Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations

Home Browse Search

Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations committee and commission level. The EPEA’s formal positions on the oversight system are included as Attachment C. Complaint Intake Committee The goal of the Complaint Intake Committee wasto “develop recommendations to improve how complaints are received and processed to create and accessible, safe, and responsive intake system that engenders the trust and confidence of all involved and that promotes accountability.” The committee reviewed three separate models for complaint receipt and handling, and from these models, developed an intake process that it believed would meet the values described in its goal statement. The three intake models that were considered are described as follows: Internal Intake – systems where all complaints regarding police personnel are funneled to o the police department for processing, although various access points may exist. While there may be multiple avenues for complainantsto initiate the process, all complaints are referred to police personnel who are responsible for all case handling decisions (investigate, dismiss, mediate,etc.). Like most police departments, Eugene currently has an internal intake system. Independent Intake – systems where all complaints against police personnel are required o to be submitted to and processed by an entity outside the police department. This entity has sole responsibility for complaint intake and categorization decisions, and if not resolved at intake, assigns the complaint to the investigative unit forfurther processing. Dual Intake – those systems where complaints may be lodged either with the police o department or with an independent entity that has responsibility for tracking and reviewing the complaint. In some systems, the complainant can choose either intake entity to lodge a complaint. In others, the police department retains responsibility for intake of internally generated complaints and civilians can choose either venue. Another variation is where the nature of the complaint, rather than the complainant, determines which intake system receives the complaint;for example, those where all excessive force and discrimination complaints are handled by the independent entity. What distinguishes dual intake systems from the other models is that both entities have complaint decision- making and tracking responsibilities. The committee was in agreement that the ability for community members to lodge complaints in a neutral environment, independent from the police department, was an unqualified requirement in its proposed model. It initially selected a dual intake model where complainants, both police and civilians alike, could file a complaint with either the internal affairs or an independent entity, presumed to be the auditor’s office. This process offered several advantages over the other models in that it provided options for complainants to self-select the venue they were most comfortable with and increased intake staff capacity to ensure a timely response to complainants. The committee acknowledged that for a dual intake system to work well, data sharing and coordination between internal affairs and the auditor’s office would be a prerequisite. In sharing its recommended intake model with other commissioners, concerns were raised that real and/or perceived inconsistencies in complaint handling decisions between the two entities would be inevitable. The Intake Committee reconsidered its recommendation and revised the dual model so that the auditor was responsible for complaint classification decisions. At the July 5