Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: PH on ICMA/PERF ReportEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing: Police Executive Research Forum and International City Management Association Report on Selected Police Operations Meeting Date: April 25, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Dennis Taylor www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5010 ISSUE STATEMENT On October 14, 2004, the City Council approved a request for the use of contingency funds to conduct an audit of the Eugene Police Department. The International City Management Association (ICMA) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) agreed to complete a joint audit of police operations, especially as they relate to officer hiring, training, supervision, and internal investigations. This is a public hearing on the report resulting from that audit. BACKGROUND The City Manager sought an outside professional source for a performance audit of certain policies and procedures within the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Both ICMA and PERF offer consulting and auditing services and both organizations have extensive experience in conducting such reviews and audits. The scope of this audit included a comprehensive review of EPD's recruitment, screening, and hiring policies and practices; training and internal affairs practices and procedures; and supervision and management relative to these topical areas by PERF. ICMA's portion of the review focused on police governance, police-community relations, management oversight, and human resources management. The two organizations coordinated their efforts to provide the City with appropriate recommendations based on these reviews. The City Council discussed the report at a work session on March 9, 2005. At that time, direction was given to the City Manager to schedule a hearing so that the public would have an opportunity to comment on the report as well. RELATED CITY POLICIES There are no City policies inherent in the pubic hearing on this report. COUNCIL OPTIONS No decisions are being requested of the City Council at this time. This is a public hearing to receive comments about the police audit report. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050425\S0504271.doc CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION There is no recommendation from the City Manager at this time; this is a public hearing only. SUGGESTED MOTION There is no suggested motion at this time. ATTACHMENTS A. Executive Summary: Management Review of the Eugene Police Department FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dennis Taylor Telephone: 682-5010 Staff E-Mail: dennis.m.taylor~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050425\S0504271.doc POLICE EXECUTIVE Management RESEARCH FORUM Association Management Review of the Eugene Police Department Conducted by The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) March 2005 Acknowledgements This report is the result of a management review of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) conducted by International City-County Management Association (ICMA) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) in January 2005. A number of individuals need to be acknowledged for their efforts to bring this report to its fruition. The ICMA team organized to conduct the assessment was lead by David Mora, an experienced city manager; Leonard Matarese, a human resource commissioner, former city manager, and former police chief; Rodney Brown, a former police chief; and Dr. Gayle Fisher-Stewart, a professor in criminal justice at the University of Maryland. The team was organized and supported by ICMA staff including Mosi Kitwana, Domestic Technical Assistance Team Leader, Roberta Lesh, Director of Police Programs, and Cory Fleming, Senior Project Manager. The PERF team included Tony Narr, Director of PERF's Senior Management Institute for Police, and Dr. Tory Caeti, Director for Management Services for PERF. The ICMA-PERF Review Team also wishes to acknowledge the tremendous assistance it received from Dennis Taylor, City Manager for Eugene, and Police Chief Robert Lehner and their respective staffs in organizing the review. The review team also wishes to thank the hundreds of Eugene citizens who attended focus groups, participated face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews, and provided information for the review. Their input was invaluable in developing the recommendations contained within this report. ii Executive Summary 'In November, 2004, the City of Eugene, Oregon, contracted with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to assess police-community relations, governance, and the internal management practices of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). The purpose of the assessment is to provide guidance to the city in its effort to improve how the police department relates to the community and assist the police in re-establishing trust with and in the community they serve. The Eugene Police Department, like the entire local government of Eugene, exists to serve the community. The EPD's relationship with the community defines its success better than any other indicator or measure. The ICMA-PERF Review Team had the opportunity to interview or hear from more than 200 citizens and local government employees about the EPD, its relationship with the community, and its leadership and management. The input received from these stakeholders and the recommendations in this management review are vital to the success of the EPD and the city government. It is a new beginning for the community and the Eugene Police