My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 05/18/09 Work Session
>
Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:04:27 PM
Creation date
5/15/2009 10:09:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/18/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations <br />3) Unfounded. <br />:The claim is unsubstantiatedIt wasdetermined by a preponderance of the <br />evidence that the employee(s)involved did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the <br />complainant. <br />2 <br />4) Within Policy <br />: It was determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the behavior <br />of the employee(s) involved did occur but was consistent with EPD policies, rules, practices <br />and/or procedures. <br />5) Mediated <br />:During the process of an investigation, it was determined that the case would <br />likely be more successfully resolved through mediation; all parties agreed to mediate the <br />complaint and the mediation process was completed. <br />6) Inactive <br />:The investigation cannot proceed forward without additional information. The <br />investigation may be reactivated upon the discovery of new, substantive information or <br />evidence. <br />7)Administratively Closed: <br /> The investigation is closed prior to reaching a conclusion. For <br />instance, the complainant does not provide the information needed or refuses to cooperate <br />with the investigation. <br />Systemic Review <br />One of the primary strengths of the auditor modelas proposed is to afford additional analytical <br />capacity that is not merely focused on individual complaints but strives towards systemic evaluation <br />of the complaint process and departmental practices in general. In furtherance of this objective, the <br />commission recommends that the auditor: <br />be summoned to the scene of critical incidents to enable first-hand knowledge of high <br />o <br />profile events should a complaint ensue; <br />participate in deadly force review boards (contingent on the result of SB301) <br />o <br />review risk/tort claims and develop risk/liability reduction plans <br />o <br />The City Manager’s contracted annual audit of closed internal affairs investigations would no <br />longer be necessary if the auditor model proposed is implemented. <br />The commission has found through its research that the ability to influence police policy is one <br />of the strongest accountability measures. Whilethis authority may be vested in either the <br />auditor’s office or the review board, experience nationally has indicated that the volume of <br />complaint investigations tends to diminish thecapacity to conduct thorough policy reviews. As <br />such, the Police Commission recommends that it is retained as the department’s policy review <br />body and that the auditor is charged with reporting any policy issues to the commission. <br />The auditor’s office will also develop an annual report of its workload, case handling and <br />investigative recommendations and suggestions for procedural improvements. The report may <br />also evaluate discipline decisions for consistency across personnel and relevant to specific <br />violations. The annual report should highlight any situations where the auditor recommended <br />actions that were not supported by the Chief of Police and how those disagreements were <br />resolved. The annual report should also enable both the review board and City Council to assess <br />the performance of the auditor’s office to ensure that it is functioning as intended. <br />2 <br /> Replaces “Exonerated” <br />19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.