Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

Eugene PoliceDepartment 777 Pearl St, Room 107 Eugene, Oregon 97401 M EMORANDUM (541) 682-5111 www.eugene-or.gov Date: March 3, 2009 To: Mayor Piercy and City Council From: Pete Kerns, Interim Chief of Police, 682-5102 Subject:Consideration: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations The work of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) has come to a close with a set of recommendations scheduled for a council work session on March 9, 2009. The committee has worked very hard to address a challenging and complex topic in a relatively short period of time, and I’m grateful to have been part of this process. I have supported most of the recommended changes to the City ordinance that created our civilian oversight system and I believe that the changes will in some places codify existing procedures and in others will improve our system. There are several recommendations that I believe need further discussion. These are primarily related to resolving differences of opinion between the chief of police and the police auditor in the adjudication (settlement or resolution) of allegations of misconduct and concurrent criminal and administrative investigations. I understand the circumstances that have led to many of the recommendations before the ordinance review committee. The challenges of starting our new system did result in friction between the police and the police auditor. I am concerned though, that not all of the recommendations considered by the PAORC need to be resolved immediately. Some procedures and reporting processes will benefit from discussion and negotiation between the new police chief and the new police auditor. Attempting to resolve all questions and issues right now - that predictably have arisen during the development of our new, complex system - may have unintended results. Some of the issues before the PAORC need more analysis to ensure we understand the effect the changes will have. We could benefit from better understanding the systems of the many communities with civilian oversight programs that are more mature; where they have already adjusted procedures to meet the needs of their community and law enforcement systems. Civilian Oversight and Police Department Internal Affairs Functions Our civilian oversight system was engineered to monitor and report on the work of the Eugene Police Department’s (EPD) internal affairs function. It has the additional, and I would submit an equally important responsibility, of identifying employee performance trends that are of concern and to work with the Police Department to focus attention on changes that can be made through policy and training. It is critical to understand the difference between the employment environment and the justice system. Civilian oversight and the Police Department’s internal affairs function were never intended to assist in legal and law suit processes for an aggrieved party. The civilian oversight system and the department’s internal affairs functions are intended to ensure that employees are held accountable to policies and procedures. When a reporting party informs the Police Auditor’s Office that an employee misbehaved, they are in effect alerting the Police Department to an employee who may have violated department policies. It is the work of the Police Department’s Internal Affairs program to determine, through Page 1 of 3