Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

E.APPEALS (issue 7) Mr. Brissenden gave a detailed analysis of the nature of the issue under the Appeals classification for the benefit of the public and committee members. He noted that there had in the past been incidents where the police auditor and the chief of police disagreed on the outcome of an allegation of misconduct and that the appeals issue had been a topic of extensive discussion for the PAORC members. Ms. Piercy noted that the PAORC was intent on communicating to the City Council that an appeals process was crucial to effective police oversight process. F.OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (issues 16, 17 and 18) Ms. Piercy gave a detailed analysis of the nature of the three issues under the Other Considerations classification for the benefit of the public and committee members. [NAME REDACTED], speaking with regard to issues 7 and 14, felt that public support of the police auditor and the police oversight process was essential to law enforcement and public safety concerns in the area, and also believed that the voters in Eugene might not have been fully aware that the previous votes regarding external police review allowed the chief of police to retain the ultimate authority with respect to any complaints or allegations of misconduct. [NAME REDACTED], speaking with regard to issue 14, expressed that enabling the police auditor to make recommendations for discipline without the authority to enforce those recommendations would weaken the police oversight process. They noted that a review of other police oversight models such as ones in effect in the City of Portland might be useful. [NAME REDACTED] asked how the PAORC’s efforts to improve police oversight might directly benefit or otherwise affect the homeless population in Eugene. Ms. Reynolds appreciated the community member’s concern for the homeless, but noted that such policy issues were not directly considered under the guidelines of the PAORC’s directives. Ms. Reynolds, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Teninty, noted that the police auditor did not currently make discipline recommendations but rather made recommendations as to whether an allegation should be sustained, considered unfounded, considered to be within policy, or determined to have insufficient evidence. She noted that any disciplinary measures and decisions to adopt the auditor’s recommendations were currently left up to the chief of police. Ms. Reynolds maintained that passing of some portion of the 18 ordinance amendment items under discussion would help strengthen the police oversight system in Eugene. [NAME REDACTED] agreed with a previous public comment maintaining that there was nothing in the charter amendments that required the chief of police to have the final say with respect to complaints or allegations of police misconduct and further maintained that the police oversight system and any related institutional practices should be part of an independent process from start to finish. Ms. Syrett noted that the police auditor had the authority to initiate an investigation of their own volition regardless of whether or not the investigation was the result of a citizen complaint.