Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item B: FY07 Police Commission Work Plan
ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Fiscal Year 2007 Police Commission Work Plan Meeting Date: August 14, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Eugene Police Department Staff Contact: Jeannine Parisi www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5852 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is a joint meeting with members of the Police Commission to receive the commission’s annual report and to approve the Police Commission work plan for fiscal year 2007. The Police Commission is also submitting a draft framework for a future ordinance describing the authorities of the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND Each year, the City Council meets with the Police Commission to review its annual report and approve a work plan for the upcoming year. On July 25, 2005, the City Council approved the commission’s request for an extension of its FY05 work plan to continue work in progress or previously identified. Following the November election regarding the governance of the complaint oversight system, the Police Commission identified a series of immediate next steps to assist with implementation of the model. This included assisting with background research and material development for the police auditor recruitment process. In March 2006, the City Council approved the commission’s work plan for the remainder of FY06. The major new activity reflected in this plan was to draft an ordinance framework delineating the major duties and procedures for the Auditor’s Office and Civilian Review Board consistent with the civilian oversight model. Attachment A is the Police Commission FY06 Annual Report which describes the commission’s accomplishments and challenges in completing the tasks identified in the FY06 work plan(s). Attachment B is the draft civilian oversight ordinance framework. This document reflects the work of two committees which separately crafted preliminary language regarding the authorities of the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board. The committees then merged their work into one document and, in a joint meeting, made refinements and identified issues requiring discussion by the entire Police Commission. Committee members asked City Attorney Sharon Rudnick to determine which elements in the framework would be mandatory subjects of bargaining and would therefore require negotiation with the Eugene Police Employees Association prior to enactment. Ms. Rudnick’s opinion is included as Attachment C. The Police Commission discussed the framework and the City Attorney opinion at its July 13 meeting. On July 27, the commission reviewed the framework in more detail, making several minor adjustments, resolving outstanding issues where possible, and adding footnotes where necessary to provide additional context to issues that remained unresolved. Members voted to forward the draft L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814B.doc framework for City Council consideration as part of this work session. They further recommended that the framework be provided to the Police Auditor for his/her input prior to any City Council action. The commission agreed that if the City Council deemed it appropriate, it would review definitions, as drafted by the City Attorney, as an additional next step. Refinement of the ordinance framework in collaboration with the Police Auditor is included as a task in the proposed FY07 work plan. The main work plan activities proposed for FY07 include continued assistance with tasks associated with oversight model implementation. The Police Commission recognizes the magnitude of effort required to successfully launch this new system and has selected activities that it believes are timely and well-suited to its role and expertise. However, City Council is encouraged to redirect these efforts as necessary to best support this project, either through modification of the work plan or in response to emerging issues over the course of the year. The FY07 work plan also includes two new activities that are closely aligned with the police department’s strategic plan efforts: 1) assisting with the policy manual standardization and updating effort as a step towards departmental accreditation; and 2) developing a strategic response to family violence incidents. Attachment D contains the work plan adopted by the Police Commission at its last meeting. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City Council-adopted Vision and Goals Statement include two statements relevant to this item: 1)Safe Community – a community where people feel safe, valued and welcomed, and; 2)Effective and Accountable Municipal Government – a government that works openly, collaboratively, and fairly with the community to achieve measurable and positive outcomes Additionally, many of the activities discussed in the Police Commission annual report and included in next year’s proposed work plan are related to the City Council Priority Issue “Implement Police Complaint Oversight and Launch Police Department Strategic Plan.” COUNCIL OPTIONS The purpose of this work session is to present the commission’s annual report and, as part of that report, submit the draft framework for a civilian oversight ordinance. No City Council action is required for these two items at this time. However, the Police Commission is requesting City Council approval of a work plan for the current fiscal year. The City Council may: 1.Approve the Police Commission FY07 work plan as proposed; 2.Amend the proposed work plan and approve the plan as amended; or 3.Direct the Police Commission to modify the work plan and present the revised version to the City Council for approval at a later date. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the council approve the Police Commission FY07 work plan as proposed. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the Police Commission’s FY07 work plan. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814B.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Police Commission FY06 Annual Report B. Draft Civilian Oversight Ordinance Framework C. June 29, 2006 Memo to Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board Policy Teams, “Proposed Auditor/CRB Ordinance Framework: Identification of Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining.” D. Police Commission FY07 Work Plan FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jeannine Parisi Telephone: 541-682-5852 Staff E-Mail: jeannine.parisi@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060814\S060814B.doc City of Eugene POLICE COMMISSION Annual Report FY 2005 – 2006 Eugene Police Commission Mission Statement Our mission is to recommend to the City Council, City Manager, Police Department, and the people, the resources, preferred policing alternatives, policies, and citizens’ responsibilities needed to achieve a safe community. We strive to create a climate of mutual respect and partnership among people that helps achieve safety, justice and freedom for all people in Eugene. 777 Pearl St, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5852 FAX (541) 682-8395 www.ci.eugene.or.us/policecomm/index.htm I. Introduction This staff report is submitted to the Eugene City Council to document the activities of the Police Commission during Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. The annual report describes how the commission has met the expectations of the City Council, as delineated in its work plan, has responded to issues of community concern, and has furthered its mission and objectives. The charge of the Police Commission, described in City Ordinance 20136, can be distilled into three main components: 1)improve communication between the police and the community, thereby decreasing misunderstandings about policies and practices and helping to build consensus around preferred policing alternatives for the city; 2)identify policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives, and to assist the City Council in balancing police resources with community priorities; and 3)provide input on police policies and procedures that reflects community values. The Police Commission was operating under an interim work plan for the majority of last year. The interim plan was, in large part, a continuation of the projects already identified and underway. The main activities were to review the draft Eugene Police Strategic Plan and assist with the implementation of the civilian oversight model. These results of these efforts, and new endeavors, are described in the following sections. II.Accomplishments A. Improving Communication and Understanding of Police Practices One of the most important functions of the Police Commission is to provide a forum for open discussion on a range of