HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Police Auditor Report
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Police Auditor Report
Meeting Date: November 13, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Police Auditor Staff Contact: Cristina Beamud
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5005
ISSUE STATEMENT
This item will propose a plan, a timeline and concepts to be embodied in the Eugene Code to commence
the provision of services to the public by the Police Auditor.
BACKGROUND
The City Charter amendment passed in November 2005 (Measure 20-106) established the authority and
parameters of the work to be performed by the Police Auditor and the Civilian Review Board. An
ordinance is necessary in order to frame the scope of this authority and to describe general procedures
for the Auditor’s Office. The Police Commission presented a draft framework describing the authorities
of the Auditor’s Office and the Civilian Review Board in August 2006. The proposed concepts were
drafted with the assistance of the City Attorney. There was additional input by members of the Police
Commission in order to develop definitional terms for the proposed ordinance on October 27, 2006. The
adoption of this ordinance will be necessary in order for the Police Auditor to begin the work envisioned
by the Charter Amendment. While the proposed ordinance outlines the general procedures and
authority for the Police Auditor and the Civilian Review Board, it is intended only to set broad
parameters and allow for the development of protocol that provides for more detailed procedural
guidelines. It is designed to be flexible in order to permit both the Police Auditor and the Civilian
Review Board to exercise some discretion, but also set forth the parameters of their authority and
defined by the Charter.
The proposed language was developed by the Police Commission in collaboration with a broad range of
stakeholders. It was reviewed by the Police Auditor and changes are proposed. The definition section
of the proposed ordinance has not been reviewed previously by the entire City Council and for this
reason appears both within the text of the proposal and as Attachment C.
There is some concern about the appropriate use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in lieu of the
investigative and disciplinary process. This subject was researched by the Mediation and Advocacy
Task Team (MATT) and a report was submitted to the council in May 2006. The language
recommended in the proposed framework gives discretion to the Police Auditor to select the appropriate
cases for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mindful that very serious cases of police misconduct
are not suitable for ADR, this option should be broadly available because it produces satisfying results
for the complainant and because it is cost-effective. The MATT report recommends that, “in lieu of
categorical exclusion, the following types of cases generally not be considered for mediation: criminal
allegations, allegations of officer corruption, allegations of threats, intimidation and harassment,
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061113\S061113B.doc
excessive force complaints where there is documented property damage and/or physical injury, and
third-party complaints” (p. 4 of MATT report). The Auditor’s Office will take responsibility for the
program management and will consider the input from stakeholder groups, such as the Civilian Review
Board, Police Commission, and Human Rights Commission. Alternative Dispute Resolution will
require contract development, selection and training of mediators, public outreach and education and the
development of procedures and forms. Other protocol described in the MATT report will be assigned to
the Auditor’s Office. If the volume of work is too great, the Auditor’s Office will request support from
other stakeholder departments and agencies to ensure that the program is administered in a manner that
is consistent with best practices in the field of conflict resolution in a civilian police oversight model.
This will allow for swift implementation of the program with little additional cost. The alternatives are
outlined in page 8 of the MATT report and include contracting with an outside agency, division among
the Auditor’s Office and an outside entity, or the issuance of an outside contract to assist the
City/Auditor’s Office with implementing the new program. The University of Oregon Law School
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program may be able to provide support for these tasks. In any case, the
Auditor’s Office will report to the council on the results of its use of conflict resolution.
The Police Chief, Department of Human Resources and Risk Services, and City Attorney may want to
comment on this proposal.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
This is consistent with the council’s goals of providing for a safe community and effective accountable
municipal government. It also represents another opportunity to establish and practice the principals of
community policing.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may amend the proposal or approve the proposal and direct the creation of a draft ordinance
to be discussed at a City Council work session.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the proposal and direct the creation of a draft ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Police Commission Civilian Oversight Ordinance Framework Draft – July 27, 2006
B. Modified draft Civilian Oversight Ordinance Framework prepared for the City Council’s
consideration in November 2006
C. Proposed definitional section of the ordinance
D. Mediation and Advocacy Task Team Final Report May 2006
E. Proposed timeline for the Auditor’s Office
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Cris Beamud
Telephone: 541-682-5005
Staff E-Mail: cris.beamud@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061113\S061113B.doc
'f
ATTACHMENT A
q
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.
CMLIAN OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE. FRAMEWORK
DRAFT - July 27, 2006
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 ah independent iocation 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 hislher staff or agent, in the performance of the his/her duties
and responsibilities. '
J 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 o~hers 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 al,Jthorized 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 simp'e 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. PQWerS 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, ~nd
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 mo'nitoring 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 maintai'n policies, procedures and
operating principles for the Civilian Review Board's functions.
c) The 'police auditor shall receive andpr~ess complaints. concerning police employees and monitor the
comp.laint investigation and review process as set forth in sections 9 and 10 below. .'
d) The police auditor shall perform a quality assurance function ~ith the goa~ of identifying systemic
changes that will imp'rove 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 redl:lce risk and liability;
3. reviewing and reporting trends in completed police employee disciplinary decisions.
H../....,...
il
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 Comm.ission. .
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.
9. Staff and Delegation 1
a) The police auditor shall provide operational supervision of staff in the Auditor's Office and may delegate
any duties to those staff unle.ss otherwise specified in this chapter.
10. Complaint I_ke 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 cente~ 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 addres~ the Auditor's role in staff supervision, including hiring/frring decisions, upon
resolution of this issue.
2
Q
b) For all complaints lodged with the Auditor's Office or Internal Affairs, the Auditor's office conducts the
pre/iminaty investigatiorf to appropriately classify and. route the complaint and any accompanying
information accordingly. , '
, . ,
1. If a complaint is received that alleges cri~inal 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 pf 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.
~) T~e 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.
t
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 tlJe 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.
2. require the City to underta~e additional investigation3.
,/-"'"
,; )
. .... 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 investig~tion is thorough and complete. At the point the police
auditor is satisfied that the investigation is complete, s/he win confer with the involved employee's
superVisor to develop a case adjudiCation recommendation that will be forwarded through the Chain of
Command to the Chi~f of Police.. Any disagreements on the adjudication recom~endation 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:
as'sessment, evaluation, and screening.
)fhis language is derived directly from the Charter amendinent. The commission considered additional'language consistent with its
.(,~ort 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
OPTION 2b (Police Commission preferred option) 4: All case files sha.1I be provided to the PoIice"auditor
upon conclusion of the investigation for review and determination thatthe 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 a~judication 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 complainantto
co.mment 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
subsequ'ent 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 Ciyilian Review Board. .
12. Access to Records and Materials
a. The police auditor shan 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 managemE;lnt system
. to track all complaints received in. coordination with the I.nternal Affairs Unit, report case statistics and
trends, and provide performance indicators to evaluate the effectivenes~ 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.
\.
J
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 sWQrn police officers at the request of complainant, by the recommendation of the police
auditor, or at its own discretion .by maj~rity yote.
1. The Civilian Review Board shall develop criteria by which to decid~ whether to a.ccept a
case for review. Hqwever 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.
4 The co~ssion considered three options for this section and at its July 27th meeting, voted to remove Option 1 and put forth
Options 28 and 2b for Council discussion. Option 2a was taken from the commission's oversight recommendations report, while
Option 2b was proposed by City Attorney Sharon Rudnick. The reasons for this variation are described in her June 29th opinion.
4
q
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
thorQughness of the investigation, and the reasonableness of the adju~iCation.
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 con~ideration. '
c) The Civilian ReviE:)w Board may review a random selection of closed cases.
' ,
d) Where the police auditor has identified the complaint as a comniunity il]lpact case, members of the
Civilian Review Board shall be provided all materials concerning the case I,Jpon the adjudication of the
complaint for their confidential reyiew.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. reache~ 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 su'bsequent 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~ccept 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
pr~ss.
'.
h) The Civilian Review Board oversees and evaluates the work of Auditor's Office. The Civilian Review
B~ro: .
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"~f any ~eal 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 partic:ular 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 priorto 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;
('{..-.~"'"- ---",
M
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
"policeat)ditor. "
o .
og) Members of the Civilian Review Board shall ag~ee in writing to a Statement. of Principles and Code of
Conduct5, 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 Bo~rd members be free from personal liability for acts taken within
the cQurse 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 shail 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 theCiyili~n Review
Board shall be' ~hree (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 consiste~t failure to perform Civilian Review Board member duties, "
or v~olation of the Statement of Principles/Code of Conduct.
S 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
Q7. Civilian Review Board ~nlzatlon .
. 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 ~ppoint 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 ofthe Civilian Review Board shall be made upon a simple majority vote of
the members present. . .
19. RepQl1ing 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 shan 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 busi.ness. 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, th~ 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 preced~ng 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 polic~ 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 Offlceand any investigators or. ,r--'
consultants it may empfoy, and members of the eMlian Review Board shall maintain the confidentiality of W
r~~ds and inform?tion in a~rdance with apfllcable federal, state and local law and other applicable city ,-
policies and collective bargaining agree.ments .
21. Limitations of Power .
. a) The Chief of Police shall make all case adjudication and employee discipline decisions. The police
auditor may develop adjudication reCQmmendations, 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. investig.ate complaints or incidents involving police et:n'ployees;
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 CQuRcil.
')
6 There was a question as to whether "applicable city po'licies" was overly vague and how existing or new contract language would b~
applied to the ordinance. .
8
ATTACHMENTB
CIViliAN OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE FRAMEWORK
PROPOSAL
November 13, 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
For purposes of this Code, the following terms have the meanings set out herein:
Complaint -An expression of dissatisfaction, allegation of misconduct, or question about a police employee's
co~duct, police services provided or not provided, or police department policies or practices in general.
Police employee - Any City of Eugene employee who report~ directly or through others to the Chief of Police.
Sworn police officer - A police employee who is also certified and employed as a peace officer under the laws
of this state.
Chief of Police - The person designated by the City Manager as the Chief of Police.
Critical incident - An occurrence involving a ~ignificant police action that includes, but is not limited to, a civil
disturbance or riot, an officer-involved shooting, or other action by a sworn police officer resulting in serious
physical injury or death.
Alternative resolution - A voluntary process in which a person with a complaint and the involved employee or
his/her supervisor agree to meet to discuss the complaint with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, in lieu of the
investigation and disciplinary process that would otherwis"e occur. Alternative resolution includes, but is not
limited to, mediation and facilitated conversations.
Alternative Language:
Facilitated Conversation: A discussion, guided by a third party, trained facilitator, between the
complainant and a department representative, most often the named employee's supervisor or Internal Affairs
staff.
1
Mediation: A voluntary, confidential complaint resolution option that is an alternative to the
investigation, adjudication, and disciplinary process. It is a structured process guided by a neutral, third-party,
professionally-trained med\ator enabling direct communication between the complainant and employee. .
Community impact case - A complaint involving sworn police officer(s) that alleges excessive force, bias,
. disparate treatment or violation of constitutional rights, which the Police Auditor determines should be
reviewed by the Civilian Review Board in accordance with section 13 c) and d).
Substantial evidence - Evidence that, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person would rely upon
to conclude that something is true. For purposes of Section 13( d), an adjudication is supported by substantial
evidence when the Civilian Review Board reasonably could reach the same finding after considering all the
evidence in the record, whether or not the Board actually agrees with the adjudication.
Immediate family member - A person's spouse or domestic ,partner; a parent, step-parent, grandparent, child,
stepchild, grandchild, sibling, half-sibling or step-SIbling of the person or the person's spouse or domestic
partner.
Preliminary investigation - As used in section 1 O(b), an initial inquiry by the Police Auditor 9r the Auditor's
designee into the facts and circumstances of a complaint for purposes of deciding how to classify and route the
complaint.
Internal Affairs - The police employees designated by the Chief of Police to investigate allegations of
misconduct against police employees.
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 Civilian Review Board not to exceed seven members 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 whe~her 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.
2
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.
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 a'pplicants 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 summo'ned to the incident for purposes of first-
hand observation.
h) The police auditor shall participate in Use of Force Review Boards.
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.
Employee~ 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
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.
b) For all complaints lodged with the Auditor's Office or Internal Affairs, the Auditor's Office conducts the
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
doisposition 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.
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.
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
investigation or within 60 days after the date of the incident, the auditor may initiate an internal investigation or
administrative investigation unless the police chief, in consultation with the DA determines that the
administrative investigation wouid jeppardize the criminal investigation.
c) 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 recommend,atian,
his/her disagreements and comments will be documented and forwarded ta 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. If the investigation
reveals evidence of criminal conduct, not previously known, the Auditor may refer the matter to the
appropriate criminal prosecutor for his/her consideration.
4
c) 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.
d) The Auditor's Office shall return all case file materials to Internal Affairs for retention; but shall have
subsequent access to closed cases.
e) 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 aDd 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 complain,ant, 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.
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
i~entified 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 determinati.ons 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;
5
2. develop recommendations regardfng 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 investiga.tion is likely to reveal facts that could
change the case adjudication; or
it the adjudication reached ~y 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 investigatiol') 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 impr~ve 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: .
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
tq 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:
6
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 .
volunte.ers 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
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) yeats.
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.
b) Civilian Review B~ard 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 staft 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 meeting'S as necessary.
7
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 c6mmunity 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 complaiont 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.o To facilitate the transparency of the Civilian
Review Board's activities, the police auditor will develop and present cas.e summaries and status
reports in a manner that allows review and discussion in open session, to the maximum extent
practica ble.
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 prepar~ 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 develbpadditional reports as deemed necessary or
as requested by the City Council. Reports generated by th~ 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.
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
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 notauthorizedtq 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.
8
ATTACHMENT C
1. Definitions
For purposes of this Code, the following terms have the meanings set out herein:
Complaint -An expression of dissatisfaction, allegation of misconduct, or question about
a police employee's conduct, police services provided or not provided, or police
department policies or practices in general.
Police employee - Any City of Eugene employee who reports directly or through others
to the Chief of Police.
Sworn police office.r"- A police employee who is also certified and employed asa peace
officer under the laws of this state.
Chief of Police - The person designated by the City Manager as the Chief of Police.
Critical incident - An occurrence involving a significant police action that includes, but
is not limited to, a civil disturbance or riot, an officer-involved shooting, or other action
by a sworn police officer resulting in serious physical injury or death.
. Alternative resolution - A voluntary process in which a person with a complaint and the
involved. employee or his/her supervisor agree to meet to discuss the complaint with the
assistance of a neutral facilitator, in lieu of the investigation and disciplinary pro'cess that
would otherwise occur. Alternative resolution includes, but is not limited to, mediation
and facilitated conversations.
Alternative Language:
Facilitated Conversation: A discussion, guided by a third party, trained facilitator,
\ between the complainant and a department representative, most often the named
employee's supervisor or Internal Affa;rs staft:
Mediation: A voluntary, confidential complaint resolution option that is an alternative to
the investigation, adjudication, and disciplinary process. It is a structured process guided
by a neutral, third-party, professionally-trained mediator enabling direct communication
between the complainant and employee.
Community impact case -A complaint involving sworn police officer(s) that alleges
excessive force, bias, disparate treatment or violation of constitutional rights, which the
Police Auditor determines should be reviewed by the Civilian Review Board' in
accordance with section 13 c) and d).
Substantial evidence - Evidence that, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable
person would rely upon to conclude that something is true. For purposes of Section
13(d), an adjudication is supported by substantial evidence when the Civilian Review
1
Board reasonably could reach the same finding after considering all the evidence iri the
record, whether or not the Board actually agrees with the adjudication.
Immediate family member - A person's spouse or domestic partner; a parent, step-
parent, grandparen~, child, stepchild, grandchild, sibling, half-sibling or step-sibling of
the person or the person's spouse or domestic partner.
Preliminary investigation - As used in section 1 O(b), an initial inquiry by the Police
Auditor or the Auditor's designee into the facts and circumstances of a complaint for
purposes of deciding how to classify and route the complaint.
Internal Affairs - The police. employees designated by the Chief of Police to investigate
allegations of misconduct against police employees.
2
ATTACHMENT D
o
Mediation and Advocacy Task Team
FINAL REPORT - MAY 2006
BACKGROUND
During the course of studying the current police complaint process and reviewing civilian oversight
systems in place nationally, the Police Commission recognized that several model programs promoted
the use of alternative complaint resolution options as an emerging best practice. The commission
agreed that alternatives to the internal affairs process, such as mediation, should be incorporated into
the new civilian oversight system, and also acknowledged the need for an advocacy component. It
recommended that a separate task team be. formed to undertake a comprehensive review of the
existing mediation and' advocacy process and suggest options for Improvements. The commission
included the following language in its July 25, 2005 report to City Council:
)
The commission believes that a successful mediation program should be an integral
part of the redesigned complaint process. As such, commissioners have expressed a
commitment to modernize and expand the current program to ensure complainants are
informed of the complaint resolution options available to them and to maximize
opportunities for alternative resolution. Over the. years, the department has worked.
with the Human Rights Program to develop a mediation and advocacy program that
has had a number of successes and is not significantly different in its function than the
model programs examined nationally. However, there is a sense that the existing
program has not reached its potential an~ after several years in effect, may benefit
from an evaluation.
The commission supports the current practices. of offering formal mediations,
facilitated conversations, and/or advocacy support for certain complaints to promote
understanding of interactions and promote respectful communication and
accountability for each person~ actions. 771e commission agreed at its May 2005
meeting to appoint a task force of Police Commission, Human Rights Commission, and
community stakeholders to look at current practices and make proposals to enhance
the role of mediation ant! advocacy iil'the complaint process. Specifically, the task,
team will determine which entity should manage the mediation program and
coordinate actual mediations, whether mediators should be hired on contract, whether
mediation should preclude the use of the regq/ar complaint process, ~nd how
community advocates may best be utilized in the process.
The Mediation and Advocacy Task Team (MATT) was convened In September 2005. Participants In
the process were: Neil Van Steenbergen; Chair, Tim Laue, Angle Slfuentez,John . Ahlen, Carla
Newbre, Police Commission; James Dean; Jer Megowan, Francisca Johnson,. Greg Rikhoff, Human
Rights Program; Annie Bentz, University of Oregon Conflict Resolution Services; Betsy Ford,
Community Mediation Services; and. Ron Roberts, Jen. Bills, Cindy Coleman, Eugene Police
Department.
. One of the first team tasks was to develop a statement of work to gUide the group's work and to
identify a set of commonly agreed to program outcomes to strive for, as follows: . .
MATT is comprised of community members and city staff whose goal is to ensure that
alternative dispute resolution is a vital component of the redesigned police complaint system.
In doing this work, the team recognizes the creativity and dedication put forth to establish the
current complaint mediation program. The intent of MATT members is to re-evaluate the
existing program and review other mediation programs in place nationally to develop.
recommendations that will expand access to and use of alternative methods of resolving.
complaints,against police employees. Ultimately, the team's efforts will result in a modernized
mediation and.advocacY system that is recognized nationally and embraced locally.
A police complaint mediation program provides the opportunity for participants to air their
differences, explain perspectives, and feel heard in an environment that is safe, impartial and
confidential. In, doing so, both parties are able to develop an appreciation of the other
. person's experiences and to better understand ,other perspectives of the incident. Mediation is
, a fair and equitable process that encourages . pa~icipants to be accountable for thei'r own
behavior. . It provides a positive approach .toconflict resolution, creating the potential for a
' win-win situation, thereby improvingsatisfa,ction in the complaint process for all involved.
In looking at design options for the ~ediation program, MAlT believes the ,sy~tem should:
identify complaints that are well. suited for alternative resolution options as well a's those
that are not appropriate for alternative resolution;
carefully select cases for alternative resolution to help build credibility in the system to
optimize program utilization in the future;
have formalized, consistent operating procedures that are easily explained. to participants;
present an expeditious, resource-efficient complaint resolution option;
- work in coordination with Internal Affairs, Human Rights Support System and the Au'ditors
Office processes to achieve high visibility and easy access for the public;
clearly define a process for resolution and closure of a complaint;
include thorough case tracking and program evaluation capabilities; and
- translate issues arising from individual c;omplaints into broader trends that can be used to
iQentify possible improvements to deRartmentaI policy,. training ,and practices, ultimately
helping to improve the relationship between the police and community. .
Using the program outcomes as a guide, MATT discussed the strengths and challenges in the city's
existing mediation and advocacy program, identifying key issues for discussion. Where there was
consensus, the team crafted recommendations to optimize the use of alternative methods to resolve
police complaints. In compiling this' information, MAlT's intent was to develop a framework for future
program design, acknowledging that some issues would be left unresolved pending the
.implementation of the new civilian oversight system. Many of the r~commendations formalize current
practices or clarify procedures for improved consistency. Recommendations for change often reflect
Page 2
..
r.'-....
.t...'
\---J
o
best practices as identified through. a review of other prOgrams in place nationally (see Attachment A
for a comparison of different potice complaint mediation program elements).. . .
KEY ISSUES, FINDINGS and DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
.:. Program Terminology
MAlT agreed early on that the current practice of offering both mediations and facilitated discussions
as alternative complaint resolution options should be continued. However, it was soon discovered
that. common definitions for these two options,. and for other program terms, was needed. It was
decided that the main distinction between the two alternative resolution processes is the participants:
mediations occur between the principal parties to the complaint,. while facilitated conversations
involve the complainant and a department representative. The latter option enables a complainant to
discuss his/her concerns with 'someone in charge' without fear of confronting the involved officer, if
that is an issue. It also retains the ability for complainants to discuss the incident with a department
representative . in situations where the involved officer dedines mediation.. The use of a facilitated
conversation as a formalized option for resolving police complaints appears to be unique to Eugene.
Terminology rec,?mmended by MAlT is as follows:
()
Altemative Complaint Resolution: An umbrella term" encompassing both mediation and facilitated
conversation options" which are deigned to complement more traditional ways of addressing police
complaints.
Mediation: A voluntary, confidential complaint" resolution option that is an alternative to the
Investigation, adjudication, and disciplinary prOcess. . It is a structured process guided by a neutral,
third-party, professionally-trained mediator enabling direct communication between the complainant
and employee. Mediation provides opportunities for mutual understanding of the involved parties'
, needs a':ld interests ,and for resolution of a complaint through dialogue and/or mutual agreement.
Confidential: Confidentiality means that there will be no documentation of the contents of the
mediation session, unless the parties agree otherWise, and that mediation communications cannot be
used in any subsequent proceedings (see ORS 36.220). As part of its ground rules, the parties may
decide what information, if any, can be shared about the session and with whom. Confidentiality does
not preclude the auditor from compiling basic program documentation such as the number and types ~f
complaints resolved through mediation, and/or for the mediator to report any general "themes from the
mediations to the auditor.
