Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gissiner recognized that police relations were a very important issue not only to the council but to the <br />community at large. He briefly described how his position had developed since he assumed it <br />approximately six months ago. <br />Mr. Gissiner noted that while his recent communications with the council had primarily focused on <br />elements relating to the Ian Van Ornum case, he had also become significantly concerned with clarifying <br />the nature and working definitions of Community Impact Cases (CIC) for the benefit of the council. <br />Mr. Gissiner proceeded to provide from his presentation materials a definition of CIC's as well as a brief <br />overview of the police auditor's role in the investigation and adjudication of CIC's. He clarified that <br />certain elements of the auditor's role were not specified in the Eugene Code but rather were protocols that <br />had been negotiated as part of the EPD collective bargaining environment. <br />Mr. Gissiner provided a brief overview of the Civilian Review Board's (CRB) role and responsibilities <br />with respect to CIC's. He referenced the Ian Van Ornum case and recognized that the public had been <br />somewhat frustrated by the amount of information that they had received and their inability to have input <br />into the decision-making process surrounding that case. He noted that such factors had influenced the <br />CRB's role with respect to CIC investigations and had resulted in the utilization of three separate CRB <br />meetings to review CIC's. <br />Mr. Gissiner noted there had been a certain amount of confusion for the public regarding the manner in <br />which the CRB discussed closed cases in public meetings. He proceeded to describe in greater detail the <br />CRB's role surrounding closed cases. <br />Mr. Gissiner noted that while the CRB could require the City to reopen investigations surrounding closed <br />cases and could also provide recommendations regarding closed cases, it was important to understand in <br />both CIC's and closed cases that "only the hiring authority or the hiring authority's designee may impose <br />discipline" upon sworn EPD officers. Mr. Gissiner emphasized that only the City Manager or the Chief <br />of the EPD could make disciplinary decisions and impose discipline upon sworn officers and that the <br />Mayor, the Police Auditor, the City Council members, and the CRB members could not. <br />Mr. Gissiner believed it was important to clarify any misunderstandings in the community surrounding <br />the proper disciplinary authority over EPD officers. <br />Mr. Gissiner briefly described how he expected to maintain avenues of communication with various areas <br />of the community and also provided information on how he planned to be involved with the City Council, <br />various community meetings and local media outlets. <br />Mr. Gissiner briefly described a number of organizational challenges that his office currently faced. He <br />hoped that previous misconceptions regarding the nature of the police auditor's budget had been <br />sufficiently addressed. He hoped that his office would be able to present more detailed budget <br />information to the council in late December or early January. <br />Mr. Gissner recognized that the discussions and reviews performed by the CRB had a tremendous impact <br />on the community. He briefly discussed his office's interactions with the various levels of police services <br />and noted that he had consistently found the EPD to be very cooperative and transparent at all levels. <br />Mr. Gissiner briefly described the various future challenges faced by the police auditor's office. He <br />elaborated that it was often difficult to strike an adequate balance between the public's need for <br />transparency and the parameters of existing public records laws. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />