Item B: Civilian Review Board Annual Report

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Incident Escalation - In several of our reviews, Board members noted that incidents seem to spiral quickly into active confrontation and conflict. The Board discussed the need for better de-escalation techniques (possibly more CIT training) with the hope that some situations can be brought under control without the use of force. Better de-escalation would lower the threat to officers, as well as subjects, and be more aligned with community values and community policing. Quality of IA Investigations – Overall the quality of IA investigations is very good. Relevant witnesses are contacted and interviewed respectfully. Reports are generally thorough and complete. Nonetheless, the Board encourages Internal Affairs to seek continuous improvement in its investigative efforts and fact-finding reports, thus assuring the community that the investigations and reports are presented in a thorough, neutral and unbiased manner. Other Activities At its June 2010 meeting, the Board finalized and adopted its Policies and Procedures Manual. Those Policies and Procedures are available for review. It is the Board’s goal that adopting written guidelines will improve our processes and increase transparency regarding the Board’s work. Recommendations In the course of our reviews and other Board work, several areas of concern have emerged that we would highlight to seek guidance form Council. In particular, these concerns relate to the work of the Civilian Review Board and its unique role in Eugene’s model of civilian oversight. ? Community impact case designations – Under the current ordinance, only the auditor designates community impact cases; and the perspective has been expressed that the Board should have a role in that decision. ? Information/disclosure - The Board continues to discuss, and is conscious of, the need for more openness and transparency in the complaint and auditor processes. To that end, the Board has discussed providing the auditor summaries, the on-going status reports of open and closed cases, the internal affairs reports, and the police administration case evaluations. Because of uncertainty surrounding the legal requirements of confidentiality and privacy rights for officers and individuals in some or all of these documents, the Board requested a legal opinion from the Oregon Attorney General on whether exceptions to specific public records statutes apply. The Attorney General declined to comment (see attached letter and request). The Board’s goals are to increase transparency and public confidence and we believe that both goals are advanced by providing as much transparency and information as possible.