Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations

Home Browse Search

Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations Upon further discussion of the merits of these two models, the committee decided to combine elements of both options into a new model. This oversight system was presented to the Police Commission at its May meeting for preliminary discussion and conceptual approval of the hybrid oversight system. Also in May, committee chairs met with members of CUBP to compare oversight models. This discussion indicated that the two group’s proposals, while not identical, were alike in many important aspects. Once the commission agreed to a hybrid oversight model, research then focused on other communities with similar systems, particularly Seattle, Portland, and Denver. The Deputy Director of the Portland Independent Police Review Division and Chair of the Citizen Review Committee provided an overview of Portland’s system to the commission. In June, Richard Rosenthal, formerly the Independent Auditor for the City of Portland and recently hired as Denver’s police monitor, gave his assessment of the commission’s proposed model. The commission held three meetings in June for deliberation and revisions to the model, considering further input from City Manager Dennis Taylor (see Attachment D), the City th Attorney, stakeholder groups, and input received at two public forums. At the June 9 meeting, the CUBP gave its support to the commission’s draft proposal if the governance of the model rdth was under the auspices of the City Council. On June 23 and 28, the commission worked through the intake system and auditor/review board roles to determine where there was consensus on the model and identify areas in need of further refinements (see Attachment E for the commission’s voting record on the substantive portions of the oversight model). th At the July 14 meeting, the commission held a 30-minute discussion session with CUBP members to determine how the CUBP would proceed with sharing its proposal and/or comments on the commission’s oversight model with the Council. A memo from the CUBP regarding the civilian oversight proposal is included as Attachment F. Also attached is the Human Rights Commission’s statement of support for the oversight proposal that was read into the record at the July meeting (see Attachment G). After the conversation with the CUBP and another discussion with the City Attorney on the function of the review board, the Police Commission made several adjustments to the model and voted to forward the oversight recommendations to the City Council for its review. Attachment H includes the City Attorney’sreview of the oversight modeland specific advice regarding the function of the review board. V. Proposed Oversight System Description In its research of civilian review models, the Police Commission established that police oversight has evolved from purely citizen volunteer boards charged with reviewing complaints against police. Civilian review of police now includes a range of different oversight systems with structural and procedural variations that are unique to each community. The commission agreed early on that it favored a model that provides for an external review of complaints by professional staff to ensure competent, thorough, objective and timely investigations. It also valued models that enabled identification of systemic issues within the police department that helped generate complaints. Rather than being confined to the review of individual complaints, a 8