policing issues in a public meeting setting. This year’s meeting schedule, while not as demanding as last year’s, provided numerous opportunities for community involvement in the commission’s work. In addition to the ten regular monthly police commission meetings, in FY06, the commission sponsored twenty-three committee and task group meetings. This does not include the work planning sessions with the City Council or the Chair’s participation in the City Council’s ad hoc committee on the police auditor recruitment process. Although there was often less public participation in this year’s commission meetings than during the development of the oversight model, meeting materials were provided to stakeholders, including the steering committee for Communities United for Better Policing, to keep interested parties informed of the process and issues under discussion. As mentioned earlier, the Police Commission was primarily involved in strategic plan review in the first half of the fiscal year.Following the November 2006 election, its attention turned to oversight model implementation tasks. However, several information work sessions on other topics were conducted throughout the year, which broadened opportunities for public participation and understanding on other policing issues. For example, two work sessions were held on police department response to family violence incidents. In the first session, the commission reviewed crime statistics and reporting requirements, work load and investigative capacity, and existing legislation, policy and training parameters. A follow-up session was scheduled to discuss options for commission involvement in the development of family violence intervention strategies that would work in tandem with the department’s strategic initiative in domestic violence and that recognized the serious resource limitations covering the entire spectrum of criminal justice services. The Police Commission also discussed the department’s plans to update and standardize its policies and procedures manual as a first step towards accreditation, using a subscription service to Lexipol as the framework for the review. As a result of these work sessions, activities related to both family violence strategies and the police policy manual transition are reflected in the commission’s proposed work plan. The Police Commission continued to receive internal affairs case summaries on a quarterly basis. This information was routinely reported in the Register-Guard,as was the information contained in the presentation to the commission on the 2005 Internal Affairs case statistics. B. Police Policy Review As the commission’s work plan was primarily an extension of the previous year’s activities, no new police policies were included for review this past year. However, the development of a policy for the use of video cameras in patrol cars was a carryover item. The In-Car Video/Audio Recording Policy Committee was originally formed at the September 2004 Police Commission meeting to assist the department in creating a policy for the use of in-car video equipment. These systems can provide objective evidence to document traffic and criminal violations, enhance officer safety, and assist in the timely resolution of inquiries and complaints from community members.The commission approved a draft policy at its February 2005 meeting, noting that the policy would need to be revisited to address several technical and procedural issues that were left unresolved pending a system selection decision. The committee reconvened in June to receive a progress report on the video system product evaluation and vendor selection decision, and to review the latest draft of the policy. The committee provided its conceptual approval of the draft policy, requesting a final review if any significant changes resulted from discussions with the Eugene Police Employees’ Association. The committee also requested to have an opportunity to review and comment on a project evaluation plan to be conducted one year after system implementation. Phased installation of video units in patrol vehicles is scheduled to begin in Fall 2006. During this time period, the Police Commission received a one-year update on the status of its SWAT policy recommendations. Lieutenant Kerns reported on the number of team activations compared to the number of risk assessment matrices submitted. He noted that the risk assessment matrix developed as a result of the commission’s review had been a useful evaluation tool and that additional refinements were underway. It was also reported that the commission’s recommendation that the department invest in updated communications equipment for the Crisis Negotiation Team had been accomplished. C. Resource Issues As in past years, the Police Commission received an overview of the proposed police department FY07 budget and reviewed salient portions of the City Manger’s budget request. These reviews are scheduled to provide an opportunity for commissioners to stay informed of the city’s financial environment and department’s funding sources and expenditures, and to comment on resource Page 2 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report priorities. However, offering timely and meaningful input into the department’s resource decisions continues to be a challenge. Monitoring the implementation of the strategic plan, which is an important vehicle for identifying future resource needs, may better enable the group to fulfill its charge to help City Council balance resource decisions with community priorities. The Police Commission had a more substantial advisory role during the development of the department’s strategic plan. With the release of the first draft of the plan in July 2005, the commission agreed to spend a significant portion of its next several meetings to comment on the draft plan. At the th September 8 commission meeting, Chief Lehner presented an overview of the draft plan’s structure and preliminary content. Several commissioners expressed interest in being more actively involved in reviewing the plan, and formed a small task group to discuss the draft and offer suggestions to staff. The task team recommended several changes that were incorporated into the final draft. As the task group was conducting a more detailed review of the plan drafts, the full commission turned its attention to several other departmental efforts integral to accomplishing the longer-term strategic plan initiatives. Over the course of two meetings, the commission was provided with status updates on the accreditation application process, efforts to increase staffing in Internal Affairs, changes to officer recruiting, hiring and promotionpractices, and development of a new basic training curriculum. Additionally, the commission was apprised of two consultant projects to review and provide recommendations on management practices in the communications center and to provide an organizational staffing plan that is aligned with current work load and can be phased in over a number of years. The commission presented comments on the strategic plan in its January 10, 2006 memo to City Council. In short, the commissioners thought the document demonstrated a strong commitment to organizational change that would modernize departmental procedures and practices consistent with industry standards. Commissioners found particular value (both internally and to the community) in the program descriptions. These descriptions detail the main police department services, assign objectives to help define purpose, and delineate performance measures to demonstrate effectiveness. Commissioners agreed that this was a new and refreshing look at the delivery of public safety services that provided information from which managers and community members can make informed recommendations for resource and service priority changes. The memo also conveyed the commission’s intent to review strategic plan quarterly reports, providing feedback to the department on both the content and structure of the reports as an evaluation tool. The commission emphasized that through the review of the quarterly reports, it could assist in monitoring progress towards the recommendations contained in the 2005 ICMA/PERF report, the most significant of which are reflected in the plan. The Police Commission received the first quarterly report in May and while impressed with comprehensiveness of the report and progress to date, suggested a more condensed version be developed so that the public could be better apprised of the significant changes underway related to issues of community interest, such as the complaint handling process. In response to continuing concerns about downtown safety and to specifically address public comments received about the deteriorating condition of Eugene's core neighborhood, the commission agreed to treat this topic