Department. Out of crisis comes opportunity. The men and women of the EPD have to opportunity to create a new working relationship with those they serve, if these recommendations are implemented~ These recommendations fall in the broad categories of police-community relations, governance, and police management practices and procedures. The review team also strongly recommends that the overall transformation process represented by these recommendations be overseen by an independent consultant or facilitator from outside the Eugene city government. iii Police-Community Relations Recommendation No. 1: Develop mechanisms to access more segments of the community to determine the validity of perceptions expressed in this and other reports. Recommendation No. 2: Develop a comprehensive information outreach and feedback program loop. Recommendation No. 3: Determine community expectations of the police department and its role in the community, and develop policy that matches those expectations. Fully implement community policing. Recommendation No. 4: Establish an external review board to oversee the handling of complaints coming to the attention of the Eugene Police Department. However, several qualifications must be taken into account in the establishment of such a board. Recommendation No. 5: Consider eliminating the following statement from the police department website: "The department routinely checks the police records of the people with whom we have contact, including people who file complaints. If a Police Officer has contact with you and is aware of a warrant, he/she is legally compelled to arrest you. However, we do not want this to prevent you from giving us feedback. If you have an outstanding warrant, please clear it with the Court." Governance Recommendation No. 6: The city council should develop an integrated multi-year strategic plan based on the vision and goals statement it established in May 2003. Recommendation No. 7: Develop a strategic plan for the EPD that is aligned with the city council's strategic plan. Recommendation No. 8: Involve the rank-and-file in the development of the EPD's strategic plan and related performance indicators as well as community residents and neighborhood groups. Recommendation No. 9: Assess the actual work of the Police and Human Rights Commissions to ensure they are aligned with the policy and managerial framework for the city~ iv Police Management Procedures and Practices Recommendation No. 10: Update the 2000 Hobson Report to assess current workload and capabilities. Recommendation No. 11: Work with the Police Employees Union. Recommendation No. 12: Work with the Human Resources (HR) Services to develop a comprehensive recruitment strategy based on current and future public safety needs that result from an on-going workload and forecast trend analysis. Recommendation No. 13: The police department should work with Human Resource Services to adopt a year-round recruitment effort. Recommendation No. 14: The recruitment effort should remain a police department function with support from Human Resource Services. The department's recruitment needs are not so great as to justify a team of full-time recruiters, however, it certainly does justify a formal, planned effort. Recommendation No. 15: Recruiters should represent the best of the department. They should be a diverse mix of officers who represent both the make-up of the community, and the race, ethnicity, and gender that is under-represented within a department. They should be officers who are fit and present themselves well in the department's uniform. They should be well spoken and exude pride in themselves and the department. Recommendation No. 16: Recruiters need appropriate tools to make a positive impression on the best potential applicants. Recommendation No. '17: The recruitment effort must be a formal initiative with goals, incremental objectives, timetables for key events, fixed responsibility, and a budget to support activities. Recommendation No. '18: The department should solicit recruiting assistance from every officer on the department° Recommendation No. '19: The role and involvement of Human Resource Services in the recruitment and selection process needs to be clarified and documented so that future turf battles and disagreements are avoided. Recommendation No. 20: The department has assigned its current role in the hiring process to a captain. This police official should be designated to oversee all recruitment and selection activities. There should be one high-level manager to establish a work plan, and ensure its activities are carried out and goals and objectives are met. V Recommendation No. 21: The passing score for the written exam for police officer should be static and not adjusted from exam to exam. Recommendation No. 22: The review team recognizes that the prohibition of polygraph examinations in the hiring process resides at the state level. The department should work with others in the state to lobby for change in this area. Recommendation No. 23: The personal history questionnaire completed by applicants should be submitted to the EPD rather than Human Resource Services. Recommendation No. 24: A pool of background investigators should be established within the department. Recommendation No. 25: Applicants disqualified at any stage of the process should be eliminated from further processing. Recommendation No. 26: No applicant should be advanced to the psychological exam until his/her background investigation is complete. Recommendation No. 27: The practice of advancing applicants based on their interview and role play performance against the performance of others only on that day