Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gissiner remarked there was incongruence in the Eugene Charter, the Police Auditor Ordinance, and the collective bargaining unit related to closed cases. He would like to address some issues related to editing when the collective bargaining agreement was opened. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on the “24 percent sustained rate” referred to in the annual report. Mr. Gissiner responded it meant that officers did not act within policy 24 percent of the time on policy complaints lodged with his office. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Gissiner for his work. She observed a number of complaints were related to homeless people and those with mental health issues, which was almost 50 percent of the cases police dealt with that were not policing. This indicated EPD was doing more than policing. She appreciated the budget conservation demonstrated by the office. She asked if there were a percentage of people who had negative contacts with EPD who did not complain. Mr. Gissiner agreed there were people who did not complain. He added he was stunned by the demographic that the average complainant was 42 years old. Most of the people who committed crime were between 15 and 25 years of age, and the complainant was often their mother. He thought homelessness and mental illness contributed to that statistic. Ms. Ortiz said the CRB and the PA’s office brought transparency to the complaint process which made it clear to the public that there was a place to go with complaints and someone would listen to those complaints. She was pleased Mr. Gissiner was concerned with the pursuit policy and that it had been added to the CRB work plan. She emphasized that the issues identified were related to training. Mr. Pryor observed Chief Kerns’ and Mr. Gissiner’s reports were related. The manner in which the community was policed would constantly be debated, because there was a continuum of those who believed in individual rights, protections and freedoms, and what we should be able to do as an individual versus those who believed the community had needs and priorities, and the community needed to do what was best for the community. That tension would always exist. Tension between the auditor and the chief was a good thing because it produced the right outcomes and maintained the balance in the community. The auditor’s office was a key element in maintaining that balance because it was part of what insured that one side or the other was not favored. He appreciated both the chief and the auditor for recognizing that role. Mr. Pryor asked if the auditor’s function was to be a tool for discipline and to affect change, or if it was also a tool to prevent the problems from recurring. This would enable the auditor’s office to become a productive part of making EPD better in the future, which he believed had always been the intention of the police auditor function. It was important to learn as much as possible about how the auditor function worked. He was pleased with progress made, noting both the chief and the auditor had found that dynamic. Mr. Clark commended Mr. Gissiner on the thoroughness of the annual report and thought it would be very useful. He was happy with Mr. Gissiner’s first year, noting the auditor’s office was working better for the broader community through good communication and the ability to prevent problems. He had learned through weekly meetings with Mr. Gissiner and Ms. Taylor that officers had become more comfortable bringing issues to Mr. Gissiner for advice. As a member of the Police Commission, he had seen improvements through Mr. Gissiner’s work with the CRB. This was reinforced by a 100 percent sustained MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2010 Page 5 Work Session