Facilitated Conversation: A discussion, guided by a third-party, 'trained facilitator, between the,
complainant and a department representative, most often the named ~mployee's supervisor or Internal
Affairs staff. While often a less structured process than mediation, ground rules and other measures
will be in place to help ensure a safe, constructive conversation. The content of a facilitated
conversation" is not considered to be confidential. Subsequent to the facilitated conversation, if the
complainant still has concerns, s/he can decide to file a complaint or request a, mediation.
Advocate: A trained Human Rights Support System volunteer who is not a " party to the complaint and
whose role is to provide technical, emotional and 'referral support to the complainant. An advocate
Page 3
~ks to empower people by exploring options and, choices that can be made, helping them to
understand the ,process and avenues 'for possible reSolution. Advocates must complete training
that familia~izes them with the Internal Affairs process and allows them to ass~st complainants
through' the t~aditional complaint process and/or during alternative ~omplaint resolutions.
f"~-
W
Support Person: Any person (family member/guardian, friend, or community-based advocate such as
a caseworker) who,by the compl~inant's invitation, accompani,es him/her during different portions of
, the ,complaint process. Depending on the situation, the support person's role may range from, a silent .
witness to more active assistance.
C;ompleted Mediation: Signified by mediator as a good faith effort by both parties to resolve a
conflict in a fair and respectful manner allowing the parties to understand each other's perspective on
the incident; the parties mayor may not have, come to agreement or satisfactory conclusion.
Good Faith Effort. As determined by the mediator, means active participation in mediation and
adherence to agreed upon ground rules. ' ' ,
.:. Case El'igibility
A fundamental issue to be addressed in the creation of a police complaint mediation 'program is which
cases will be considered eligible for' alternative resolution. This decision is significant in part because '
it relates directly to the organization's ability to effectively trlanage employee performance. In the
early dev~lopment ~f police mediation programs, in'cluding Eugene's eXi,sting system, all ,"serious"
misconduct cases required 'a formal inves~gation w~th the potential for discipline. The trend for newly
developed" and revised police complaint mediation programs is toward fewer restrictions on the types )
of c;ases that are eligible 'for mediation. The net effect is to broaden the pool of complaints available
for alternative resolution on the front-end, recognizing that the type of behavior alleged is - not always
the best measure for determining suitability for mediation. Case-by:.case review enables careful
consideration of additional complaint characteristics, such as the demeanor and desired outcomes of
the involved 'parties, so that mediation may be offered when there is 'the best chance for a
. satisfactory resolution. Additionally, such review facilitates selection of cases that have the most
potential to build program.,credibility through the direct and positive experiences of the participants.
Per the Police Commission's model for'complaint intake, the auditor. would be responsible for
receiving and classifying community member complaints about police empl,oyees. Part of the
auditor's responsibility would be to identify' cases that are suitable for alternative resolution and if so,
offer that option to the complainant. If the complainant agrees, the. auditor would notify the
employee's supervisor and Internal Affairs that the complainant is willing to pursue alternative
resolution in lieu- of a formal complaint. Because the Chief of Police is responsible for employee
discipline decisions, the chain of command may preclude this option. For example, it might be
decided that since the involved officer recently mediated a similar case, an internal investigation of
the subsequent complaint is more appropriate.
MATT acknowledged that there is a body of misconduct allegations that are not appropriate for
mediation. It recommended in lieu of a categori:cal exclusion, the following types of cases generally
, not be considered for mediation: criminal allegations, allegations of officer corruption, allegations of
threats, intimidation and harassment, excessive force complaints where there is documented property
, damage and/or physical injury, and third-party complaints. There ~re ,situations where subsequent to
Paae 4
o
a citation or arrest, court proceedings involving the complainant and officer are pending. In these
situations, it was recommended that the mediation either be postponed until the
. adjudication/disposition of the. case or, if that wOlJld pose an undue delay, that mediation not be
considered. .
Cases where racially-biased policing/disparate treatmentis alleged are very difficult to prove through
the internal affairs investigatory process, and the underlying issues that led to the complaint often go
unresolved. Misunderstandings and communication failures frequently contribute to perCeptions of
. biased treatment. Because mediation offers the potential for both ' parties to gain better
understanding and appreciation for the other persons' perspectives through a constructive discussion
of these sensitive issues, MATT recommended that, whenever feasible, these allegations are included
in the pool.of eligible cases.
Mediation can be a powerful teaching tool and learning experience for both parties and in this way, is
a form of accountability. For this reason, and consistent with the philosophy of inclusiveness, it was
recommended that employee complaint hi~tory be a consideration for .determining eligibility, but not
automatically form the basis for categorical exclusion of that case. Similarly, the likelihood' that a
case would . result in a "sustained" adjudication should not preclude mediation in all situations. If the
auditor,. in consultation with Internal Affairs and the employee's supervisor, believes that mediation
will have a more positive il11pact on officer conduct than the disciplinary process and would be in the
best interest of the other party(ies) involved, then mediation should be given consideration. .
//
l. )
. 'MATT discussed whether employee-:-on-employ~e complaints should b~ eligible for mediation. While
mediation of internally generated complaints may be an appropriate option in' certain cases, other
avenues are available for city employees to resolve conflicts, such as the Employee Assistance
Program.'. It was therefore recommended that this not be incorporated into the complaint mediation
program at .this time. However, MATT agreed that an officer who is having difficulties with a
community member that s/he will likely have continued/on-going interactions 'with may request
mediation to help resolve those issues.
.:. Participation and Agreements
One of MATT's objectives was to clarify and formalize procedures so that they ~eflect best practices
and are consistently interpreted and applied. The following procedural clarifications are
recommended :'
o A signed "agreement to mediate" form, that includes standard language reg~rding confidentiality
and other procedural expectations, should be required for all participants in a mediation, including
the mediator. .
o A resolution agreement between the parties should not be required as ~n outcome. An optional
written agreement may. be developed by the" participants to document the outcome of the
mediation and any additional actions to be taken by the involved parties as a result of the
1 An issue of how to handle.disclosure of new allegations during a mediation that are serious in nature. was discuss~d at the
April Police Commission meeting. This issue is flagged for possible inclusion in the agreement to mediate form, as the
ability for the mediator to suspend a session for this reason, or because the ~ession is not progressing, may be a valuable
inclusion.
Page 5
mediation. Copies of any resolution agreements. developed will be provided to the partidpants,
but are not retained by the mediator'or the City.
o Neither an "agreement to mediate" nor "resolution agreement" should be required for facilitated
conv~rsations, although an agreement may be an outcor:ne of such a conversation. .
o Participation in any alternative complaint resolution process is. completely voluntary for both
parties. Before offering mediation in lieu of .an internal investigation, the auditor will consult with
the involved erru>loyee's supervisor and internal affairs staff to determine the appropriateness of
mediation .for that employee/incident.
o Alternative complaint resolution should focus on the involved parties and their concerns. As such,
parties should recognize the increasing degrees of complexity when additional people are in the
sessions and be encouraged to limit participation to those directly involved in the incident.
However, by mutual consent, the parties can agree to have other support people present at the
mediation or facilitated conversation. .Through the development of ground rules, mediator should
work with the involved parties to determine what the roles and expectations of any additional
participants will be, striving to achieve safety and ~ balanced environment for all.
o If a complainant fails to appear for a scheduled mediation session without good cause, the
involved officer should be provided with the choice of either attempting to reschedule. the
mediation or having the case dismissed. If the involved officer fails to appear for a scheduled .
session without good cause, the officer's supervisor should be notified and the original complaint
processed through by Internal Affairs.
o MAlT discussed whethet the program should use a co-mediation model, as is done in a few other
program~ reviewed. Members recognized the potential benefits of co-mediation: having two
mediators guide the discussion can bring complementary styles and more options to the table,
which reduces the likelihood that the conversation gets "stuck" and often increases participants'
perceptions. of neutrality and bala.nce. Using a co-mediation model can also assist in retaining a
pool of experienced practitioners' by partnering new mediators with those who have conducted
multiple police complaint mediations. However, it was brought to the group's attention that a
single mediator might offer more. safety to participants as there. would be fewer people in the
room. privy to confidential and potentially sensitive conversations. Further, it was felt that these
sessions would require highly experienced and skilled mediators and it could be counterproductive
to have new'mediators at the sessions, even if under th~ guidance of seasoned 'practitioners. For
these reasons, MATT recommended against using co-mediation at this time.
.:. Selection of Mediators
An overarching goal of the MATT was to help establish an expanded police compiaint mediation
program that reflects best practices and is. a viable, trusted alternative to the traditional co~plaint
. process. To achieve this goal, MAn-emphasized that the program be regarded as safe, objective,
and professional, which would help build credibility and trust in the process. Currently, the Human
Rights Program arranges mediations and facilitated conversations with complainants, Internal Affairs
and police employees, and assigns volunteers to conduct these sessions. In discussing this process,
MATT noted several concerns around the perceived neutrality of this arrangement.
Concurring .with Human Rights Progra-m staff, MAlT recommended that mediations be coordinated by
an entity independent of the city organization. If adopted as practice, this recommendation could
. Paoe 6
o
'----: ;,-,
}
o
affect the role of the Human Rights Program in the mediation process. MAlT's position is not
intended to diminish or critique the. work of staff and volunteers who .have, over the years,
championed alternative complaint resolution options and provided trained mediators to facilitate
dialogue between cQmmunity memberS and police representatives. I nsteadl it is. believed that
coordination of mediations by an outside entity, such as the A~ditor's Office, will. result in a clearer
delineation of roles.
Another issue closely related to building program credibility was the establishment of minimum
qualifications for the practitioners selected to mediate police complaints. Based on a review of other
police ~omplaint mediation programs, the following min~mum training and experience thresholds were
recommended: . .
Mediators' assigned work under this program must demonstrate the completion of a
basic mediation cours~ of at least 30 hours from a reput~ble mediation/conflict
resolution training organization and have conducted a minimum. of twenty cases as
lead.or co-mediator.
1(,..." ')
'l
In addition to minimum qualifications, MAlT recommended that mediation services be retained
through a City contract with several different practitioners (a pool of 3-5 mediators should be
adequate to start). Recruiting procedures should strive to result in a diverse applicant pool. Similar
to Portland's application and selection process, the application process could consist of a s~ort letter
of interest and written response to questions that demonstrate: 1) the candidates' skills and
experience in mediation' and in working with diverse populations, and 2) how past training and
experi~nce would be useful in handling conflicts between law enforcement and community. memb~rs.
Three references who can attest to' the candidates' abili~es should be required. MAlT further
recommended that a panel of stakeholders interview prospective police complaint mediators as part
.of the selection process. Stakeholders can include, for example, an experienced mediator, EPD
representative(s), HRC/PC members and/or other . community members. The interview process
should seek to identify people who have the ability to build a rapport with disparate individuals and
instill confidence in both complainants and officers.
~:. Mediator T~aining and Compensation'
Regarding additional training, it was recommended that those candidates who' are successful in the
application and selection process participate in a 10 - 15 hour training th~t will help orient them to
the Euge.rie Police department and culture, address diversity, privilege and power differential issues,
and clarify procedures and expectations specific to the police complaint mediation program. It may'
also be helpful for those in the mediator pool to observe. a police complaint .mediation session in
Portland, if at all possible.
