HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Meeting w/Police Comm.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Annual Meeting with Police Commission and Presentation of
Police Complaint System Recommendations
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Eugene Police Department Staff Contact: Jeannine Parisi
www. eugette-or, gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5852
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session includes an overview of the Police Commission's FY05 Annual Report, request for
approval of the Police Commission FY06 Work Plan, and presentation of the commission's report
entitled "Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations."
BACKGROUND
The City Council meets in joint work sessions with the Police Commission to review and approve its
annual work plan. On July 28, 2004, the City Council approved the commission's FY05 work plan,
which focused almost exclusively on a review of internal affairs procedures and civilian oversight
systems. This project would be conducted over a 15-month period, with the commission preliminary
recommendations going to the City Council in early Fall 2005. To accomplish this project in a timely
and thorough manner, the council also approved the commission's request for contingency funds in the
amount of $70,000.
The work plan also included completion of several projects carried over from the previous year.
The commission's annual report, included as Attachment A, documents the commission's
accomplishments on these projects and provides a process overview of the main item "Internal affairs
and civilian oversight review."
Over the past year, the commission has conducted a review of current practices for handling complaints
against police and an extensive examination of different models of civilian oversight. In this time, the
commission:
· Collected background research, including a significant literature review, to identify current best
practices for processing and reviewing complaints about police conduct;
· Held multiple community forums to solicit public input on experiences with the current complaint
system and suggestions for improvements to identify key issues and community expectations;
· Convened two committees to develop specific recommendations for improvements in how
complaints are received, classified, investigated and, once an adjudication decision is reached,
reviewed.
· Based on the committees' recommendations, stakeholder input, and City Attorney review/advice,
developed a conceptual police oversight model for City Council review.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050725\S050725B.doc
The results of the commission's efforts to date are described in its report "Police Complaint System and
Civilian Oversight Recommendations," included as Attachment B. The recommendations provide a
description of the oversight model that, while fairly comprehensive in its design, will need further
procedural refinements and the resolution of several outstanding issues before finalization.
One significant outstanding issue that will require more immediate City Council consideration is
whether the council concurs with the commission' s recommendation that the oversight system report to
the City Council. To authorize the City Council to hire the auditor and assume responsibility for his/her
performance will require an amendment to the City Charter. A charter amendment will also be
necessary to allow the council to appoint a review board with the functions described in the model. The
Police Commission's recommendation is that a charter amendment enabling authority over both entities
be presented for a public vote in the November 2005 election. The City Recorder provided information
to the commission on the cost and timeline requirements for placing a measure on the November 8,
2005, ballot (Attachment C). PLEASE NOTE: In order for the council to refer a Charter
Amendment for the November election, the council should give direction at its July 25th council
meeting so that the Charter Amendment language and resolution or ordinance calling the election
can be approved by the council before its summer recess.
As part of the Police Commission's work in developing its proposal, Commissioners Tim Laue and
Angie Sifuentez met with the City Manager. Following that meeting, the City Manager presented his
recommendations on external review for consideration by the Police Commission. A copy of the City
Manager's May 17, 2005, letter containing those recommendations is included as Attachment D.
Also attached is the Police Commission's proposed work plan for the remainder of the calendar year
(Attachment E). The commission is requesting City Council approval to extend the current work plan
for six - nine months, wherein it will continue to refine the oversight proposal with direction from City
Council, and assist in the development of the ordinance and policy language needed to support
implementation of the model. The commission also plans to participate as appropriate in review and
comment on the Police Department Strategic Plan, and in this way, monitor the department's response to
the ICMA/PERF recommendations. As always, the Police Commission is willing to modify its
proposed work plan to address other police policy and resource issues as directed by the council.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The City Council adopted vision and goals include two statements relevant to this item:
1. Safe Community - a community where people feel safe, valued and welcomed, and;
2. Effective and Accountable Municipal Government - a government that works openly,
collaboratively, and fairly with the community to achieve measurable and positive outcomes.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The purpose of this work session is to discuss the commission's oversight model recommendations as
presented in its report in Attachment B. The report includes summary public comments and input from
stakeholders including the Eugene Police Employees Association, the Human Rights Commission and
Communities United for Better Policing. Upon discussion of the report and its recommendations, the
council may:
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050725\S050725B.doc
1. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a) a proposed Charter Amendment
consistent with the Police Commission proposal, and b) a resolution or ordinance calling an
election on the Charter Amendment for a November election.
2. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a) a proposed Charter Amendment
consistent with the Police Commission proposal, and b) a resolution calling an election on the
Charter Amendment for the May, 2006 election.
3. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a) a proposed Charter Amendment
to authorize a Review Board consistent with the Police Commission proposal, but not include in
the proposed Charter Amendment the appointment of the auditor by the council; and b) a
resolution or ordinance calling an election on the Charter Amendment for a [November
2005/May 2006] election.
4. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council an ordinance consistent with the
City Manager's recommendation contained in Attachment D.
5. Provide conceptual approval of the oversight model (with minor revisions) but postpone a
decision on whether to move forward with a charter amendment pending further discussion.
6. Postpone action on the oversight model recommendations and direct the Police Commission to
revise the model and to bring a modified set of recommendations back to City Council for review
and approval.
City Council review and approval of the Police Commission's work plan is also requested. Upon
discussion of its proposed work plan, the council may:
1. Approve the Police Commission FY06 work plan as proposed;
2. Amend the proposed work plan and approve the plan as amended;
3. Direct the Police Commission to modify the work plan and present the revised version to the City
Council for approval at a later date.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
With respect to the police oversight recommendations, the City Manager recommends that the council
adopt Option 4 (approval of the recommendation in Attachment D). If the council does not choose this
option, the manager recommends that the council adopt either Option 2 (Police Commission proposal
with a May election), or Option 3 (Charter amendment to approve City Council appointment of the
Review Board, but not the auditor).
With respect to the Police Commission's work plan, the manager recommends Option 1 (approval of the
work plan as proposed by the Police Commission).
SUGGESTED MOTION
Police Oversight Recommendations:
Move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council an ordinance consistent with the City
Manager's recommendation contained in Attachment D.
Police Commission Work Plan:
Move to approve the Police Commission FY06 Work Plan as proposed.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050725\S050725B.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. Police Commission FY 2004 - 2005 Annual Report
B. Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
C. July 14th Memorandum from City Recorder Mary Feldman: "November 2005 Election"
D. City Manager's May 17th proposal to Police Commission Chair on External Review
E. Police Commission Work Plan: July 2005 - March 2006
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Jeannine Parisi, Police Commission Coordinator
Telephone: 682-5852
Staff E-Mail: j eannine.parisi~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050725\S050725B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
City of Eugene ~ ~
POLICE COMMISSION
Annual Report
FY 2004- 2005
Eugene Police Commission Mission Statement
Our mission is to recommend to the City Council, City Manager, Police
Department, and the people, the resources, preferred policing altematives,
policies, and citizens' responsibilities needed to achieve a safe community. We
strive to create a climate of mutual respect and partnership among people that
helps achieve safety, justice and freedom for all people in Eugene.
777 Pearl St, Room 105 · Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5852 · FAX (541) 682-8395
www. ci. ugen .or. uslpolicec mmlindex, htm
Eugene Police Commission Members
Tim Laue, Chair Maurie Denner
Angie Sifuentez, Vice Chair Carla Newbre
John Ahlen Tracy OIsen
George Bennett Andrea Ortiz
John Brown Floyd Prozanski
Bonny Bettman Neil Van Steenbergen
For more information on the Police Commission, please contact:
Jeannine Parisi, Police Commission Analyst, Eugene Police Department
Phone: (541) 682-5852 E-Ma#: /eannine.parisi~ci. eugene.or, us
Or visit the commission's web site at:
www. c£ eugene, or. us/policecomm/inde x. htm
Eug n P lic C mmi si n
2005 ANNUAL REPORT
I. Introduction
This staff report is submitted to the Eugene City Council to document the activities of the Police
Commission during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. The annual report describes how the commission has
worked to meet the expectations of the City Council, as delineated in its work plan, and has responded
to issues of community concern.
