Kerns assured the public that the EPD was not resolving or closing any complaint cases before the auditor had an opportunity to review them, and confirmed that the authority to classify complaints ultimately resided with the police auditor. He stated that all complaints were eventually reviewed by the auditor regardless of classification; a practice he hoped would be maintained. He noted that the term investigation was used very broadly with respect to complaint investigation which had often resulted in significant confusion around the police oversight process. He suggested that rephrasing the charter language in that regard might be advisable. Ms. Reynolds maintained that it was good to have more police talking to people with respect to addressing the public’s concerns and fielding possible complaint issues. Regarding the issue of