Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations

Home Browse Search

Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations model that had strong evaluative capabilities to determine where changes to policy, procedures and training would improve the overall performance of the department was desired. The proposed model is a hybrid oversight system that consists of both a full-time professionally- staffed auditor’s office and a civilian review board. The role of the auditor’s office is to provide a neutral location to lodge complaints and to actively monitor on-going internal affairs investigations to ensure objective, thorough and high quality investigations. The auditor identifies policy, practice and training concerns to promote organizational changes that improve police services to the community and reduce risk and liability to the city. In addition, a civilian review board, consisting of five to seven community members, will oversee the work of the auditor’s office. The role of the review board is to evaluate the case handling decisions and investigative recommendations of the auditor’s office, and in a set of pre-established circumstances, assess how complaints are being investigated and responded to. By involving community members in the review of complaints, the commission sought to increase the transparency and public understanding of incidents under investigation, and, over time, hoped to reestablish trust and credibility in the complaint process. The proposed model is broken down into three main components: 1) complaint intake, classification and routing decisions, 2) investigation monitoring and adjudication recommendations, and 3) case review. The auditor and review board’s function in these three areas are described in more detail below. Complaint Intake The success of any complaint system is contingent on an intake process that is easily accessible and perceived as credible and responsive to the end users. The current police department complaint intake process is wholly internal,meaning that the police department has sole responsibility for complaint handling and resolution decisions. In soliciting public input on this system, people often expressed anxiety that if they complained about a police officer, they would be subject to some form of retaliation, their concerns wouldn’t be taken seriously, and/or that nothing would come of their complaint. In response to these concerns, the commission is recommending that the auditor’s office become the singular intake center for community member complaints, and that police employees can choose to lodge complaints through either internal affairs or the auditor’s office. The auditor’s office can also process commendations. The Police Commission recognizes that designating the auditor’s office as the receptacle for all community member complaints will require a significant public education process. It recommends that information on the redesigned complaint process with an accompanying complaint form is available at multiple locations throughout the community, including community centers, social service providers and even large retail centers. The brochures should encourage honest feedback about police conduct and department services and be available in English and Spanish. The commission is willing to participate as appropriate in developing a revised complaint intake form and associated information that clearly explains the process, options for complaint resolution and possible outcomes, and timeline expectations. The commission also acknowledges that internal procedures for referring community members to the appropriate entity to take a complaint, answer a question, or access other information 9