Item A: Quarterly Police Auditor Briefing

Home Browse Search

In our view, the result of this is that the public will continue to remain in the dark regarding “quality assurance” of police complaint investigations and will be forced to rely upon the Board’s determination of the “thoroughness, completeness and absence of bias” in complaint investigations. The Eugene City Attorney refers to exceptions in the statute but was not specific about what they are. In fact, there are four in ORS181.854(3): a) When the public interest requires disclosure of the information. ( (b) When the employee consents to disclosure in writing. (c) When disclosure is necessary for an investigation by the public body, the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training or acitizen review body designated by the public body. (d) When the public body determines that nondisclosure of the information would adversely affect the confidence of the public in the public body. We believe (a) and (d) are exceptions that apply to the work of Eugene’s Civilian Review Board, and we seek an opinion of the Attorney General with regard to these matters, particularly as it relates to public disclosure in relation to the two exceptions [(a) & (d)] of ORS 181.854 and whether they may apply to Eugene’s Civilian Review Board. Once we have that opinion to consider, we can decide on the next steps for the Board. We believe the current State of Oregon public records laws provide no consistent standard for the release of administrative public safety records. Rather than well defined state requirements, the current laws seem to rely on subjective decisions by each respective jurisdiction. What may be considered of “significant public interest” in say, Medford, may not be considered of “significant public interest” in Salem. Public record laws should be State wide and clear. Relying on the subjective decisions of local governments erodes the confidence of citizens in their government because transparency is not clearly defined. We also seek clarity as to who is authorized to release the records. In the case of the CRB, we are tasked with reviewing police investigative files and a few documents generated by the Police Auditor for the City of Eugene. Thus, with the vast majority of administrative records on police complaints, those records are generated by the Eugene Police Department. As the generator of an administrative record, is the Eugene Police Department the only entity authorized to release the record or, once in the possession of the CRB or Police Auditor, are they authorized to release to the public records originally generated by the police? The final issue we seek clarity on is whether any collective bargaining agreements take precedence over state public records law. Currently in place is an EPEA contract and negotiated protocols that include clauses with regard to confidentiality and the public discussion of citizen complaints and administrative processes and decisions as a result of these complaints. We believe that this is an important question to be answered as well.