It was not MAlT's intent to limit the pool of po.tential mediators to attorneys who include mediation
services as part of their practice, as often these skiUs are not directly transferable to mediating police
complaints.. Instead, it is anticipated that there will be a qualified pool of. mediators wh~ would be
interested in working these cases on a volunteer basis. At the same time, it. is recommended that a
nominal payment is made to the 'volunteer mediators. This. reinforces that the mediators are "paid
professionals" and may facilitate more responsiveness to the mediators' performance evaluations
PaQe 7
should any issues arise. A rate of$1oo per session2, with a maximum of two sessions per incident, is (.~-)
suggested. .
In the current system, ~cilitated conversations have been used as an alternative resolution option
more frequently than mediations. Anticipating that this trend will continue, it was suggested that the .
pool of mediators be utilized for facilitated conversations and paid at the same rate for those
sessions. . An. annual bUdget of. $2000 would be adequate to compensate mediators for both these
. services (in the past, there have been fewer than ten total mediations and facilitated conversations
per year). '
Several other model programs that contract for mediation services require applicants to carry
professional liability and workers compensation insurance. MATT was concerned that the financial
burden posed by. such an insurance requirement might preclude experienced, volunteer mediators
from participating in the prdgram. In consultation with City Risk Services staff, it was suggested that
as pa~ of the service contract, mediators provide th'e City with defense and'indemnification. Worker's
compensation coverage would be required if the contract was awarded to a mediation service with
several employees. Additionally, a waiver of liability against ~II partiCipants could be added to the
"Agreement to Mediate" form as an extra measure of protection.
.:. Pr~gram Manag~ment Roles and Responsibilities
MAlT's scope of work included a discussion of roles and responsibilities to implement and manage
the redesigned mediation program. As noted earlier, it was recommended that the Human Rights
Program's responsibility for coordinating and assigning mediators transition to another organization.
While MATT assumed that the, Auditor's Office was the most likely entity to manage the mediation
program, program initiation, on-going case management, and program administration. responsibilities
could be shared among other entities. Instead of making a definitive recommendation in this regard,
MATT presented a series ofprogram management options for consideration, as follows:
1) The Auditor's Office may be SOlely responsible, with input fro~ stakeholder groups, for all
aspects of program management.
2) The City may contract with an outside ~ntity to perform many of the program management
responsibiliti~ and coordinate with the Auditor's Office as necessary.
3) Program management roles may be divided among the Auditors Office and an outside entity
(through contractual agreement).
4) A service contract may be issued for a consultant to assist the City/Auditor's Office with
implementing the new program, such as recruiting, selection a'nd training of mediators,
procedural and form development, etc. Once up and running, the on-going responsibilities
can be turned over to the Auditor's Office.
MATT did not identify a preferred option as there are numerous unresolved issues around program
management, including who will . make the decision regarding role definition. Instead, it identified
some issues associated with the roles and responsibilities for program management that should be
considered when reviewing the program management options:
2 Portland Independent Police Review pays its mediators $50/hour. It is assumed that mediators will spend about 3 hours
per session when preparation and debriefmg is included, so $100 a session would provide an approximate fee of$30/hour.
Paae B
,~
<:> 0 Program Initiation - who will be responsible fur contract development, selection and
training of medi.ators,. public outreach and education, procedures and forms development?
o Case Management - who will be responsible for assigning cases selected' for alternative
resolution to. mediators, preparing background information and paperwork for mediators,
scheduling sessions for all participants, and ensuring that participants have the. necessary
information ahead of the mediation? . .
o Program Evaluation, Data Management,'Atfministration - who' will track and report
participants' satisfaction with the ~ession,. evaluate mediators' performance, and identify data
needs for evaluation and reporting purposes? Who will be responsible for administration of
program - i.e., payments to mediators, report development?
.:. Program Evaluation
Participant evaluation of his/her experience with the complaint process, including alternative
,.resolution options, is a key element to assessing program effectiveness and maintaining program
integrity. 'Most mediation programs request participants to complete a brief survey after the
mediation session as an evaluation .tool. MATT noted that it would be beneficial to report'satisfaction
rates for complainants and employees. separately, while maintaining. anonymity. One option.
discussed would be to use different colored versions of the same form for each .group. Attachment B
is a compilation of surVey questions from other mediation programs. MATT recommends that these
questions form the basis for th~ development of a participant satisfaction form(s) to be. used for both
,(......,' mediations and facilitated disCussions. .
',1 )
In addition to participants' evaluation of the sessions, MATT recommended that mediators provide
feedback to the Auditor (or other designated body) at the conclUsi~n of each session. Mediator
feedback should include whether, in his/her opinion, the particular case was suitable for mediation,
what the outcome was, whether any agreements were reached that may require follow-up, and ideas
for process improvements. . A method of evaluating mediator performance, particularly for new
mediato.rs, was also suggested. Direct observation of several sessions by someone experienced with
mediating 'police complaints was recommended to assess mediator skills and style,. and to suggest
areas for improvements to process and/or performance.
.:. . Data Collection ,and Reporting
Within the confines of confidentiality, records should be maintained for program management and
evaluation purposes, for transparency, and for identification of process improvements. Data
collection should enable the generation of a public annual report, but not create an onerous collection
and data management issue for the program manager.
MATT recommended the following basic information be collected:
o number and types of cases selected for mediation and facilitated conversation
o number and types of cases offered and declined, and who declined (lA/supervisor, employee,
complainant)
o number assigned and completion rates
o reasons for incomplete sessions
o timeline for completion
Pace 9
o participant satisfaction survey results
o case summaries (one-paragraph brief descriptions)
o process improvements made (if .any)
. 0 annual trends and analysis
Q
.:. Incentives for Participation; Promotion and Outreach
During the. Police Commission's early con.versations around mediation, concerns were raised about the
current practice of ~nding the complaint process when mediation' is selected. As MATT discussed this
point in more depth,. it considered whether changing this practice would create a significant
disincentive. for . police employees to agree to mediate complaints. Offering mediation.in lieu of
potential discipline and/or an unfounded complaint. on their record is a tangible benefit used to
encourage employee participation in mediation. For this reason, several programs consider me'diation
the end of the complaint process. Alternately, MATT questioned to what extent the fact that
mediation closes off options to seek resolution through the standard complaint process was a
disinc~ntive for, community members to choose mediation.
. .
In the report Mediating Citizen Com'plaints against Police Officers3, the authors cite getting both sides ~
to the table as one. of the greatest obstacles facing a successful mediation program. The fact that
neither party is likely to have an on-going relationship, resolving the conflict in order to maintain a'
good relationship is not a compelling reason to commit the time and emotional energy to revisit a
negative interaction. Also noted is the fact that most internal.investigations are not sustained, so
officers are more likely to "let Internal Affairs address the issue than participate 'In' mediation,
. especially if the threat of an investigation is still a potential outcome. .1
The report recommended a combination of incentives and persuasion targeted at both officers and .
community members, which is summarized . below:
a Tangible incentives for officers, including that a successful mediation removes the complaint
from personnel/disciplinary file and that officers mediate on-duty with pay.
o Informational material targeted for both community and officers that is clear and. brief and
explains the process and advantages and assures confidentiality.
o Personal contact to offer mediation and provide further explanation and assurances - the .
author notes the importance of who' makes the contact to the" likelihood that mediation is
acc;epted. .
o Promotion/encouragement from union officials and peers' that mediation is a good option
recommended. Frequent turnover in Internal Affairs with people.who do not buy into the
concept of .mediation was cited as a potential problem.
a Convenience for community members -scheduling flexibility, time limits.
MATT agreed with these recommendations in concept, and specific to' the question of whether
mediation should be offered in lieu of discipline, concurred that this practice should continue. While
"members acknowledged concerns that mediation ending the complaint process c~uld" be perceb/ed as
'overly-restrictive to community members,. changing this practice would be counter-productive. to the
3 Sam. Walker, Carol Archibold, Leigh Herbst, Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2002.
P~nA 10
o
overarching goal of optimizing program utilization. The. . oppOrtunity to engage in a facilitated
conversation with the employee's supervisor and retain the ability to go forward with a complaint was
a mitigating factor. MATT also noted that complainants would continue to be made fully aware of the
implications of selecting one option over another/facilitating Infonned. decisions consistent with
desired outcomes.
One. of the resource documents MATT utilized in its research was a report suggesting methods to
improve the police complaint mediation program in Albany, New York. The recommendations were
written by Lauri Stewart of the Portland Independent Police Review Division, who was brought in as a
consultant to review Albany's system. Ms. Stewart's'commentary on mediation in lieu of discipline is
especially insightful and is excerpted as Attachment C.
Regarding other ways to promote mediation to officers and community members, MATT offered its
s~pport for several suggestions from Ms. Stewart, including:
a Consider effects of mediating on an officer's. record, i.e., if mediation is selected, what
information regarding the initial .complaint and its disposition is tracked, where does that
information reside, who has access to It, and for how long is it retained? These questions
have potential impacts 'on public records law and employee contractual agreements and were
not discussed in any depth. However, MAlT advises that these issues be addressed so that
employees who mediate a complaint do not have. a potentially negative remark on their
records for doing so.
a Select ca~s appropriate for alternative reso~ution as early in the PTOC!JSS as
f) possible, when community members are. most motivated to resolve their issues and
~ memories are most fresh. Impatience about delays in addressing the case can also make
mediation less. appealing.
a Add questions about alternative resolution options to the complaint intake forms.
Several communities ask complainants whether they would consider mediating their
complaint, or even specify "I would consider speaking directly with the officer with a mediator
present," in their complaint forms. This has the advantage' of both increasing awareness of
the options and alerts the complaint screeners to incidents where mediation is of immediate
interest.
o 1'dentify a knowledgeable person in an education and outreach role.
It is essential that the complainant be able to make an informed decision, with a real
understanding of the process and the potential benefits and consequences for an i~temal
investigation versus mediation. Some peop~e will have fears or concerns about mediation, but
even those who are pleased at the opportunity to mediate often have questions about how
the process' works and what to expect. Likewise, people inside the organization 'who can
confirm that mediation is a safe alternative to the internal affairs process with tangible
benefits to the empl.oyee are needed.
o Locations and scheduling should be as convenient as possible.
To maximize participation and to minimize the problem of complainants dropping out of the
process or failing to show up for a scheduled mediation,.it is helpful to include the parties in
the selection of location and scheduling to give them some ownership of the process, and to
ma.ke the scheduling as convenient as possible. Flexibility for scheduling changes requested
Paae 11
by either party, given proper notice, should be accommodated to the extent possible. The (......_K'._-.-..';_J
location needs to be neutral, convenient and accessible. .
. Additionally, MAlT recommended that when feasible, officers are able to participate in mediations on-
duty, but in plainclothes.
ROLE OF ADVOCACY in the COMPLAINT PROCESS
I'
The . Police Commission recommended that the new oversight system include opportunities for
resolution of complaints. outside of the traditional internal affairs process and for complainants to
have access to additional ,support throughout the complaint process. This concept was reinforced
during .a publ'ic forum with social service providers, who confirmed that many of their clients would
benefit from a range of different advocate services. Juveniles, people with learning disabilities or
mental illness, people with language barriers, or complainants who are intimidated or confused' by the
p~ocess may need additional assistance gaining access to and navigating through the system.
When MATT began discussing the concept of advocacy, it struggled with the definition of an advocate
and the disti'nction between the advocate role in the current process and role of Human Rights
Support System (HRSS) 'advocates' in the future system. Currently, 'HRSS voluntee'rs are assigned to
assist community members with a range of different complaints of which police services are a subset.
