CC Minutes - 05/18/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka cited the purposes of an oversight system and functions of the police auditor as identified in the Police Commission’s report. He said it was the role of the City Council to provide supervision and that needed to be defined clearly. He felt the need to assess and address issues raised by the Police Auditor with respect to the functioning of the auditor’s office. He said the CRB’s role was defined in the report and did not include supervision of the auditor. Mr. Brown pointed out that one of the CRB’s delineated roles was to participate in the annual evaluation of the Police Auditor. Ms. Ortiz commended the CRB for its hard work, but questioned whether the intent was to have the board minutely examine each piece of evidence during case reviews, essentially conducting a re-examination. Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said that the CRB reviewed the entire case file—from in-car videos to investigation reports and medical records—looking for gaps in the process or indications of bias. She said the board could request a case, but typically cases were selected from a summary of closed cases provided by the auditor; an examination of the entire case file was the model used by most jurisdictions with an oversight system. She said in most cases there was agreement between the Police Department and the Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka said it would be difficult to determine whether there were gaps or biases without examining the entire record. He asked how many cases the CRB reviewed annually. Ms. Reynolds replied that the board usually looked at one case per month and on occasion two. She said it generally took members eight to nine hours to examine the complete record for a case. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the police auditor’s office existed to ensure the quality and nature of the investigation was thorough and appropriate and the role of the CRB was to monitor the work of the police auditor as well as identify trends or areas that warranted recommendations regarding policy changes or training. He said the CRB’s role with respect to policy was to identify issues and the Police Commission’s role was to make the policy recommendations to the Police Chief. Ms. Reynolds agreed, but said that if the CRB or police auditor identified an issue such as a lack of training on the Americans with Disabilities Act it might make that recommendation directly to the chief in the interests of expediting action. Ms. Ortiz asked how the community had responded to the new complaint and intake process through the Police Auditor’s office. Ms. Reynolds said her office had begun conducting follow-up surveys and phone calls to determine complainants’ levels of satisfaction with the process. She commented that mediation services were available and those who had gone through it were pleased with the results. Mr. Clark said the Police Commission’s role was to reflect community values in its police policy recommen- dations. He asked how the CRB ascertained community values in order to integrate them into case reviews and policy concerns and whether the CRB explored legislative intent behind the policies that existed. Ms. Reynolds said the CRB had a packet of materials detailing the work of the Police Commission to establish the oversight system and each CRB member was required to take eight credit hours of training on various policing issues. She said each case had a policy issue that provided further background information and she also provided the board with resource materials. She felt the CRB had a good grasp of police policies and the history of creating those policies and was always looking for ways to improve and clarify them so they worked better for everyone. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 3 Work Session