as an emerging issue. It convened a small ad hoc team to assess the implementation status of its previously adopted Downtown Public Safety Action Plan and recommend priority actions in light of current resource availability and safety/environmental conditions downtown. Page 3 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report In May, a memo was sent to the City Council describing four recommendations, three of which reiterated strategies contained in the original downtown safety plan. The fourth recommendation was a new strategy recognizing a growing interest among downtown stakeholders to utilize security cameras as a cost-effective safety measure. III. Civilian Oversight Model Implementation A. Planned Activities After presenting its civilian oversight recommendations to the City Council in July 2005, the commission’s work on this project was on hold pending the outcome of the November election. The commission took advantage of this lull in activity to convene a joint task team to develop recommendations on the role of mediation and advocacy in the new complaint system, an activity reflected in its oversight recommendations and contained in its FY06 work plan. The Mediation and Advocacy Task Team (MATT), consisting of members of both the Police and Human Rights Commissions and mediation practitioners, was charged with: evaluating the city’s existing mediation program and reviewing other programs in place nationally, using this information to develop recommendations to optimize the use of alternative methods of resolving complaints against police employees; and identifying key issues and developing options or recommendations for addressing the issues areas; drafting a report to both the Police and Human Rights Commissionsthat if accepted, could be forwarded to the Police Auditor as a framework for future program redesign. After several months of model research and discussion of the key issues identified, MATT released a draft report and presented an overview of its preliminary findings to the Human Rights Commission in March. The report expressed appreciation to the Human Rights Program for initiating and maintaining the existing program, which has had many successful complaint resolutions over the years. As such, many of MATT’s recommendations formalize current practices or clarify procedures to improve consistency. Recommendations for change were largely based on a review of model programs and/or were framed as suggestions for consideration upon resolution of other aspects of the complaint process. Some key recommendations included: retaining both a mediation and facilitated conversation as voluntary alternative complaint resolution options, but clarifying the distinction between the two processes; establishing broader case eligibility standards so that with the exception of a few categorical exclusions, complaints would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine where mediation would offer the best chance of a satisfactory resolution to both parties; contracting for professional mediation services and providing compensation for those services to elevate perceptions that the process is credible, neutral and safe; case assignment, coordination, and program evaluation is proposed to occur through the Auditor’s Office; and recognizing that getting both parties to agree to mediation is often the greatest barrier to a successful program, MATT recommended several incentives for participation to incorporate into program design. Page 4 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report MATT also discussed the role of advocacy in the new complaint process and developed several recommendations for how additional, outside support could be provided to complainants. Most significantly, MATT emphasized that the Human Rights Program will have a critical role in educating people about the new complaint intake and review process and assuring them that their concerns will be treated fairly and with due diligence. Future conversations between the Auditor’s Office and the Human Rights Program were encouraged to ensure a collaborative working relationship and to create mutually acceptable protocols for how advocates can assist in the new system. The Police Commission discussed and provided comment on the MATT report at its April meeting. Based on input received at that meeting, a reviseddraft was presented and accepted at the May Human Rights Commission meeting. The commission accepted the report in June and will forward it to the future police auditor. Both commissions were appreciative if the task team’s comprehensive review and proposed solutions to ensure that alternative resolution was a viable option in the complaint system. Another oversight-related activity during this time period was the attendanceof Commissioners Bettman, Brown and Ortiz at the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference in Miami, Florida.The NACOLE annual conference was an exceptional opportunity for the commissioners to gain broader exposure to current issues in civilian oversight and meet with leading experts in the field. B. Model Implementation Assistance With the affirmative vote of the public authorizing the City Council to hire a police auditor and appoint a civilian review board, the commission offered to assist with several immediate next steps to move forward with implementation of the oversight model. With Council approval, the commission assembled a task team to research and compile information that could be used in the upcoming police auditor recruitment process. The Auditor Recruitment Recommendations Team (ARRT) reviewed recruiting materials from the cities of Boise, Denver, Portland, San Jose, and Seattle to develop recommendations for a police auditor job description, and a set of candidate characteristics and competencies for Council consideration. The team’s objective was to present options and/or concepts for City Council to select from when finalizing the recruitment materials. In some situations, multiple options were presented, with the commission identifying its preferred alternative from the options. th On January 18, the Police Commission met with the City Council to present the results of this effort, including: elements to be considered in a police auditor job description tailored to the responsibilities described in the Police Commission’s recommended model; recommendations for a set of personal and professional characteristics for inclusion in a police auditor candidate profile; an informational item briefly describing different methodologies that can be explored when designing the recruitment process. The City Council voted to convene an ad hoc committee to finalize the job description and candidate profile, and develop other recommendations necessary to begin the recruitment process for the police auditor. The Police Commission Chair servedon the ad hoc committee, as did the two Police Commission Council liaisons, and commission staff helped support the group. As the work of the ad Page 5 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report hoc committee did not directly involve the commission, its accomplishments are not included in this report. However, committee members gave monthly status updates to the Police Commission and asked for its input on several issues under discussion, including an appropriate salary range for this position. The following month, the commission submitted a work plan proposal for the remainder of the fiscal year to the City Council containing the following major tasks: craft operating principles/procedural details for the model to address outstanding issues and create framework for ordinance development; develop recommendations for review board membership qualifications, selection and training; discuss the structure and role of the Police Commission in relation to the new oversight system. The work plan was approved as submitted and in March, two committees were formed to begin work on the ordinance framework describing the authorities of the Auditor’s Office and Civilian Review Board. Both committees received sample civilian oversight ordinances from other communities and, based on those examples, developed an outline of the main areas of responsibility thought to be relevant to the system under development. The committees then drafted language for each section of the outlines, with the intent that once completed, the work of the committees would be merged into one draft document for review at a joint meeting. The City Attorney’s office provided comment to the committees throughout the development process with an eye towards ensuring the proposed language was consistent with the voter-approved Charter amendment. The committees both agreed that their charge was to create a framework describing the basic authorities for the oversight bodies, and that the to-be-hired auditor should