Item B: Civilian Review Board Annual Report

Home Browse Search

1 ? CRB authority to order cases reopened - In our review of the Chinese student case, a majority of the Board voted to order the Chief to re-open the investigation. The ordinance is silent as to whether the Board has the authority to order closed cases re- opened. The ordinance clearly allows the Board to require the city to reopen the investigation with regard to community impact cases (See Ordinance Section 2.244(4). However, the Eugene charter states that the city council shall authorize the civilian review board to “* * * require that the city re-open an investigation; * * *.” City Attorney Glenn Klein provided a March 5, 2010 opinion to Mark Gissiner and to Chief Kerns concluding that the Board does not have authority to re-open investigations in closed cases (copy attached). In our view, the ordinance is not clear on this point. ? Definition of Good Cause exception to 6 month filing deadline – The ordinance, Sec. 2.456 (1) (i) – (j), states that complaints shall be filed within 6 months of the incident, except for “good cause”. The ordinance does not define good cause, and thus, vests discretion in the auditor to determine good cause. The Board believes that a definition of good cause is warranted, and that an established definition would avoid any appearance of bias on the part of the OPA when dealing with untimely complaints. In light of the above issues, and because we now have almost four years of experience with oversight in Eugene, the Board believes that it is time for a review of the Ordinance 20374 as it pertains to the Civilian Review Board, perhaps in a fashion similar to the process employed by the Council when it reviewed the ordinance as it pertained to the Auditor’s role early last year. In any event, we believe that a review and clarification of some of the ambiguities and concerns regarding the role of the Civilian Review Board, particularly as it relates to ordinance language, is called for and would be helpful in the performance of our work. Police Auditor Assessment and Recommendations All seven Board members completed individual written reviews of the police auditor. The Board also discussed those reviews in a May 11, 2010 executive session meeting. Overall, the Board concluded that the Auditor has provided strong support to the Board. Mr. Gissiner has established a good working relationship with Eugene Police while maintaining the necessary independence. He has a professional and diplomatic manner which is appreciated. He meets or exceeds expectations in all core areas assessed. Per ordinance, the Auditor is working to implement a system to provide on-going, regular status reports with relevant data to the Board and that process needs to be completed. 1 The Board reviewed this case in February 2010 so it is not included in the 2009 case summaries. However, the Board wanted to bring the authority issue to the Council’s attention as soon as possible.