should be discontinued. Recommendation No. 28: As recommended in the Recruitment and Selection section of this report, there is a need to prepare a recruitment plan that specifically targets under-represented populations, specifically Hispanics and females. Recommendation No. 29: Affirmative action (AA) plans should be considered living documents for the users and should be revisited every six months to ensure that goals are still meaningful and data on minority and female representation is updated regularly. Recommendation No. 30: The EPD needs accurate and timely statistical data to develop recruitment and hiring plans. Recommendation No. 31: Both Human Resource Services and the EPD should continue to assess for adverse impact in all selection processes. Recommendation No. 32: All applicants for the position of police officer should undergo the same stringent selection process. Recommendation No. 33: Academy staff should continue to improve the recruit training program, especially in the area of scenario-based training. vi Recommendation No. 34: The department must attract its best officers to the Field Training Officer (FTO) program. Recommendation No. 35: Academy and FTO training should contain a strong ethics component that instills the values of the department in every potential officer. Recommendation No. 36: In-service training represents several opportunities that need to be capitalized upon by the department and publicized widely to personnel. Recommendation No. 37: In-service training should have two tracks, compulsory and optional. Recommendation No. 38: The department should seek leadership, management, and supervisory training opportunities to enhance and build from that training mandated by the state. Recommendation No. 39: The department should seek the assistance of corporate, university, and professional law enforcement trainers in building their command staff and instilling leadership in their officers. Recommendation No. 40: The placement of the crime analysis function is sufficienb however, the EPD should continue to monitor the function to ensure a strong connection is fostered with patrol, where timely receipt of crime analysis information is also vital. Recommendation No. 41: The EPD should reorganize organizational responsibility for both the Internal Affairs (IA) and public information functions to directly report to the Office of the Chief. Recommendation No. 42: Roll call should be better used to communicate information between the executive and line staff within the department. Recommendation No. 43: The potential of holding periodic meetings for the chief, other city officials, the line officers, and support staff should be explored. Recommendation No. 44: The effectiveness and quality of the command staff should be increased on a continual basis. Recommendation No. 45: The department should utilize a watch commander at the rank of lieutenant during late night hours. Recommendation No. 46: Sergeants need to spend more time on the street observing, supervising, and developing their subordinates. vii Recommendation No. 47: Sergeants should be trained in current supervisory practices and issues prior to assuming their roles as management staff. Recommendation No. 48: The investigation of disciplinary infractions is solely within the purview of the Eugene Police Department. In conjunction with Human Resource Services, the EPD should develop a table of offenses and penalties for minor offenses. This table would guide the investigating official's recommendations for discipline. The final authority to approve or disapprove the recommendation for discipline, if any, rests with the city manager who has administratively delegated this responsibility to the policy chief. Recommendation No. 49: Performance evaluations must be based on validated job criteria and performance measures. Recommendation No. 50: Evaluators must receive training in observing and recording potential behavior problems, and providing constructive feedback to address problems. Recommendation No. 51: Every employee deserves to be regularly appraised of expectations and his/her job performance. Recommendation No. 52: When employees are presented with his/her evaluation, the supervisor must go over all aspects of performance. Recommendation No. 53: The department should have a fully staffed IA unit, commanded by a captain. Recommendation No. 54: The department must remain mindful that when a complaint involves a criminal investigation, the eventual completion of an administrative (internal) investigation cannot be overlooked. Recommendation No. 55: The intake process and coding of complaints needs to be formally established and clarified. Recommendation No. 56: All personnel assigned to the IA function must receive comprehensive training on how to conduct internal investigations, and on the laws, rules, regulations and other nuances unique to this type of assignment. Recommendation No. 57: The role of Human Resource Services in the internal investigation and discipline arena should be clarified for police department personnel. While department persormel are responsible for the timely and comprehensive conduct of investigations, the city is ultimately responsible. viii Discussion of these recommendations follow in the body of the full report. It is important to read the entire report to fully understand how these recommendations affect the community, the city, and the police department. Time will be needed to affect and see positive change. If the City of Eugene is committed to implementing these recommended changes, trust can be re-established between the people of Eugene and the Eugene Police Department. ix