have the opportunity to review and refine the draft document prior to it being presented to the City Council for possible adoption. Through this process, the committees identified and proposed resolutions to several outstanding procedural issues that were not addressed in the commission’s July 2005 oversight report, such as the size of the review board and membership qualifications. While further refinements will be necessary to translate the committees’ work into a draft ordinance, this process has been helpful to further define the oversight model consistent with the Police Commission’s recommendations. Staff integrated the work of the committees into one document for review and discussion at joint th meeting held on June 29. This meeting was an opportunity for the committees to discuss and possibly resolve procedural questions that were raised during the process, remove any redundant language resulting from combining the committees’ work into one document, and determine if any additional responsibilities or procedures should be added to the draft. Also at the joint committee meeting, City Attorney Sharon Rudnick was invited to discuss which portions of the framework would be mandatory subjects of bargaining and would need to be negotiated with the EPEA prior to implementation. In summary, Ms. Rudnick advised that the framework as proposed implicated two major mandatory subjects of bargaining: 1) the time frame for investigation and adjudication, and 2) confidentiality of personnel records.The full commission was scheduled to discuss the draft framework and City Attorney’s opinion at its July meetings with the intent to take action to forward its recommendations to City Council in August. Page 6 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report IV. Challenges and Next Steps A. Work Plan Adjustments There were several tasks related to the oversight model implementation identified in the work plan that were not yet addressed: 1.Role/structure of the Police Commission vis a vis the new oversight bodies. 2.Development of recommendations for changes to the department’s policies related to the complaint handling processes. 3.Recommended training requirements for Civilian Review Board members. The first two items have been carried over intothe FY07 work plan. The Civilian Review Board Policy Committee discussed board member training requirements as part of its work on the draft ordinance framework. It agreed to include a generic statement in the ordinance pertaining to board member training and then developed a set of training concepts and/or elements that it believes should be considered for incorporation into a training curriculum. The recommended training elements have not yet been discussed at the full commission level. Two work sessions originally scheduled to occur this year were postponed due to staff availability and/or commission agenda constraints. Both are included in the proposed FY07 work plan. A th presentation on cultural competency training is scheduled for the July 27 commission meeting, while a report on last year’s “party patrol” activities is planned for the September meeting. B. Membership Changes For the two years that it has beenimmersed in the oversight model project, the Police Commission was fortunate to have retained the same members and leadership. This consistency has helped assure a high level of productivity that allowed it to develop timely recommendations at the level of detail necessary for the next steps in model implementation. Looking forward, the commission will undergo a significant membership transition in the coming years as term limits come into effect. Attracting new volunteers who can provide the energy and commitment to the commission’s efforts and who will bring forth new ideas and contacts with the community was flagged as a principal objective in the commission’s work plan. The Police Commission is committed to improving its effectiveness as a citizen advisory body. As described in the upcoming work plan, the commission intends to examine, and possibly revise, its structure and functions to ensure that its role is distinct from, and compatible with, the other oversight bodies. The Annual Report is submitted as another tool to measurethe commission’s productivity. It demonstrates a continuing record of deliberative, thorough and inclusive processes that meet the major milestones included in its work plans and are responsive to community interests. Page 7 of 7 2006 Police Commission Annual Report CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE FRAMEWORK DRAFT – July 27, 2006 1. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for a system of independent oversight of the police complaint process, implementing section 15-A of the City Charter as adopted by the Eugene electorate on November 8, 2005. 2. Office Created a)There is hereby created an Office of the Police Auditor, hereinafter the Auditor’s Office. The Auditor’s Office is established to provide an independent location to lodge complaints* involving police employees*, monitor internal investigations to ensure objective, thorough and high quality investigations, and develop recommendations to improve police services. b)The office shall be headed by a full-time, professional police auditor who is hired by and accountable to the City Council. The Auditor’s Office shall include appropriate professional and support staff. 3. Definitions (see asterisks for recommended terms to be defined, others to be determined) 4. Independence of Office Any findings, recommendations and actions taken shall reflect the police auditor’s independent judgment. No person shall use his/her political or administrative position to attempt to unduly influence or undermine the independence of the police auditor, or his/her staff or agent, in the performance of the his/her duties and responsibilities. 5. Office Facilities and Budget a)The City Manager shall include in his/her recommended budget an allocation sufficient for the operations of the Auditor’s Office. b)The physical location of the Auditor’s Office shall be separate from the Police Department but in close proximity so as to facilitate a close working relationship with others involved in the complaint investigation process, and easily accessible to the public. 6. Civilian Review Board Established There is hereby established a seven (7) member Civilian Review Board whose goal shall be to increase the transparency of, and public confidence in, the police complaint process. In general, the Civilian Review Board oversees and evaluates the work of the independent police auditor, and may review completed complaint investigations involving sworn police employees to provide comment, from a civilian perspective, about whether the complaint was handled fairly and with due diligence. 7. Council Role a)The City Council is authorized to hire, supervise and specify the salary of an independent police auditor. b)The police auditor shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, which will make all decisions regarding the auditor by a simple majority vote. c)The City Council is authorized to appoint the members of the Civilian Review Board. d)The City Council reviews and takes appropriate action on reports submitted from the police auditor and the Civilian Review Board. 1 8. Powers and Duties of the Police auditor a)The police auditor is the administrative head of the Auditor’s Office and shall: 1.oversee the operations of the Auditor’s Office, establish program priorities and objectives, and manage the implementation and evaluation of work programs. 2.develop and maintain operating procedures for the Auditor’s Office, including protocols for handling complaints and monitoring investigations. 3.establish standards of professional conduct and provide necessary training for staff in the Auditor’s Office. b)The police auditor shall act as liaison and provide staff support to the Civilian Review Board. In concert with the Civilian Review Board, the police auditor shall establish and maintain policies, procedures and operating principles for the Civilian Review Board’s functions. c)The police auditor shall receive and process complaints concerning police employees and monitor the complaint investigation and review process as set forth in sections 9 and 10 below. d)The police auditor shall perform a quality assurance function with the goal of identifying systemic changes that will improve police services to the community. The police auditor’s activities include: 1.analyzing complaint trends and recommending changes to police policy, practices and training; 2.reviewing risk and tort claims and developing recommendations to reduce risk and liability; 3.reviewing and reporting trends in completed police employee disciplinary decisions. e)The police auditor shall issue reports to the Civilian Review Board and City Council and provide recommendations relevant to police policies and practices to the Police Commission. f)The police auditor shall determine if applicants for the Civilian Review Civilian Review Board meet the requisite qualifications established in Section 14 (d) and (e). g)The police auditor will receive timely notification of critical incidents to enable him/her, or a qualified designee, to report to the scene of critical incidents*. The police auditor and the Chief of Police* shall develop protocols necessary for the police auditor to be summoned to the incident for purposes of first- hand observation. h)The police auditor shall participate in Use of Force Review Boards. 