HRSS advocates offer support through education of process options, ~ssistance with accessing
whichever option is selected (i.ncluding. alternative co~plairit resolution~), and referrals to other
agencies, b~t are. typically not ~nvolved if a formal complaint is filed. TheJr .efforts lend a sense of )
safety, non-judgmental support, and empowerment to complainants who are in crisis. While MATT
fully supports these services, there remained a troubling question of how this work would translate to
a system where complaints are received and processed by the Auditor's Office.
MATT had several conversations about what type of additional suppo~ complainants need and/or
might expect to receive. Would they want help understanding and trustilJg the process or would they
expect someone to advocate for the validity of their complaint? Under ~urrent practices, the HRSS
program offers safe access to the complaint process, empathetic counsel and support, information on
resolution options and the implications of each option, and referral to other services. The advocates
do not champion causes. or positions, but. instead, help complainants make informed decisions and
support them through those decisions. If a complainant elects to file a complaint with the Internal
. Affairs office, the HRSS case is closed. A fundamental question was whether these services would
.
still be needed in the new complaint process, or should people rely on the Auditor Office staff and
their own personal support for any additional assistance needed?'
MATT concurred with the Police Commission that access .to support, whether through a formal
advocate program, via informal mechanisms, or both, should be incorporated into the new complaint
process. For some complainants, the involvement of legal guardians or translators may be necessary
to ensure that the complainant understands the process and the ramifications of his/her decisions.
Others may want to have a family member, friend, caseworker, or other trusted support person
accompany them to gather information on options, file a formal' complaint, attend a mediation
session, or act as a silent witness during an interview. To the extent that such participation can be
P~nA 1?
o
accommodated without hindering the complaint process, MATT believes the complainant's desire to
have a support person of his/hercholce present during the process should be fadlitated. .
. MATT's diSCussions around how best a city-sponsored, but community-based, advocacy program
could function in the new complaint system resulted in several recommendations to retain elements
from the existing HRSS system and some suggestions for potential changes. MATT agreed that its
charge was not to develop recommendations for the future role of the HRSS advocates. Instead, it
acknowledged as an overarching issue the fact that the entire police complaint system was in
transition, which will require all the entitles that interface with the system to revisit their procedures.
MATT's comments on advocacy are intended to . help guide such future conversations and any
resulting decisions. . .
Regardless of whether HRSS advocates continue to be directly involved in supporting people with
police complaints, MATT recognized that the Human Rights Program has the history and track record
as a safe access point for complainants. As such, the. HRSS has an essential role to play in educating
those who contact the Human Rights Office about the new system and shepherding them to the
Auditor's Office. Their encouragement and reassurance about the safety, neutrality and fairness of
the oversight system will be critical to establishing public trust in the complaint process. MATT
agreed that at a minimum, it would be vitally important for the HRSS staff and volunteers to help
inform the community about the new complaint intake system and oversight mechanisms.
,Some MATT members had concerns that continuing to use HRSS advocates in the new complaint
process could create redundancies with the Auditor's Office responsibilities. However, members also
') recognized that the existing HRSS infrastructure and volunteer base is an aSset that can be utilized by
. the .Auditor's Office to provide additiona.l, personalized support to complainants. MATT did not
recommend the initiation of a. secondary advocate system. Instead, it suggested that to avoid future
confusion around expectations and practices, a set of clearly defined procedures should be developed
between the Auditor, the Chief 'of Police, .and the Human Rights Program to' establish how the
advocates interface with both the Auditor's Office during complaint intake and a'lternative resolution
options, and with Internal Affairs for complaints undergoing investigation. Once a working agreement
is developed, a review of the city code establishing the Advocate Response Team (Section 2.280) is
recommended to ensure that the code conveys the necessary authority for advocates to assist with
ponce complaints as decided.
MATT discussed several suggestions for possible improvements to the advocate program'. One
apparent service gap is that HRSS advocates have no specified support responsibilities once a formal
complaint is fil~d with Internal Affairs. MATT recognized that the internal investigation process can
be the most intimidating and. confusing for ~omplain.ants. It was reaffirmed that a clear" delineation of
roles, with attention to the structured use of advocates during the formal complaint process, would be
beneficial in the' new system. A model similar to the Paso a Paso program at the Municipal Court,
where a small pool of specially trained HRSS advocates are available directly to court personnel,
should be considered. This would allow auditor's office staff to contact advocates directly,
streamlining access for complainants to advocates who can best meet their needs. It also establishes
direct communication between' the auditor's office staff and the advocates to avoid redundancy' in
services, assure consistency in information -provided, and work coUaboratively to improve se:rvices.
Specialized trajning could be offered not only to .existing HRSS advocates, but to others in the social
service community so that they have a working knowledge 'of the complaint process to 'assist their
clients, and if desired, could become an HRSS advocate assigned to t,he Auditor's Office.
P;:InA 1:\
In discussing challenges in tile . current process and how the new oversight system will alleviate r)
and/or compound some of those challenges, specially trained advocates may also be a valuable
resource to the review board. There are a handful of complainants who, for a variety of reasons, are
unable to resolve their complaints and continue to contact other city staff, elected officials, and/or law
enforcement agencies in an effort to get "somebody to do something" with their complaint. It is
anticipated that the review board will become a likely destination for such complaintS. Advocates who
have been an outside witness to the process can assist the board by advising the members whether,
in their opinion,. the .case in question was treated with due diligence or if other steps should have
been taken. Advocates could also have the additional responsibility to liaison with other problem-
solving teams such as CRT Ops in an attempt to connect peopleto other resources in the community.
This may be especially. beneficial to complainants who have chronic issues that bring them into
contact with the police,' or who due to other conditions, are unable to find resolution to their situation.
.Both of these suggestions for new advocacy functions' have the same basic objectives:' to help ensure
a thoughtful, thorough review of complaints which typically go unresolved, connect people to
resources that may be better equipped to resolve their issues, and reduce the likelihood of redundant
staff or board review of the same complaint.
CONCLUSION
~n many ways, the values underlying this report reflect' the values .expressed during the
development of the civilian oversight model: provide easy public access, have dearly defined and )
consistently applied p'rocedures, promote a'ccountability while respecting the rights of all involved
parties, increase satisfaction in the complaint process for all involved, and improve police services.
In applying these values to the recommendations developed, MAlT's objective was to ensure that
alternative resolution options are an integral component to the new complaint process. The
incorporation of best practices' in program redesign will elevate the program's' visibility and
credibility, which is critical to achieving success.
MAlT brought together policy advisors, community practitioners, and staff experienced with
alternative complaint resolution systems to create a framework. for how these options can be
optimized in the future police complaint process.. .MAlT recognizes that its recommendations,
some of which are fairly conceptual, will need further discussion and refine~ent. MAlT hopes
that its background research, the record of its disc;ussions, and the resulting report will be a
. valuable resource to decision-makers for program development purposes. As the implementation
of the new complaint model moves forward, MAlT members are committed' to assisting as
appropriate to.ensure that alternative resolution and advocacy are viable, trusted options.
PaOA 14
o
[/-_. '"
;:1 )
\'" .'
~
i
~
z
o
~
~
~
r-l
~
~
~
~
o
U
r-l
U
~
~
o
~
.r-.
o
Z
o
f'-1
i
o
u
C+-c .8
o _-=
o =
:g .~
.~ s
- ~
o 0
.s ~
~ ij
.s .s
t .1
~ = 0
en.~ ~
0=<<>
~:.s e
o C1) 0
~~~'O
o CI.) C1)
~~~~
~.s~ ~;.s
z~~taQ)
o.~ s
~~ v <<>~ ~
:. (d G.> .0 8
~ tn M+:j UJ
>.2 ~ ~.....
o C1) ~ <<>
Wl;.::1 e ~'::i UJ
:! ~ tS ~ .~ ~
UJ
.~
~
~
o
~
o
~
~
o
~
~ @
JIas
~:g
. g
J1~
o
>
o
~
o
o
UJ
I
~
~
.>
e
~.
C1)
~
~
~
~~
o
:E
o
~
::s
!
S
~~
~
~~
o ~
>
.+:# ~
BtE
o
~ ~
..c=
'"E~
~ (1) UJ
o C (1)
t:Q !~
"
~
U
o
o
-..c
~
.~
o
o
i3
o
~
.~
Z
~
o
U
~
~
U fIj
.~ s:=
~.S
o~
C1).~
~as
~ s
o
> UJ
C1)
as!
a.~
.~ :=
~ ~
E-4<+=4
.s
.;]
<+=4
~
O.
s>o
.s
C1)
~.
.&
o
.~
~
UJ
o
.~
~
~~
o~
] .,
~ fIj
~~
5 e
.+=: tS i3
Cd i'I~ C1) "= . ~
8 ~ ~.~ ~
oflj5 ~ "0
:s ~ ~ ~ ~
~ (ij 0 ~
~ ~ 0 ~ .s
fIj I ~ 0 0
= fIj.~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~,g .fr
~ &B e .€
.;] 8 bO ~ (ij
~. ~ = "0 '8 ~
bO ;.::1 C1) 0 fIj
fljS~ !=o 0
.~ ~~ 'fii':.= .g .2 .1=1
~ 5 G.> fIj · .-4 ~...-4 ~
P. g ,,~ 8 ~ '0 ~ ~
.s::~ ~{/J ~~. ~~
S( ,P '+:J ~ 5 ~ ~ ~
~ ,... ~ C1) · ...... C1) 0 ~
~ "0 ..-4 ~ ~ ~:".... d..-4
~C1)~ cd~ ~""~ I
fIj fIj C1) ~ ~ ~ i:i ~ fIj
(I) ::i ~ C ~ -.-4 l;; 0 C1)
~ .~ C\1 ~ ~ ~ .= Z ~
fIj
G.>
~
~
B
o
~
<(
~
o
= C'-. .....
. " -=
u ~ ~
..... .....".. ..=~=
. . ~ ~ u.. e
.. .. -- -- ..... ~ u
':: ;: = = A A~ "
fIl fIl:a~ ~~eC
~ ~ ~ ~ ..
~'2~e,.Q .8.8:at:
u ..... u ~ >.. . .... ~ =
~ · ~..c"- u -= ~ ~
e:ae......5~~~~e
fIl ~ ~ e = ~w ~ .=
~e~==~efll'=~
~ ~-=Ol;~~~..
E-4.8~ 5:>!~ 5u r
..
=
'1:S
....
.
c..
W1 C'-.
.. ..
e .~
~~
.... -=
'2':
~ ~
~
~5
~
...c=
C1)
o
.~
'0
~
.s
-S
.D
.B
(d
.&
o
.~
~
o
~
~
~
o
.....-4
'ii
C1)
.ta
fI'l
~
e ~
=~.2
o G.> 0
.!:j = ~
~ 0 ZO
::J~
~
t; C'-.
-= fIl
~a C'-. ~
= ~
~ ~ 4) ==
"",UfIl ~
CIJ-=e~ ~
· ~ c. . C'-. ~
-=-=.....~~~
~~.S~!~
:I ..! ." .~ "
... .... Q. · t:~ .....
e"e!= =
~ ~ Iii1 = ..=
~ ~ SIC) ! ~
taN
]~
0\0
G.> I
t:Qtn
~.~
~~
~.~
8
ur
.~ ~
> ;.::=
o ......
...." ~
~~ ~
~~ g
~~ O~
G.> G.> .3 5
o~ ~
~o ~~
~.t::J t-4
..... 0 ~ 0
.2 ~ o.~ c..
~ fIj ~ fIj U'
(ijas ~~~
~ 8 ~. ~ e 8 ~
o C1) t-4 ^. ~ ("f)
..... ~ i 0;: 0 ~
i(1)o~o~("f)
~ ~ ~ · .-4 C1) G.> ("f)
Q) 0 0.....-4 f'
~e.]~~~~
~ OIl .0 .3 ~o G.> 0
~~.....,~ CI)~
'=
=
~
~
fa
..
~
.s
..w
U
.
.....
-=
=
o
!~
00"
8.0
i~
~~
~
~~
fI'l 0
~ C1)
~~
'"S3~
o~~
o <+-.
G.) 0 0
~~=
~~o
.s .8 ~
~Isg
...d.....-40
'+:J ~ !::S - 9""'t
~~~
C1)fIj~
tdG.>~
o 0 G.>
:fjoS
f:!~~
.~ d (1)
~(l)l)
go~
~.o .~
o ~ 0
U..c=o
......
o
~
~
(Il
~
.....
e
=
(;
-=
e
~
...
"
"
<
!
~
8
.~
:a
Q)
~
.6
~
~
o
U
Q
o
;.=
o
~
<+-c
o
~
-5
~
o.
U
()
'0
~
a.
8
o
M)
~
o
~
n
G
(")
i
S"
s.
fo+
~
G
~.
tt.
'8
~
1
~
~
G
N
~~~8~8r:f
~.~ t-t a g a N
o ('1) N ~ (1) ~. 0
FS....~.......fn.......o
~~s. ~ a'~.f:.
~ ~ ~ ....... ft' &
.('D (1) ~ ~. (1)
~Cil~p..lZlO
~ g p.. Cil ~. a
~fnst'~~g
5 5' (1) ~ s, 0
g~ag.~
g. ~ ~ .... (1) 0
~(1)t:Ssr::-:
~~- (') ~ (').
(1)j'-'f"+~(1)(1)
o~g,~e:()
&. Q. t:il ~ ~. g
~&~gg~
(1). p .......
~ s= lZl a ~ S'
('Dt:S(1)~fn~
(") Q. < C1"'" · fn
ga~~~o
cp S' g ~ '0 ~
t-i (JQ t::S '(1) t-t 9
~(')o~~s
~ 0 ~t:rog(1)
0.... ag. (1) ~ CL
~ (1) "-/ t=&:
~ ....... fIl ~ a.
::1.~.G <: G
at:SfIl gQ.
(l) fit ~ · (1) VJ
o .....
t:S
fIl
>
Q..
S:
ct
e
=
~
=
a
~
fIj
~~
~a
n Q.
....fD
5. ~
'S' ~
... fIj
a fIj
>> -=
ct~
C) ~
= fIj'
fIj
.~
l ~ g ~ ~ a .~ ~ Q ~ :s=
g: = ;;I ,., fIj -= Q, tD = ~ ~
n. >> ~'. S: e.. = _. ~ = 'fIj C)
~.Q.;r!:= ~aa Q.n ~
a ~ =- s. ~ q ~ g g ; 8.
fD n = ... = .~ fIJ flit. C1 c:r Q..
-~ a I ~ ~>> ~.~ ". ~ fD
fD"=~ >> = fIJ
fIj C) Q.. .. _. 4 a ~
~ fIj ~ Q...""" (p ~
fIj fD C) n ~_.
fIj a ... e ..n
-~ fD = a ~
a ~ &
-~ a'.~
N tr1 ~ '() e. ~. ~ ~ ~ Z ,() 0
s ~ g ~: ~. ~ (1) ~ & S 0 a
~ ,a =: (ll 0 0 e: s:: (l) ~ a 0
tv ::t. "0 ~ ~ "0. a (1)' Cil =:s 8 (1)
~ < ~ ~, g. ::1. g Fji..... o~ ~ 8
w (1). P t:J ~ fn fn s. t:S
OOtjtr1~ J~S~8 ~'i:t
~ =;. ~ 0 Er ~ t1 ~
'- (1) (1) a '" ~ .... ~
~ (') '- (') "0...... 1-1 en fIl
5t:d(1) t-tg (1) ~~
~ ~ t-t ~ s.: Gs a ;:J.
. O. ~ =-.(1) G Gg.
~ a ~ ~::+; a. ~'E
~~ ;- ~ E ~ g.p;
(1) t:S s. ~ ~ "0
(') 0 e: 0 "0 ~ t-1'
o ~ ~~ ~ t:S a 0.0
!:j ~. 'c-+ t-t .... ~
~o (1) g~ (1). ~~.
..... .r::-: ~ fIl '- fn () en
e (') t:r' ~ G ....
s. (1) G ~ ~ 0 ::s g
ri- () t:S < 0 tn ~ .~
!'l 0 ~ G s:: ~ ~ to-'
~8 ~~ g s
· "0 8 '- t:t (1)
~ ....... 0 ~ p e:
< S. ~ g ~ a.
~ t:S ~ (') g
fIl (1) ~ 0 v~
<~ t:S
~ ~ p". ~
(1) r::. S S
~~ ~ &
(') ~ 0 (1)
.... · cr
16 G
Q.
~~~
s~~
~ ~~.
~(1)~
VJ e: (1)
6a~
\0 .... ~
NO~
0\=
~
a
1
ss~
o ~ ~
g.o ~
o r:T (1)
S'~ e:
OQ-<a
~ (1) o.
~st:S
~(1)~
~e:&
e.~.r::-:
. 0 (')
~.t:i :;d
~ g> (1)
at-t~
.... "0 ::t.
< .a 0
~G ~
o (l
fIl 0
o ~ 0
fIlO~
~ ~ S.
~ ~
~ 0
~t-t
~
~Z'~ ~
(1) 0 ....~.
fIlf"'+Q.Q.
p;-'(1)"O
t:S ~ t-1
o ~ 0
~ ('1)' ~
fn (1)
fIl ~
(1) .... ·
~,O
g>t:S
~~
ero
k&
t:d~
~g
t-t
fIl
I
g
fn
<<-+
~
n
en
-=<n~c:r'~
>>e.;~ ~~
a==cElfD
fD = C) fIJ fD fIJ
~~:'C) S:e
- ... ~. .... >> ....
~ ,., n ..... n
S a = & =
~ fD ~ fD
=- fIj fIj
c:r _. ~ .....
e";:r =-
~~a a
=- ,
n
"
=
~g.g.8~&Q
8 t:S~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~
~ f"+ Q. - ""'. 0 fn
&. ~. 0 ...... tj a ·
<: & t:i~ S'I:j' ~ ~
~2.i~~i~
(1) (1) ~~ ~ 5
a 2.o~~~.
o ~cr G
~t-t ~ ~ t::.: ~
p.. t:S (1) .... · (') ,
, . (1) Q. t:s ~ (1)
'"0 (') Q. f"'+ ~
~ 0 t:t 0 ....
.:; 8 p (') <
'<; ttj a 0 (1)
~ ...- ..... e CP
~. ~. ~. ~ a
(') a.o~ (1)
~~ ~. J=! "0 9'
- 0...0 0 ~
(') ~ t'""h r::-: ""
e-:, fS ~~ ~
(1) r:: fn
~ (11. ~ "0 =
~. en en ~ ==+
t:J a ~ fl)o S.
~' ....(1) t:i
en ~ Q. t:S "0
=-. (').... n t:r
~ 0 fIl....... ~
a a o. ~ ~.
o ttj"O=' (')
t-t ...- S~ Q. ~
~. G ....
=:s Q. cE.
~ ::+; ~
f"'+
o
S
G
sa.
~~~
n 0 ~
fI) ~,...,
~~
tog
~ g
~ ~t-t
$:: S.
~(')
(1) 0
s ~
e.e.
, >a
t""'h ... ·
~,O
~.~
~ .... .
<. g.
.... · f""'+-
f!l. =::r
o (1)
= ~
(') 0
~a
~.~
~~(l
(1) (') ~
fI) ('1) fIl
fIl ,(1)
fIl fIl
... · Er
~ <
= 0
fn ~
(1) ..,J ·
ii:
a
S
.... .
fIl
(')
o
t:S
~
(')
~
o
t-t
o
~
......
~
=
.~
5-
~
=
=
'4
t:1
~
o
st
~
fn
st
~
S
a
t-+
... .
g
G
~
cr
!!.
o
~
~
.......
o
g.
~
fn
f
s
~.
~
.... .
o
t:J
(1)
~
cr
(1)
........
o
~
~
e
a
;.
Q..
'4
o
~
o
.....,~
g
'"8
o
o
~
{IJ
o
.~
o
o
0'
o
~ .~
(IJ
&Q;'
.~ .g
~ 0
-= 0
~,t
t..../...... ...".,)
.J
~
~
.s
o
.....,
g
'"8
o
o
(IJ
.8
ta
~ :~
e 0
Q) ~
"0 (IJ
.~ ~
~~
o ~
0,=
~ 0
o.~
;. -~Cd
....-4 ·
ta
~.
~ ~
Q)....-4
__00 ~
--'- ti
~G.)
~ ~
Q) ~
.0 (1)
:.= e fI.)
00(1)
.~~ ~
.o~
]
.E
Cd
.-0
<1)
~
. ...-4
~
{IJ~
lii
~
fIi'
(IJ ....r
o 0
5 .a 5
~ s=....-4
~ 01a
o~
en fI.).a
.8~ 'S.E
~ ~.6
~ .~ ~
o . Q,)
8 ()~ -5
E Q) b!)
N'~ ~ .~
-< ~ ~ C1). ...-4
(1)0 ....-4
=- s ta.~ 8-
2.9<l)~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~u"O~~~
.~ ~
~~
(d ~
~B b
.s ~ · ...-4
Q)'i '8
] ~ u
e~ ]
~. .s
.....,~ ~
8 0 z i
....-4.~ 0.2
] ~i ~ .s 0
(IJ ~ 0 ~c
~'=8~<<s
.... Ga "d fZl
] 5 Q) 8.S
5 bO~ ~ ~
~ .ff ~ ~ ~
8E5tag
-a ~ > ~ .+:1
~ 0.+:2 ~ ..e
~dOOO
~S~~~
~~oC/)~
~
tiS
-a
o
.~
~.
~
~
~
e
~
~
~
i
&
~
o
o
.~
....-4
o
~
~
:a ~
.~ fI)
"'C.....,
8 "s=
~ ~
o~
fI) ::s
.. t-4 ..0
S=
:.a Q)
~ ~
Q) ~
i3 ~
td d
~!
~ .~
= ~. ....
= i e
i ~i-= '5s8
..= ~~e ._~u
.... .... .....c ..= ~ ~
~ ~ "C ~ ~ e ~.
~...... ~ ~e "" ~ ~ :=
= .~. -- ~ ..c .= ~
u....u~~ ... :e=
~ <<I ~..c"'- u -= .. ~
e:ae....!t;~~~e
~ ~ ~ c = ~w .~ .=
~a~.==~e~'=~
~ ~=..I;~~=e
~~~5~!~58r
C1)
~
d
o
~
fI.)
.~
~
o
~
~
o
o
.s~
d.'=
o ~
(d~ .~'blJ
~ ....-4 ~ ~.-a
83 -a o.bI) Q)
~~ .rJ '0 ~S >
~ ~ o.
.~ :3 >
.~] 8 .a~
~ a- ~ 1.~
= 0 bO 0 ~
<<SoS~~
~~~:~
tb~~lj;
~-M~ &.s
o..s~ e
.....,.~ rn i 0
~t::>fJ) ~
<l) ~ 8 i
~~Oc:l4~
~ ~ ;l
fJl.~ d ~
....-4 ~ ::s.s e
1:j~. (IJ. ...-4
<<S 0....-4 0 0 ~
s= dt:1~
.~ 2 .0 .o.? 0
~. ~.~ ~ ~ d
~.~ ~ .,-4 ~
~~~"'O<l)~
o <+1 0 0 ~ 0
u~SSoZ
~.
....
e
e ~.
8 ~
~ ~ ~
:s Q"C~
[ =~a
~~. = =.....
,... ,... e e =
e ~ ~ ~ .-
-=....=.s
... = e .- ~
i s ~ i a~
.~ ~ ~ ~ 8
~
t:1
o
-+:1
~..=
O 0 -
(IJ-a
~ 4) (l.)
G3 ~ d
~ Q) ~
Q).s 0
~ bO ~
ti.S ~
~ .N ea
~.~
~ 5>0 i
~ 0 ~
. ..... ~
'O~~
"'0 ~ ~
~-s "5
~~ d
:.a<~
o Q)
8 ta ~
~ ~ ~
t:1 0 =
o ~+-' 0
....-4 1'-4
~ ~
~ 0 ~
~~d
Q) (I) (1)
888
~ 0 (l.)
4:1~~
<1': 0 ~.
d
i
&
o
Q).
o
....-4 ~
"O.~ ~
~~~
5>0< ~
Q)....-J~
· ~ ~ ('f")
OStn
c 0 I
Cdd~
rJ)~\O
~
..~
~ fJl
~ Q)
ts..g
.~ ~ ~
~ao
~ -a Q)
S....-4~
o ~ "'0
o ~.~
,.f 0 -8
"+:2 0 d ('f")
.~ ~ -~ 0\
~ -.-4 fJl '0
"'Os=~ ~
o~~ J-4 ~
o ...... Q) 0 0\
)-,1\ ~ ~ ~ t"-
.S 'E 5 ::a 0 0
r^O~ 3~~
iSoo ~\OtO
~ e..Q Q,) B ....:
'"" ~ ~ .~ 0
p.. J-4 ;.;:t r--o;::J
.0 Q) 0 0 rJ) ~
.~ a:e ~ ~ 00 .
~:ES l:l~N
~ .9$;'00<
J-4 d 0 "'0 00
Q)o~..Qc -s:-I
o 0 <<S Cl.)z 0
e oo~~ & fJl
O~OQ)~OO
~8~s~~~
~
~.
~
~
~
u
u
='
~' ~
~ ~
=~. ~
u ~ .S
c"'-=
~ & ~
"C ._ "C
.~ ~
-=I;~
~ !I~
-=
e
~
.
e
,...
~
=
.-
....
u
.
"...
-=
C
U
('f')
o
~
~
Q)
~
p.
~
Q,)
j
$9
,0
.~
;a
8
~
~
~
>
I
~
-=
o
.~
;a
Q,)
~
.8
,!!
~
o
U
Q)
o
;.:=
o
~
<+-4
o
8
.5
~
o
U
ta
~
cd
o
,g
o
o
~
~ ;.s
.s ~ ~
o "'0 ~
~.> ~
~e ]
o ~
~ ~ ~
o.S 0
d ~ ~
0;.0 ~ 0
~ 0 ~ ~
e s 8 0
~G,)~I
~i3~fJl
~~~~
fIj
~
e
=
..
.
=
e
~
.-
."C
~
(')
~
a.
8
o
....,
~
o
t:::
(')
CD
()
~
fi'
Er
ri-
~
e:
.~.
8
~
1
~ n ~ in S ~ ~ < ~ ,., 'n =~ i~ nt-3 c:r~
e e fD ~e = ~. fD~
~ = i:. ie C'I1 =e: g = ~ e a;:
_. i l e = . = fD B fD
~ ..... as! fD = e C'I1 fD C'I1
...... -= .....~. nQ.,
n ~ -a.~ s. ~ C'I1 .... ....e e:e
e ~ fD..... = $I .~ ,.,
= ..... fD fD e m m c:rlllllt ,., ~
,., s. a' l= .....= e ~~ _. .~ fD n ....n
..... fD n = .....ct c:rQ. a el fD ,.,
= S' fD .~ .l ~a I ~ .~ == fD fD c:r Q.C'I1
C'I1 ,., C'I1 ~ fD fD fD
e B fD e Q. _. ~ i~ Q.C'I1 C'I1
..... C'I1 C'I1 g Q. c:r
fD -= ~ C'I1 -. ..... &t
C'I1 ,., n C'I1 = n Q. _. e l=-
~ n C'I1 e .. e _. t) &t fD l l
e fD .~ fD 1:1 ll:r' ~
= C'I1 1:1 C'I1. tD t)
C'I1 fD Q. ,.,
.~ ..... =
.~ ..... .~ 1:1
~oo O......Ot:r1f....4 ~ .~ d~ ~ a'~ ~ () t-< ~ ~ 0
(') ~ ~~~~~ ~ e. ~: 0 ....... ~
(') (') en c-+ o ~ en en =
CD (') J~B.g.~ 0 5 .......0 ~ 0
~ CD i3"' a.'8 8 a B =
~~ tt. c-+ S ~.
~ o <- 8 ~ o 0 ~ ~ Q.
~El ()O F~ 0 \,e
() (JQ ..... t1 ~ o en ....... ~
0 ~a ~~ .... .
8e: )> ~ g. =1. () 0 >
~ ~ o ..... ~ 0
\O~OO~ 8 . 0 t:t.~
n s>> ~ ~ ~- 8 ~ ....... CP t:S ' ~
~ g. G '< o .......
~ s tn. = ~ ~.
fIl. a ....... ~ ~ .... en o s'
~ S. tv 0 ..p ~. ~5 ~
~t:': . 0 c-+ ~O'
(')N ......0 = o en g 0 a;
o 0 ......0 o =
~~ g.~ ~ g ....~ 0
a
gg ~ s. .......0 2.......
S'~ = 0
air g ~ o~ ~
fIl ri- ....... ~ ~o
o n ....... 0
~ er a; 8 S" a~ 0
r:t. 0 gO" a
o N a 0 .... .
= 0 =" s. <
" 0 ~ 0
Vl
~ ~ ~. t1
Ei a- ~.
(JQ 0
~ ~ ~ 0
c-+
~ 0
0 ....
cr
CD
S
to ~ ~ ~ < ~ > ~ ~8~(j CP~ ~
0 0 (1) 0 '(1) (1 a 0 0 s s ~
Ef' en 00 [ 00 ~ fI} o'"Os.~
~8 fD
1. 8.[~ g' 1:1
0 ~a JD
~ 0
.... a ...... '< tt. ....... .... - 0
.... . .... " fI} 0 0 ~a
0
fI} ~ g Ef-.g ~ ~
~ ~ (1)
(1) g. ~
a. ,00 = \ a .......'
::t. o ~ 0 tj. ='<
0 (JQ ; ..... ~ ~ 6-
~. g. ===ofij
a Ul cr~'- ~,
(1) (JQ ~ CD .S::
.... . Ul .~Ef'~
= ~ o 'en 0 g.
~ p.. g. gi' I-+J
~, '< ~ ~
0 cr ..... 0 g.
Q. Ul o ~ a
~ 0 ~~ (1) (1)
.... cn
~ ~. d e. t:S
=<....... ~
~ o.~ ::3.
o=a (/l
e. en .... (I)
(1) ~ g c-+
Q........en 0
~ 0 '- .......
(1)
(JQ. (') <
~. a .(1)
.......
'0 .0
=~ t-fo)
'- a.
a
en
~
~
CD
~
o
if
o
'--.,-...
~
~
"0
~
~.~
~ ~
:!. ~
e 00
..5
~=s
~~
~ 1-4 &1
... 0 . 00 "'1\
~ S ~ 8 .~ ;'
.~~~ ~..~ ~ ~
. +J .....-4 ~ Q)
. .s . ... (+:f (,) ,
~fI.)~ "O~c
.~ ~ ~ 8 8.a .~
~ :> 0 0 bO;.a .s
fr~. .~ J .s ~ ::s
cS~11 6..0=
. C'I.) ~ .~ ~
~ ~ d ~ '0 .0
...... ..d.; , ~.B >
~ t....-4 .0' ~ ~
~ 113 ~ o.~ fa ~
~oo~~8E-4
(... -----)'
\.
~
. .....
00
CI}~ j
~ ~
Q) "0 ""
.B~ ]
~"O t
8 ~ 0
~ fa IE
Q) . ..... 0
e ~ ~
ca:E .0
~ 0 t
~= ~
. ..... "0 e
00 ,0 ~ +->>
E S=o "0 00
: .~ ~ ,~
~g. .g~
~] (I} 0
::s "0 ~ '3
~Q) 5~
~8: Q)~
bO .s S:=o .~
Q) CI} Q) r-o
~~;> 8.s
t ~ 60 .~ ~
e~j]8'
O~Q) SO
o 0 ~ .~ 0
.s S.fil .s ~
0:E~ €~
~ ~9 0 ~ 6
~ ~ ~, 0 0
t)0:::::=1;)
~~:g ~ =:a
...~oo ~~
e~+->>O,.dt-oC
,~ ~ 13 ~ t 3
~ .E ~ 8 (,), 8~
~ o~ 00 IE
z~e:.ao8
=
u
-;
..c=
...
~
~
~~
. ~
u.....
.. ~
=:a
~ ~
~ sa
~~
"C
1 ~
..=~
::e
~ ~
= e
u ~
c....,.Q
e...
~ e
~ -=
~=
~ 5
CI}
~
6
. .....
to.~ I
~OCl}
~ ~ ~
]]~
5 I .~
bOCI}e
I~~
CIlfl.)~
~o~ ~
b's I
~ o~
o & ta
"OfI.)o
0=s.L:J
.g.8~
= = u
e ~ 00
..c.s~
CIl 0 ::s
~g~
~i-'\Q)
" ~ Q)
CI} s:= ~
6 .~ '13 ~
.~ ~ 8......
.~;.a 0 'S
"0 Q) U 'S
8 ~ ~ 00,
o~ a5
z =.~
· 6b 0001-4 0 ;.=
. ..... . .....
Q)i~rO
~..zj "~;:=
.0' 00 ~ Q)
~~&Jb4
oa~cS
~~CI} -< 0
.~ ~ oS ;9
; '.fj .~ ~
M Q) 00 0
co 8 +->> 00
oo~~~
~CI}$-4Mr
~
~
.
u
..c= ~
"S :a~
,.Q ~ ~
~ ~
"" ~.....
..... ~ "C
~ :g ~
.~. ~ e
-=~-=~
='! e,.Q
0."==
> .~ 5
00
'Q)
~
fI.)
(;
6
. .....
00
00
~
e
~
i)
.B
]
o
:>
o
i3
~~
f1.);E
00
o 5
8~
::s"O
fI.) 0
gj
.~ e
s:= 00 d
0...... 0
"P d '+:2
CcS.;::4 ~
;a~.~
fI.) 8 ~~
~ ~ 8.S ~
>.
.s~ :Eo
~fI.) +->>i3
~ o~ e... s=
.,..., ~o 0
f\~
~~ '~b
"" ~ gL :>
d 8 "P 0
:::3 fI.) Q..
~~ ~bO
~~ ~:a
~~ ~o
~""g ~~
"'''0 ~
~o 50
~8~ ~=
~ 6.~ ~ ~
:>.+:2 Q) ~ 5
~ ~ t-c .'J 41'
.~ '''0 ; f)i
~ "0 C 00
o ~ ~ s:==......
~M~ 000
::a . 6 5 .~ :.a
e~~ ~I
~gj.~13 8 5
~ I "~~ .~
s:= "0 pJ 0 ~
00 1;iO
o..-c 0 e d
fI.) {/,)..-c 1;; Cd
I ~ 0 "0.;::4 ,
fI.) ~ 0 {/,)
~ ~f.H ... Q..~
~ 6' ~ O{rl ~ ~
~. ~ ~o ~.~ t
~ ~ 5 ; ;. = '113
OM ~oJ:Jo
.~$"O 0 ~~ 0
~ S.S ~ ~ fo i3
.~ .e ~ 0:3 ; ~
0"0 l.s~oii
o;s:=~~g~
~+->>O 100
-- 0 · ..... ~ "0
~,.2 ~ ~~ .--d 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ 0 z
-=
~
!i
... ~ a-
S e
~ ~
... - .;
:;~. ~
~ -= .c t:
= ~ e ~
~e""'~
e=~.!=
=~~=
e"'~'"
U.~~
~.
'-=
a ~
~
~ ~ ~
... ~ ~
. -= ...
~~
==.....
~ ~.~
=ea...
-o:e ~e
~ ~
~~8
o
~
~
Q,).
~
5
~
s
Q,) 6
~ .~
00 ::s
Q)~
.~ ~
~.~
.s .s'
o 0
~+->>
fIi
~o"E
os~
..c= ~
060
~.~ v
~ ~o
Q..:.a
t 8 ~
:Eg.]
0... 1;) {/,)
6 0 ~
.~ ~ =
::s "0 (.)
o~~
00......
e~~
d "0 '0
bI)~O\
.(i) .gl
o .~ 'C'
+->> ~ ~
138~
t) "0
6ba~
<:dOQ) 0
~.+=2'~ ~
o gb ~ 00 .'
o.+:: ~ 0 I
~~.td .~~
;f3 .s i ~ ;!;
~~"O ~N
v~~ ~ ~
e.~~ o~
OQ ~o t)
= {/,) 0.>
~~i g~
8 ~ .S 0 E
o a ~ J;(~
o bO~ J:3~
~ oS s- {I} 0 {I} S-
o Q) 0 d 0 0
"5 Q) (.)^'.8 ~u
~ S ~. 0 > &1
~ g. e.6 ..-c
, ~ ..... OQ Q) +->> ~
::a fI.) e g .~ :E
'0 .s ~~ :> u
=
<:>
~'
ea
!
i
...
u
.
...
=
e
U
"0
o
CIl
o
....-4
o
o
o
N
o
~
S
to
~
J;
.s
....
. .....
i
CIl
Q)
tn
=
o
o
o
,.....t
=s
o
~
I
t\1
~
b
~
00
Q)
fI.)
=
o
o
~"O
.~ ~
~;.a
8 8
~ ~
~
~
...
~
..
=
~
:a
~
-<
V')
cu
~
~
I
o
~
8
',=
:a
cu
~
.S
~
~
C)
Q)
o
~
o
~
~
o
8
{/)
.~
~
,C)
Q
.G'
m.
8
o
M)
."
o
r:::
8
(i
i
fi)
Sf
.....
~
~
~.
8
."
t
t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ =~ < =--~ a t-3
e = a ~. CIQ 0 a ~~ i~
Q. = sri .., 1:1
-- S'. . n Q, 0 3 =- =--0 -= a fD
~ .... .. a. ;- er = -- 1:1 .,- ft)
....a a Q. ft) Q. fD WJ ., WJ
8 r4 c.. ~ ~~ ! 'S: c ~c
~ ::t ft) e a B e a.
5- 5' e e ~ .., . ..... c......
.!. n = 1:1 .~ WJ ....~ ft). Q. '.... n n
1:1 s- a 8 ~ .~ !: S: 'fD ~ fD . .
m ~ Q,WJ WJ
0 e ft) !. ., ~ ft) fD
i fI} fI} Q. .., c.. ~ ~~ =-- fIJ fIJ
= ~ fI}, ft). c..=r e &t &t
n n fD e n
:t n . e a .., e .~ t;- &t a .,
e ft) a .~ 1:1 =r ....
1:1 fIJ fD ~ i n n
I fI} n 1:1 ft)' n = =
.~ _. .... "
~ .... -~ = a
.. .... ~
a 5- ft) 1:1 =--
~ ft) a
ft) ..... fIJ ft)
-~ .~
~t;~z "O~o~ ~() d ~ Q. (') ,~ (1 ~ ~< ~~~ f ~ ~ ~ ~
tv =;. S>> afnl-+J ~..ogO-O ('1) o 0 e.OO ('1) 0 .,
0\ (1) .~ ~. , . g. g ~ O'~ ~'~ ~ a fIl ~[ fIl d ~
~I3J1l (') .,
~ (') f"+ g f.ag13 e ~ I (') cr ...0 0 c..
Vlf"+~r::r ('1) ~ (JQ ...... e. ~ Q.'
00 g ~ ~~ 0- fn e;t- S' s' (') ~1~ fIl ~ ft)
~ g'~ 0 ~ t7.g 00 j 1:1
~ '-4C/.) g.1>> 0 J-+ !;: ~ 00 g ~ ~ "
I ~~ o ~ 0.9: ~ (') 0 ~ ,~ ... ~
......:J fIl('1) CD f"+~ a~ >cpoc:r~ ~ I t:t. fIl (1
~ ::t.a s ~ a~'~, ~
\0 (') e ~ 0 o. ~ a. ~ Q. < ~ >
~ ('1) I ~ ~ ~F ('). r:::r ~ 00.... · fIl (') ('1)
~. ~. ge.('1)~S.~ ~ < ~'S ~ ..... .
tI1 (l~ f-+('1)f-+a B B t:t. fIl (')
~ ('I) · · CD CD ~ ..... . ErEr~~ 0 rr ('I) ~ 0 f"+ ...0
. e 8 ('1) i-+fIl sn
r+- ~= ('I) I r:::r ~ ~~e. !a (')
V.) f-+~ ge.~ < <sQ.SlQ.. ~ ~.
('1) ('1) .... · fIl ~ ::+. a 0
0\ ~ -~a ~ fIl .CIJ ('1) ~ (') f"+ .... . ~ o ...... ~ a
t-rj ... 0 ~ ::t.::t.e:t:t.;.o fIl ('1) ~~fIl ~
. 0 = ~.... ~.~ · 0 ...... fa' fIl ~a=r er ('1)
~ o~o- a !. !. = ~~ f""'t- fIl
0 EJ ('I) ;; · e. t-c:S e. ~
t:S · 0 r:s 0.0 0 ;;.~ g f""'t- ......
'~ =::-: ~ ......::t o. (') f"+
' < ('1) l:l;S l:l S '_ a (') 0 ...... ~
~ ..... . g
t:t. , ~ & 9 =:r ('1) ~ 0 (') e. f""'t- (")
0 ~ ..... CIJ ~ 0 f""'t-
~ fIj o g: "C ~ .... .
F ~ 08 I>> ('I) ~ 5 .~ ::t. Q. (')
f""'t- fIl ...... fIl
(') ~ (') ~ Ef' (')' fIl 0 g ~ (')
tt:t , g =:t.. ~ 0 ('1) f""'t-
~ ~ ~'t-c:S ~ 0 (l s[ ~
('I) r tj. a o ~ fn e;t- ::I.
(') o r:s ~ ~. ~ 0 ~ g ao
a. '(1)
t-t(JQ ('1) f-+ g. > ~
..... . stg ...... 0 ~
< f"+ ......
0 cr .....
('I) ('I) f"+ 0 CIJ
('1)
g ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~rn (') Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~cr~ )> ~
o-~ o 0 ('1) e. 0 0 ......0 ...... ft)
a 0 · t:S~2.g. gl m f""'t- 00 00 Of""'t-...... ...... =
~ ~~ Q. = ('I) 0 0
< ~ ~~ ~O('l) U. Rf/J~ <
;-'~o S. d ~ Q.fIl t-c:S () st ft)
a.s.g "'~ · ca t:4 (JQ g fIl ~.a 0 a 0 of!' ~ ....
~ ~ ..... 0 ~
(")gg~ o. .... ~.' t-c:S ~ e .::t er (1
ge.g. ~S(1)
0...... 00 a m e.o 00 .(JQ 00 0
00 ~
g'~:- ~~~a . (1) ~ ~'.; ..... . 8- m . 0
(') S. ~ 0 Q.~ ~
n Q..~ tv. g. ~ ~ fIl ~8 ~ ~ ~ ~,8 g'
fIl ~.G S~~f. 00 (') ~
fIl~S o . G~ fI) 8- 00
8, g o. ('I) ... a == ~ -~ 0
~.fIl ~ ' · a 0 "0 er CD ~ S
o o' Sl e e o ~ f""'t-
~~~ ~. ~ 8: ..... (') ..... . B
c-+ (l.. '< ~ ...... (') a ~ ~ 0 0
o 0 fI} (') f-t-'< ~ S F f"+
~~~ f""'t- ~ (1) g ~ ~ ..... .
. · e. 0 ~ !. o. . 0
fI} ~ ~. =:;s
n Q.. t::io~ Sm Q. S. a ('I) ...... a- ('1)
fI) ~.a (') S. 0..
E ~.~ OSler g. ~. S ... Q. ~ ~
......(') 0 ~ c. ~ .... · cr
8 8 ~ o m ~[ 0
~[ J:t~ gf-+g ......
fIl Q.. ~ 0
fIl~~ ......00
e: ::to ~~ ~~ ~
g, S. jO s.~ .0 ~
C-+(JQ s:g ::to ==' ~r4
~r+O f'"+ o ~
~ t:t' 8 5. p.. g ~. ~ ra. g i~
~ n fIl (JQ a o.~
o ,8 a: f-+ ......er
m ~. ~ 8 e;t- ~.g. o 0
a ~.; 0 .ij.~ ~('1) S. Sl
('1)'
. ~ ~ s. ~ (')
.... . g [d ~
~ .(')
.-; f-+(1) ~.
m
m ......
......
."
1&
CD
0\
, ..
... .
w
')
ATTACHMENT E
Timelil)e for Police Auditor
October 16, 2006
Begin employment
November 13,2006
Finalize Proposed Ordinance language
Present Proposed Ordinance to Mayor and City Council
City Council Meeting
November 6 - December 1, 2006 Inspect available office space
November 27,2006- January 2007 Coinment on proposed ordinance framework.
November 15, 2006 Evaluate applicants for administrative position for the
Auditor's office.
November 2006 to April, 2007 Development of Protocols: Consult with Portland
OR Auditor.
November 6, 2006 to January 1, 2007 Consult with Police Commission, Police
Chief and Human Resources as well as other
stakeholders concerning or51inance, implementation
~d protocols.
November 21,2006
Begin interviews for administrative position
December 4, 2006
Hire administrative position.
December 4.- January 15, 2006
" Hire second staffmember for Auditor's Office
December 11, 2006
City Council Meeting
January 1, 2006
Move into new office and develop more detailed protocols.
January 15, 2006
Begin providing "services.