Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

Ms. Syrett, responding to an earlier public comment, noted that the police auditor’s office was not attached to the police station so that members of the public would not feel intimidated to go visit that office to register a complaint. [NAME REDACTED] noted that it was important within the police oversight system to carefully track any complaints that were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. [NAME REDACTED] commended the PAORC for considering the appeals process with respect to police oversight issues and wished them luck. [NAME REDACTED] averred that the police auditor’s authority needed to be backed up by subpoena powers and that the auditor needed to be feared by the police as if they were an IRS auditor. Ms. Syrett, responding to the previous public comment, noted that any limits on the police auditor’s data access to records and materials were part of the contract with the City’s database provider and not part of any police union contracts. [NAME REDACTED] asked who had signed the contracts with the City’s database provider. Ms. Reynolds responded that while the City’s database materials allowed the police auditor and police officers to review almost anything, there were sometimes confidentiality issues that needed to be addressed. [NAME REDACTED] hoped that the PAORC’s efforts to improve the police oversight system might benefit the homeless population of the City. [NAME REDACTED] believed that the police auditor’s adjudicative powers had not been explicitly stated in the charter because of the City’s Managers sole power to deal with personnel and that the City Council had the authority to grant the police auditor adjudicative powers if they chose to. They further noted their concern that the ordinance currently prohibited any active monitoring authority in criminal investigations for the police auditor. The community member noted that they had written an email to City staff regarding the issue of the police auditor’s investigative and monitoring authority as it pertained to criminal investigations. Ms. Teninty noted that the email would be entered into the public record as well as the committee’s notes regarding the comments that would be communicated to the City Council. [NAME REDACTED] submitted written comments into the record and hoped that an improved external police review process would foster improved relations between the EPD and the members of the public. Mr. Ahlen thanked the members of the public for their comments and input and assured them their concerns would be taken into consideration as they made their recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Ahlen concluded the public forum portion of the meeting at 7:54 p.m., noting that the members of the public were welcome to stay and informally discuss police oversight issues with the remaining PAORC members in smaller groups.