Last year's work plan was devoted almost exclusively to the Internal Affairs and Civilian Oversight
Review project, a particularly time-intensive effort which has culminated in its own report for Council
review. To avoid redundant information, this annual report details the other commission tasks
accomplished this past year, describes adjustments made to the work plan over the course of the year,
and cross-references the report on police oversight model recommendations.
The charge of the Police Commission, described in City Ordinance 20136, can be distilled into three
main components:
1) improve communication between the police and the community, thereby decreasing
misunderstandings about policies and practices and helping to build consensus around
preferred policing alternatives for the city;
2) identify policy and resource issues related to preferred policing alternatives, and to assist the
City Council in balancing police resources with community priorities; and
3) provide input on police policies and procedures that reflects community values.
While the Internal Affairs and Civilian Oversight project has elements that encompass all three areas,
other work plan tasks were more specifically focused on policy review and/or resource priority
decisions. These are described in the following section.
II. Accomplishments
A. Improving Communication and Understanding of Police Practices
One of the most important functions of the Police Commission is to provide a forum for open
discussion on a range of policing issues in a public meeting setting. This year's meeting schedule,
coupled with a significant public outreach effort, provided numerous opportunities for community
involvement in the commission's work. In FY05, the commission and its committees held forty-six
public meetings, not including the work planning session with City Council. These are described more
fully below.
In addition to its monthly meetings, the commission scheduled five additional full commission
meetings related to police oversight. These included an overview of the current EPD Internal Affairs
policies and procedures, a presentation on the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) report on
national models of civilian oversight, the 2004 internal affairs audit report from Howell Lankford, and
two special meetings to finalize the police oversight model for City Council consideration.
In December 2004, two committees were formed to research and develop preliminary
recommendations specific to complaint intake and case adjudication review. These meetings, of which
there were sixteen total, were structured so as to involve community members more fully in the
committee's deliberations. A new agenda item, entitled "Community Dialogue" was included at each
meeting where members of the public could sit at the table and enter into a discussion with the
committee on the agenda topics. Commissioners and members of the public who participated in these
sessions voiced appreciation for the community dialogue portion of the meetings.
An outreach task group was also formed to organize a series of public forums to solicit input on the
police complaint system and facilitate other community education and outreach efforts on this project.
The task group coordinated a dozen events over the past year, with over 175 community members
participating.
Three other committees/task teams were active over the last year, each of which facilitated public input
and participation in the discussions related to video cameras in patrol vehicles, police uniform
standards, and community policing efforts in the downtown core.
Lastly, the commission supported a public outreach effort focused on the Latino and Spanish-speaking
communities to share information on the newly developed Social Security Number policy. It allocated
$5000 of its contingency funding to the Human Rights Commission to develop and coordinate a
professional services contract for this purpose. The Human Rights Commission contracted with
Centro LatinoAmericano, which organized a series of information sessions at various churches with
large Spanish-speaking congregations. Human Rights Commission and EPD representatives led the
discussions, which were well attended and received. A report detailing this effort is will be delivered
separately to the City Council from the contractor.
B. Police Policy Review
In Car Video Policy
The In-Car Video/Audio Recording Policy Committee was formed at the September 2004 Police
Commission meeting to assist the police department in creating a policy for the use of in-car video
equipment. In-car video and audio recording systems can provide objective evidence to document
traffic and criminal violations, can enhance officer safety, and assist in the timely resolution of
inquiries and complaints from community members. For these reasons, both the commission and the
department feel that it is important to add such equipment to EPD patrol vehicles. The Eugene Police
Department will be the first law enforcement agency in Oregon to acquire digital recording technology
for patrol vehicles.
