Laserfiche WebLink
disagreement among CRB members that the auditor had authority regarding the designation of <br />community impact cases, although the CRB had suggested the auditor might wish to confer with board <br />members before making that decision. <br />Ms. Ortiz endorsed the CRB's recommendation that "good cause" be defined and recalled that the council <br />had repeatedly heard from an individual interested in filing a complaint past the deadline. Mr. Gissiner <br />said he had created a definition he had not yet been able to share with the board. He characterized the <br />issue as more of an administrative process. Speaking to the case Ms. Ortiz had referred to, Mr. Gissiner <br />said the CRB decided against reviewing the case at this point in time, and the decision had nothing to do <br />with the timeline for filing a complaint. Speaking to the CRB's recommendation that it be able to request <br />that a case be reopened, Mr. Gissiner clarified that the catalyst for the request was not concern about the <br />thoroughness or quality of an investigation but rather a concern about the case's outcome. He suggested <br />that whether the council would want the CRB to be able to direct the chief to reopen the case mentioned <br />by Ms. Ortiz was a separate issue. Ms. Ortiz clarified her concerns were more general in nature. <br />Ms. Ortiz emphasized the importance of continued vigilance in police oversight and expressed <br />appreciation for the CRB and auditor. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Brown about the type of community involvement the CRB envisioned <br />it would be engaged in, Mr. Laue anticipated that CRB members would attend neighborhood association <br />meetings and events such as the recent Prevention Convention. Mr. Brown endorsed such outreach as he <br />believed it would help inform the public of the CRB's work. <br />Mr. Brown observed that a board member had suggested during the auditor's evaluation that the Human <br />Rights Commission (HRC) could play a role in the complaint intake process. He asked if the CRB had <br />discussed that possibility. Mr. Laue said yes. He recalled that there had been discussion when the <br />oversight system was established that HRC members could serve as advocates for complainants. Those <br />advocates would walk complainants through the process and represent the complainant's point of view. <br />Some had also advocated for the HRC to be involved in the classification of complaints. Mr. Laue said <br />the implementing ordinance did not provide for that and the CRB believed that task was better left to the <br />Police Auditor. He believed the HRC could have a role in helping complainants go through the complaint <br />process as well as help them understand the limits of the auditor's authority. Mr. Brown agreed that <br />would be useful as there was still some public ambiguity about the role of the auditor. <br />Mr. Brown concurred with the recommendations of the CRB, in particular its recommendation that the <br />board have the authority to order closed cases to be reopened. Mr. Laue said while the board could <br />recommend to the chief that a community impact case be reopened, but for a variety of reasons, some of <br />them legal, the board did not have that authority on closed cases. In those cases, due process had been <br />done. He noted that the case that impelled the CRB's recommendation was the case involving the <br />tasering of a Chinese student. A narrow board majority had voted to send the case, which was a closed <br />case, back to Chief Kerns for further investigation. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Brown about the distinction between the board's authority over <br />community impact cases and its authority over closed cases, Mr. Laue attributed the distinction to <br />concerns about double jeopardy for officers who had already gone through the administrative process. He <br />said the CRB was not designed to judge the adjudication of cases but rather was designed to serve as a <br />quality assurance and performance evaluation body. <br />Mr. Brown asked if the board had specific recommendations for possible ordinance revisions. Mr. Laue <br />said he would recommend that the council reaffirm the ordinance as a statement it did not intend for the <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 17, 2011 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />