Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

Charter say?” particularly with respect to any issues involving the police auditor’s authority or access. They noted that divergent interpretations of the Charter had undermined the police oversight process from the very beginning and further urged the PAORC members to carefully consider the comments the public had submitted in that regard. [NAME REDACTED] asked Ms. Reynolds and Mr. Kerns how an effective police oversight system would help improve City and police policies and worried that current police policies engendered an adversarial relationship between police officers and the public. Mr. Kerns commented that the police oversight system in Eugene was actually very young and as such there were occasional discrepancies between the adjudications from the chief of police and the recommendations of the police auditor and/or the CRB…He believed that while the findings of those three entities were sometimes different, there might be practical ways of reconciling the disparate views of those entities. He agreed that the police auditor and the CRB should have a role in shaping police policy. Ms. Syrett commented that the police oversight mechanisms needed to be created in a stronger way and carried forward in a manner that would make divergent interpretations of the police auditor’s functions and authority less likely. She noted that the police auditor system was designed to have the power to intake complaints and oversee the investigation of those complaints, not to act as the manager of the police department. Ms. Piercy commented that there was a policy direction regarding police oversight that came from Council based on law or interpretation of the law. Mr. Alsup commented that the language of the charter and the amendments had been subject to a wide variety of interpretations. [NAME REDACTED] asked Ms. Syrett which of the initial 12 ordinance motion items seemed to indicate that they would require the police auditor to manage the police department as Ms. Syrett had previously indicated. Ms. Syrett answered that her previous comment did not refer to the 12 items but rather the specific language of the Charter. Ms. Syrett commented that while she agreed that significant access to police personnel and data materials were essential to the police oversight process there were, any challenges or restrictions upon that access must be based in established federal, state or local laws. Ms. Reynolds, responding to a question from a community member, noted that in addition to the complaint materials which she had thoroughly reviewed she had reviewed several random service complaints during her tenure as police auditor. [NAME REDACTED] stated that they had not been properly served by the police auditor’s office in response to a complaint they had filed and further asked what entity or persons had investigated the police during the Magana scandal. Mr. Kerns replied that the EPD had internally investigated the Magana matter in conjunction with the Lane County District Attorney’s office. D.ADJUDICATIONS (issues 13, 14) Ms. Syrett gave an analysis of the nature of the two issues under the Adjudications classification for the benefit of the public and committee members and as a supplement to her statement provided a brief overview of the police auditor’s adjudication process.