Laserfiche WebLink
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations <br />other types of closed cases. It will be the auditor’s responsibility to alert complainants that their <br />case will be automatically reviewed by the board as a matter of policy for community impact <br />cases, and will notify complainants of their ability to request review by the board in other types <br />of cases. <br />Board Membership Recommendations <br />The commission strongly believes that the success of the proposed model rests in large part on <br />the quality of community volunteers that serve on the board. A high level of integrity and <br />discipline will be required, as will the ability to review cases impartially, acting primarily as fact <br />finders. The commission has developed the following board membership and selection process <br />parameters: <br />A smaller board size comprised of 5-7 members is recommended to maintain a highly <br />o <br />effective and qualified membership. The existing enabling ordinance for the Police <br />Commission already provides that one member of the review board is appointed to serve as a <br />member of the commission to facilitate information exchange. <br />Members should serve 4-year staggered terms, with a two-term limit (some members <br />o <br />preferred 3-year terms). <br />Members must be age 18 or olderand must meet residency requirements (residency within <br />o <br />the urban growth boundary and city limits were both discussed, but a decision on which <br />requirement was preferred was not reached). <br />Real and perceived impartiality is critical to the credibility of the board. As such, city <br />o <br />employees are not allowed to serve, nor should direct family members of police employees. <br />Those with felony convictions should also be prohibited from serving on the board. <br />Additional recommendations for background qualifications, skills and training requirements <br />will be developed once the function of the board and its reporting relationships are decided. <br />Selection of members should strive to be reflective of the community, but should not be <br />o <br />based on representing a particular constituency (council wards, special interest groups, <br />neighborhoods, etc.). Instead, members should be selected based on a demonstrated ability <br />to be fair and impartial. <br />The Mayor should develop and oversee the selection process, possibly in consultation with <br />o <br />the auditor, so that it includes broad community participation in application screening <br />process. The community panel would review applications and select a slate of candidates for <br />City Council’s consideration. However in making the board appointments, Council may <br />select an applicant outside the selection panel’s recommended candidate pool. <br />Procedures for removal of members after appointment should be developed. <br />o <br />The commission agreed that to protect the board from outside influence, the Chief should not <br />o <br />serve in an ex-officio capacity on the board, nor should any city officials have specific <br />nominating authority for board members. <br />22 <br /> <br />