1 9. Staff and Delegation a)The police auditor shall provide operational supervision of staff in the Auditor’s Office and may delegate any duties to those staff unless otherwise specified in this chapter. 10. Complaint Intake and Handling a)Any person may lodge a complaint or commendation with the Auditor’s Office about the conduct of, or services provided by, a Eugene police employee. 1.The Auditor’s Office is the intake center for all community complaints about police employees. Employees may choose to lodge complaints against another employee through either Internal Affairs or the Auditor’s Office. 2.The Auditor’s Office shall document all contacts and complaints received from any source. 3.The Auditor’s Office may refer a complainant to another department in the city or another agency that would be more appropriate to address the complaint. 1 This section may require further revision to address the Auditor’s role in staff supervision, including hiring/firing decisions, upon resolution of this issue. 2 b)For all complaints lodged with the Auditor’s Office or Internal Affairs, the Auditor’s Office conducts the 2 preliminary investigation to appropriately classify and route the complaint and any accompanying information accordingly. 1.If a complaint is received that alleges criminal conduct on the part of the employee, the police auditor shall forward the complaint and any other information gathered to the Chief of Police. c)The Auditor’s Office determines if complaints are appropriate for alternative resolution* and upon the voluntary agreement of the involved parties and approval of the Chief of Police, coordinates the resolution of such cases. d)The Auditor’s Office classifies complaints that will be treated as community impact cases* and supports the Civilian Review Board in its review of these cases and other cases accepted by the Civilian Review Board. e)The Auditor’s Office may dismiss a complaint if upon review, it meets established criteria for such action, including reporting delays and/or insufficient information from which to take further action. f)The Auditor’s Office provides timely updates on the status of a complaint and notification of final disposition to the complainant. g)The police auditor may review and process a complaint not filed directly with the Auditor’s Office if the s/he determines that concerns have been expressed about police employee(s) conduct. 11. Complaint Investigations a)The police auditor actively monitors internal investigations to ensure a thorough, objective, and timely investigation and is authorized to: 1.participate in complainant, employee and witness interviews. 3 2.require the City to undertake additional investigation. b)The police auditor may require, and is authorized to contract for, an external investigation when the police auditor determines that an external investigation is necessary to reduce real or perceived bias or that the investigation requires specialized skills that internal investigators do not have. c)The police auditor will not be directly involved in any criminal investigations, but shall be kept apprised of the status of such investigations involving police employees. The police auditor shall have access to the case file relevant to the administrative portion of such investigations. Following the conclusion of any criminal matter, the police auditor reviews any related investigation as otherwise provided in this section. d)OPTION 2a: All case files shall be provided to the police auditor upon conclusion of the investigation for review and determination that the investigation is thorough and complete. At the point the police auditor is satisfied that the investigation is complete, s/he will confer with the involved employee’s supervisor to develop a case adjudication recommendation that will be forwarded through the Chain of Command to the Chief of Police. Any disagreements on the adjudication recommendation will be documented and forwarded to the Chief of Police for a final adjudication decision. 2 The commission discussed replacing the word ‘investigation’ in this section to avoid confusion with the case investigation process conducted by Internal Affairs staff. Substitute words offered for consideration to replace ‘preliminary investigation’ included: assessment, evaluation, and screening. 3 This language is derived directly from the Charter amendment. The commission considered additional language consistent with its report that would set broad guidelines for when additional investigation would be appropriate,(i.e., to ensure a complete, unbiased investigation) but was concerned with creating unintended restrictions to the auditor’s authority to require further investigation. 3 4 OPTION 2b (Police Commission preferred option): All case files shall be provided to the police auditor upon conclusion of the investigation for review and determination that the investigation is thorough and complete. Once the investigation is deemed complete, the involved employee’s immediate supervisor will confer with the police auditor and develop a case adjudication recommendation that will be forwarded through the Chain of Command to the Chief of Police for final adjudication. If the police auditor disagrees with the supervisor’s recommendation, his/her disagreements and comments will be documented and forwarded to the Chief of Police as well. The immediate supervisor and police auditor will use their best efforts to complete this process in a timely manner and without unreasonably delaying the final adjudication of the case. e)The Auditor’s Office will make every reasonable effort to notify the complainant that an investigation has been conducted, summarize the case findings and provide an opportunity for the complainant to comment or ask questions about the process. f)The Auditor’s Office shall return all case file materials to Internal Affairs for retention; but shall have subsequent access to closed cases. g)The police auditor shall maintain an on-going status report on the work of the Auditor’s Office and case investigations to be shared with the Civilian Review Board. 12. Access to Records and Materials a.The police auditor shall have complete and unrestricted access to all complaint and investigative records and materials, and any other information needed to perform his/her specified duties. Consistent with section 11 c), the police auditor shall not have access to the criminal investigation file until the investigation or criminal proceedings have concluded. b.The police auditor shall supervise the development and implementation of a case management system to track all complaints received in coordination with the Internal Affairs Unit, report case statistics and trends, and provide performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the Auditor’s Office. c.The police auditor and the Chief of Police shall develop cooperative interdepartmental procedures and any necessary infrastructure to coordinate the flow of information and communication between the Auditor’s Office and the police department. 13. Powers and Duties of the Civilian Review Board a)The Civilian Review Board shall establish, in collaboration with the police auditor, policies, procedures and operating principles for the Civilian Review Board. b)The Civilian Review Board may review the completed investigation and adjudication of complaints filed against sworn police officers at the request of complainant, by the recommendation of the police auditor, or at its own discretion by majority vote. 1.The Civilian Review Board shall develop criteria by which to decide whether to accept a case for review. However the Civilian Review Board may not accept a completed case that was previously reviewed as a community impact case in Section 13(d) below. 2.All materials concerning the completed investigations of cases the Civilian Review Board has selected to review shall be made available to members of the Civilian Review Board for their confidential review. 4th The commission considered three options for this section and at its July 27 meeting, voted to remove Option 1 and put forth Options 2a and 2b for Council discussion. Option 2a was taken from the commission’s oversight recommendations report, while th Option 2b was proposed by City Attorney Sharon Rudnick. The reasons for this variation are described in her June 29 opinion. 4 3.The Civilian Review Board shall, at one of its regularly scheduled meetings, report on such case(s), which may include comments on case handling decisions, the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation, and the reasonableness of the adjudication. 4.The Civilian Review Board’s comments and any related policy or procedural issues identified in the course of the Civilian Review Board’s case review shall be provided the police auditor for further consideration. c)The Civilian Review Board may review a random selection of closed cases. d)Where the police auditor has identified the complaint as a community impact case, members of the Civilian Review Board shall be provided all materials concerning the case upon the adjudication of the complaint for their confidential review. Within 14 days of receiving the case, the Civilian Review Board shall meet to discuss and present its determinations on the case. Within 30 days of receiving the case, the Civilian Review Board shall do one or more of the following: 1.concur with the case adjudication; 2.develop recommendations regarding the complaint handling and investigation process, and/or identify other relevant policy or procedural issues for further consideration; 3.require the city to reopen the investigation where it finds either: i.the investigation was incomplete or inadequate, and the Civilian Review Board has reason to believe that additional investigation is likely to reveal facts that could change the case adjudication; or ii.the adjudication reached by the city is not supported by substantial evidence*. e)Where the Civilian Review Board has voted to re-open a community impact case, the police auditor shall inform the Civilian Review Board on the subsequent investigation conducted and the final adjudication decision. f)The Civilian Review Board shall notify complainant(s) and involved employee(s) about its decisions whether to accept a case for review, and shall inform the complainant of its conclusions on the case. g)The Civilian Review Board reviews trends and statistics of complaints against sworn police officers and civilian employees and may develop recommendations to improve the complaint intake and handling process. h)The Civilian Review Board oversees and evaluates the work of Auditor’s Office. The Civilian Review Board: 1.establishes criteria by which to evaluate the work of the police auditor. 2.reviews, comments and helps maintain policies, procedures and operating principles for the Auditor’s Office and the Civilian Review Board; 3.monitors status reports from the police auditor; 4.may conduct periodic evaluation of the complaint intake and handling system to identify process improvements and/or to ensure complaints are being treated fairly and with due diligence. i)The Civilian Review Board may provide a forum to gather community concerns about incident-specific police actions and may receive and forward complaint information to the Auditor’s Office for processing. 14. Appointments and Qualifications a)Members of the Civilian Review Board shall be volunteers appointed by the City Council. b)The City Council shall consider the following characteristics when appointing members to the Civilian Review Board: 5 1. a demonstrated ability to be fair, impartial and unbiased; 2. an absence of any real or perceived bias or conflict of interest; 3. a record of community involvement; 4. an ability to build working relationships and communicate effectively with diverse groups; 5. a demonstrated commitment to the purposes of this chapter. c)Appointments to the Civilian Review Board shall not be made on the basis of a constituency or representation of any particular group. A candidate selection process that includes a community panel to review applications and recommend qualified candidates for City Council consideration shall be developed by the Mayor, in consultation with the police auditor, to help achieve a balanced membership. d)Immediately prior to appointment to the Civilian Review Board, volunteers shall: 1. Be a resident of the City of Eugene; 2. Be age 18 or older; 3. Be able to pass a background investigation consistent with investigations conducted upon other volunteers who have similar access to police records and/or facilities; e)Members of the Civilian Review Board shall neither be a current employee of the City of Eugene nor an immediate family member* of a current Eugene police employee. f)Members of the Civilian Review Board shall participate in a training program to be developed by the police auditor. g)Members of the Civilian Review Board shall agree in writing to a Statement of Principles and Code of 5 Conduct, to be developed by the police auditor and reviewed and maintained in collaboration with the Civilian Review Board. h)It is the intent that Civilian Review Board members be free from personal liability for acts taken within the course and scope of carrying out their official duties and functions. Therefore, the City will defend and indemnify members to the maximum extent permitted under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, and other applicable law. 15. Terms and Vacancies a)Initial appointments shall be staggered as follows: Four (4) members shall be appointed to serve for two (2) years and three (3) members shall be appointed to serve for three (3) years. b)Except for the initial appointments in Section 3(a), the term of each member of the Civilian Review Board shall be three (3) years. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive terms. c)A vacancy that occurs during the term of a member shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments, and the appointee shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. 16. Removal from Office a)Any member of the Civilian Review Board may be removed from office by the City Council prior to the normal expiration of his/her term for consistent failure to perform Civilian Review Board member duties, or violation of the Statement of Principles/Code of Conduct. 5 Should be defined to include a confidentiality agreement, attendance requirements/excused absences, conflict of interest, training, conduct and performance expectations, etc. 6 b)Civilian Review Board membership shall terminate automatically if a member ceases to meet the requirements as described in section 14 (d) 1 and 3 and 14 (e) subsequent to his/her appointment 17. Civilian Review Board Organization a)The Civilian Review Board shall annually elect from among its membership a chairperson and a vice chairperson who shall serve in that position for no more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms. b)The Civilian Review Board shall nominate, subject to approval or rejection by the City Council, one of its members to serve jointly on the civilian review Civilian Review Board and the Police Commission. c)The Auditor’s Office shall be liaison and provide staff support to the Civilian Review Board. d)The Civilian Review Board may appoint from its membership committees as necessary to perform its duties. 18. Meetings of the Civilian Review Board a)The Civilian Review Board shall hold regular meetings with an opportunity for public comment at least quarterly. The Civilian Review Board and its committees may hold additional meetings as necessary. b)No business of the Civilian Review Board shall be conducted at a meeting without at least a quorum of four (4) members. All actions of the Civilian Review Board shall be made upon a simple majority vote of the members present. 19. Reporting and Public Information a)In collaboration with the Auditor’s Office, the Civilian Review Board may conduct education and outreach activities to inform the community about the process for filing complaints and commendations about police employees. The police auditor shall work with the Civilian Review Board to develop and disseminate information and forms regarding the police complaint handling and review system. b)Meetings of the Civilian Review Board shall be open to the public except where executive sessions are authorized by law and where the Civilian Review Board determines an executive session is necessary or desirable to carry out Civilian Review Board business. To facilitate the transparency of the Civilian Review Board's activities, the police auditor will develop and present case summaries and status reports in a manner that allows review and discussion in open session, to the maximum extent practicable. c)In addition to providing on-going status reports for the Civilian Review Board, the police auditor shall develop and present an annual public report for the Civilian Review Board and City Council describing the activities of the Auditor’s Office, its findings and recommendations, the department’s response to its recommendations and other information pertinent to assessing the performance of the Auditor’s Office. d)The Civilian Review Board shall prepare and present an annual report to the City Council that: i. summarizes the Civilian Review Board’s activities, findings and recommendations during the preceding year; ii. assesses the performance of the police auditor consistent with section 13 (g); iii. evaluates the work of the auditor’s office, including whether the auditor’s office is functioning as intended. e)The police auditor and Civilian Review Board may develop additional reports as deemed necessary or as requested by the City Council. Reports generated by the police auditor and Civilian Review Board shall strive to protect the privacy of all individuals and shall not contain the names of parties to a complaint (employees, complainants and/or witnesses) not previously disclosed. 7 20. Confidentiality To the extent permitted by the Oregon Public Records Law, the Auditor's Office and any investigators or consultants it may employ, and members of the Civilian Review Board shall maintain the confidentiality of records and information in accordance with applicable federal, state and local law and other applicable city 6 policies and collective bargaining agreements. 21. Limitations of Power a)The Chief of Police shall make all case adjudication and employee discipline decisions. The police auditor may develop adjudication recommendations, but is not authorized to recommend the level of discipline for police employees. b)The Civilian Review Board, or any member thereof, may not: i. investigate complaints or incidents involving police employees; ii. issue subpoenas or call witnesses; iii. review employee discipline decisions except in the context of reviewing trend reports from the Auditor’s Office consistent with section 8 (d) 3 of this chapter; iv. incur city expenses or obligate the city in any way without prior authorization of the police auditor or City Council. 6 There was a question as to whether “applicable city policies” was overly vague and how existing or new contract language would be applied to the ordinance. 8 City of Eugene ÐÑÔ×ÝÛ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÚÇ îððê îððé ɱ®µ д¿² ß¼±°¬»¼ Ö«´§ îéô îððê 777 Pearl St, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5852 FAX (541) 682-8395 www.eugene-or.gov ÐÑÔ×ÝÛ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÓÛÓÞÛÎÍ Ì·³ Ô¿«»ô ݸ¿·® Ó¿«®·» Ü»²²»® ß²¹·» Í·º«»²¬»¦ô Ê·½» ݸ¿·® Ý¿®´¿ Ò»©¾®» Ö±¸² ߸´»² Ì®¿½§ Ñ´»² Ù»±®¹» Þ»²²»¬¬ ß²¼®»¿ Ñ®¬·¦ Ö±¸² Þ®±©² Ú´±§¼ Ю±¦¿²µ· Þ±²²§ Þ»¬¬³¿² Ò»·´ Ê¿² ͬ»»²¾»®¹»² Ú±® ³±®» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» б´·½» ݱ³³··±²ô °´»¿» ½±²¬¿½¬æ Ö»¿²²·²» п®··ô б´·½» ݱ³³··±² ݱ±®¼·²¿¬±® и±²»æ øëìï÷ êèîóëèëî ÛóÓ¿·´æ ¶»¿²²·²»ò°¿®··à½·ò»«¹»²»ò±®ò« ©©©ò»«¹»²»ó±®ò¹±ª Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 DRAFT Work Plan I. Background The Eugene Police Commission is a twelve-member citizen body that acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council, the Chief of Police and the City Manager on police policy and resource issues. The commission is one of five standing City Council boards and commissions, and was created by City Ordinance 20136 in December of 1998. The enabling ordinance requires the commission to develop a yearly work plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The work plans follow a July 1 – th June 30 Fiscal Year (FY) schedule. Major accomplishments over the past seven years include: Development of strategies to address street level prostitution, including adoption of the prostitution free zone ordinance (FY 2000) Crowd control and use of force policy recommendations (FY 2001) Media access policy recommendations (FY 2002) Community policing outreach and education project; development of recommendations for next steps in community policing implementation (FY 2002) Vehicle pursuit policy review (FY 2003) Development of strategies to reduce speeding and red light running (FY 2003) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and related policy review (FY 2004) Report on strategies to improve police and community interactions (FY 2004) Social Security Number policy development (FY 2005) Complaint handling and civilian oversight recommendations (FY 2005 - 2006) Tasks associated with the last item spanned over two work plans, culminating in the July 2005 report to the City Council on recommendations for civilian oversight of the police complaint system. With the council’s decision to move forward with an oversight model consistent with the commission’s recommendations, work plan activities for last fiscal year centered around assisting the City Council with several immediate next steps to necessary for model implementation. While a significant amount of work remains to be done, the commission’s role in the program development process is nearing completion. The proposed FY07 work plan reflects this transition, incorporating several new projects in addition to continuing to review and provide input on new and modified policies necessary for a redesigned complaint handling system. The projects proposed for the commission’s FY07 work plan are described in more detail in the following sections. A Gantt chart showing tasks associated with these projects and estimated timelines is also attached. Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 Work Plan II.FY 2006-2007 Work Plan and Procedural Objectives Work Plan Objectives The Police Commission’s work plan is divided into the following main components: a) complaint handling and civilian oversight model implementation; b) strategic plan review; c) committee projects; and d) work sessions. A. Complaint Handling and Civilian Oversight Model Implementation This past year, the Police Commission took a number of steps to help lay the groundwork for implementing the approved civilian oversight system. It sponsored a multi-disciplinary team that recommended ways to incorporate alternative resolution options and advocacy into the complaint process, and drafted a framework that can be used in the creationof an enabling ordinance for the Auditor’s Office and Civilian Review Board. Thecommission recognizes the magnitude of program development work necessary to successfully launch the oversight model and integrate it with the existing processes, and is prepared to continue assisting with implementation as appropriate. The following activities are proposed as next steps that the Police Commission can take to support the City Council and newly hired Police Auditor in establishing this system: review and help refine enabling ordinance, including definitions, and assist in the development of operating principles and procedures in coordination with the Police Auditor for the consistency with the oversight model; identify and propose potential changes to the role and/or structure of the Police Commission with regard to the new oversight system; continue public outreach and involvement of stakeholder groups in the oversight model implementation process; provide input into revised police department policies for complaint handling and investigation processes; and research and develop recommendations to assist City Council with the disposition of outstanding issues as requested. B. Police Department Strategic Plan Review The Police Commission provided input into the development of police department’s strategic plan, which was adopted last year. Through review and discussion of the department’s quarterly reports, the commission has begun monitoring progress towards plan implementation,with particular attention to those items generated from the 2005 ICMA/PERF report. The commission intends to continue review of the quarterly reports and to assist the department in plan refinements to balance plan priorities against resource availabilityand public expectations. The department’s adopted strategic plan includes “Develop a Comprehensive Domestic Violence Strategy” as a long-range initiative. The Police Commission has had two preliminary discussions on law enforcement response to domestic violence and child abuse situations to determine what role, if 2- Adopted July 27, 2006 - Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 Work Plan any, it might have in partnering with the department on this initiative. The commission recommended that the department elevate this initiative to a mid-range project and that the project be expanded to a “comprehensive family violence strategy” to encompass child abuse incidents. In the upcoming year, it is proposed that interested commissioners participate in a multi-stakeholder planning team to assist the department in formulating options to include in the comprehensive strategy. The planning team could look at best practices, including the Arizona State Plan for Domestic and Sexual Violence, as one of its first tasks. The commission recommends that any significant work on this initiative wait until the department receives the consultant’s staffing analysis now underway so that the planning team can make more informed recommendations regarding the allocation of patrol and investigative resources. C.Committee Projects One of the primary charges of the Police Commission is to provide input on police policies and procedures that reflect community values. Over the past six years, the commission has reviewed and/or provided input into eighteen police policies. Last February, Chief Lehner announced department plans to utilize Lexipol, a standardized police policy manual that incorporates accreditation standards, legal requirements, and best practices, as a framework for a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures. This review process would be an interimstep towards formal department accreditation. The commission plans to embark on a multi-year effort to assist the department in the update of its policy manual to help ensure that in addition to professional standards, community values and expectations are reflected. A committee will be formed to identify which policies will be of interest to the commission for review and then will work with the department to provide comment on policy drafts. D. Work Sessions Work sessions are scheduled periodically to provide opportunities for information sharing and discussion of items that do not necessarily require Police Commission action. The following work sessions are currently planned (these do not include strategic plan implementation status reports): 1 Cultural competency training for police employees (July 2006); participation in Perspectives in Profiling training (October 2006) Review and discussion of the Public Safety Coordinating Council’s (PSCC) report card on the status of the Lane County criminal justice system (September) Police Department FY08 Budget Proposal (December/January) Long-range police department staffing analysis report (February) 2006 Internal Affairs case statistics (April) Status reports from department on newly-implemented policy recommendations, projects, and consultant analyses. This may include in-car video system implementation, the automated pawn property project, and recommendations related to officer hiring, training and supervision that will help detect and prevent future criminal misconduct. 1 This is a carry-over item fromthe 2006work plan. 3- Adopted July 27, 2006 - Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 Work Plan Other work sessions may be added to address emerging issues and/or provide information updates on department-related projects. Procedural Objectives The Police Commission, as part of a larger oversight system, will undergo some transition in both membership and operating procedures over the next two years. The body will focus on two immediate objectives this coming year: Anticipating the first major turn-over in membership since its inception, the commission will be involved in outreach activities to attract and maintain a highly qualified, dedicated and balanced membership. As the commission continues to assist in implementation of the civilian oversight model, its own function will be analyzed and possibly, redefined, to ensure that its role is distinct from and compatible with the other oversight bodies. The commission will strive to develop a collaborative working relationship with the police auditor so that the goals of identifying system changes that promote service improvements and increasing transparency and trust in the complaint process are realized. III.Work Plan Outcomes Increase communications between police and the community, leading to a OUTCOME 1. greater understanding of the preferred policing alternatives for the city. In FY 2007, the Police Commission will: Provide a forum for community dialogue on current issues in law enforcement, to include: Cultural competency training for police employees Discussion of the PSCC assessment of the Lane County criminal justice system Review of Internal Affairs case summaries and complaint handling statistics Discussion of consultant analyses on departmental long-range staffing needs and implementation of the ICMA/PERF recommendations. Through open meetings and public forums: Provide mechanisms for citizen input on a variety of policing and community safety issues, particularly related to the implementation of a civilian oversight system Solicit public input on proposed policy recommendations and involve citizens in the decision-making process Increase accessibility of police department staff to residents 4- Adopted July 27, 2006 - Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 Work Plan Assist in informing the public on standard police practices and new initiatives and increase the transparency of police operations to residents Along with members of the City Council and Human Rights Commission, participate in the Perspectives in Profiling training provided to all sworn department staff. OUTCOME 2. Identify police policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives. In FY 2007, the Police Commission will: Participate in the development of a comprehensivestrategy to address family violence, identifying best practices and formulating options for strategies that would improve the city’s ability to respond to and/or reduce such incidents. Act in an advisory role to the City Council and Police Auditor to refine enabling ordinance and establish operating principals and procedures for the Auditor’s Office and Civilian Review Board. Assist the department in aligning strategic plan initiatives with community priorities. Decrease misunderstandings regarding the nature of adopted police policies, OUTCOME 3. practices and approaches. In FY 2007, the Police Commission will: Monitor the implementation of the in-car video system to include developing any policy refinements and commenting on a project evaluation plan. Present the results of the commission’s analyses to the community through news releases, its web site, status reports to City Council, distribution of reports to stakeholders and participants, and other mechanisms as appropriate. Continue to seek opportunities to network with other organizations and constituencies to increase collaboration and information sharing, and in particular, establish a working relationship with the Auditor’s Office. Provide input on police policies that reflect community values. OUTCOME 4. In FY 2007, the Police Commission will: Assist the police department in a comprehensivereview and update of its policies and procedures manual. 5- Adopted July 27, 2006 - Eugene Police Commission FY 2006 -2007 Work Plan Review and comment on revised police policies related to intake, investigation and review of complaints against police employees. Monitor the application of policies that werepreviously amended by the commission through annual reports and/or information requests to staff. Assist the City Council in balancing community priorities and resources OUTCOME 5. by advising it on police resource issues. Review and comment on department budget documents, including the FY08 budget proposal, prior to submission to decision-makers to assist in aligning resource allocations with community priorities. Provide recommendations regarding the role and structure of the Police Commission to optimize its function as part of a larger oversight system. Respond to emerging issues brought to the commission from the community or as directed by the City Council. Since its inception, there has been no shortage of activities for the Police Commission. The projects proposed for the next fiscal year are partially a continuance of work already in progress to assist City Council in the implementation of a civilian oversight system consistent with the Police Commission’s recommended model. The commission hopes to work collaboratively with the City Council, community stakeholders and the newly hired police auditor as suggested in this plan, or as deemed most appropriate, to bring the model envisioned to fruition. An assessment of the commission’s own structure and function is planned to ensure compatibility with the auditor’s office and review board roles and streamline procedures to reduce potential for redundancy. New projects related to standardization of the police policy manual and participation in the family violence initiative are aligned with the commission’s charge to provide input on police policy and resource issues that reflect community values. This proposal continues to be a full and ambitious work plan; however, the Police Commission will accommodate work plan changes as directed by the City Council or as necessary to respond to emerging community concerns. Attachments FY 2007 Police Commission Work Plan Gantt Chart 6- Adopted July 27, 2006 -