The In-Car Video Committee was charged with reviewing background information, identifying key
policy issues, consulting with staff and stakeholders such as the City Prosecutor, and providing
feedback to the department on policy drafts. The committee focused on policy issues related to when
video/audio would be captured, protecting the integrity of the data, and access to and use of the
recordings. Many of these policy issues are tied closely to the specific equipment selected by the
department, as well as the personnel and financial resources needed to acquire and maintain the
equipment and data. As such, the committee provided a draft policy to the Police Commission for
conceptual approval in January, recognizing that a number of issues would need to be revisited once
the funding was secured and the equipment selected. Upon discussion, the commission asked the
committee to consider several items related to the acquisition and implementation of in-car video and
2005 Annual Report Page 2 of 8
audio technology. The committee reconvened to respond to these and other outstanding issues and
developed the following additional project recommendations:
Provide maximum recording coverage by installing equipment in all patrol and supervisor
vehicles
· Purchase equipment that includes the ability to retain video captured just prior to system
activation to allow review of actions that precede event in addition to the event itself (pre-event
recording)
· Allocate at least 0.5 FTE for increased staffing level during initial implementation and for
ongoing system management
· Provide thorough training to ensure that equipment operation procedures are understood and
successfully implemented
· Articulate in the equipment request for proposal the values of high quality video imaging,
integrity of data, reliability and durability, internal auditing capabilities and upgradeability
The draft policy was approved at the February meeting and then used in securing Telecomm Tax funds
for the project and in developing vendor proposals. Once a digital video system is selected, some
portions of the policy will be updated to refine procedures that are specific to the technology in place.
The committee will reconvene to assist the department in finalizing the policy and recommend the
types of data that will be useful in an annual evaluation of the project.
Uniform Standards
In FY 04, a task group was convened to explore options to ensure that Eugene police officers are easily
distinguishable from other public safety agencies in Eugene, campus security and private security
employees. An Intemet search on the topic indicated that other cities have enacted ordinances and/or
state legislation to address this issue. A two-prong approach was agreed to whereby a draft ordinance
was prepared for presentation to the council and a modification to ORS to broaden the definition of
criminal impersonation was developed.
During this process, the commission discovered that a city ordinance on uniform standards could not
be lawfully applied to the University of Oregon Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers.
Nonetheless, commissioners agreed that an ordinance focusing on private security entities would be a
proactive measure and recommended that the City seek a cooperative agreement with the university to
mitigate the appearance similarities between EPD and DPS officers.
A City Council work session to discuss the merits of the uniform standards ordinance was held on May
18, 2005. Council agreed to move forward with the draft ordinance and scheduled a public hearing for
May 23. There was no public opposition to the ordinance at the public hearing and council
unanimously agreed to adopt the ordinance at that meeting. The ordinance will go into effect in
January 2006.
In a related effort, Senator Prozanski introduced legislation on behalf of the Police Commission to
expand existing statutory language on criminal impersonation of a peace officer. SB 547 was passed
in both houses and was signed by the Govemor in June.
2005 Annual Report Page 3 of 8
C. Resource Issues
In 2004, the Police Commission was actively involved in supporting a safe and vibrant civic center by
assisting in the development of the Downtown Public Safety Action Plan. This project was originally
conceived as a partnership with Downtown Eugene Inc. to strategize options to expand community
policing programs in the downtown core. The project grew into a broader planning effort involving
multiple stakeholders to recognize public safety strategies and partnerships that help make the
downtown area safe and to identify additional resources required to meet the area's public safety
needs. The commission moved to accept the plan on September 9th and the plan was then forwarded to
the Chief, Mayor and City Council, and City Manager for their consideration.
With the City Manager directing a status quo budget for the police department, the commission was
less involved than usual in providing input into the department's multi-year financial plan and FY 06
budget requests. A presentation of the department's budget scenario was delivered to keep the
commission informed of any significant changes to resource allocations. Providing timely and
meaningful input into the department's resource decisions continues to be an area for improvement.
The commission's review and comment on the draft police department strategic plan, which will be an
important vehicle for identifying future resource needs, may create an opportunity for the group to
better meet its charge of helping council balance resource decisions with community priorities
III. Internal Affairs and Civilian Oversight Review Project
At its July 28, 2004 work session, the City Council approved both the Police Commission's work plan
and its request for contingency funds to support a timely yet extensive review of the police
department's internal affairs polices and procedures, as well as an examination of different civilian
oversight models.
A. Background Research
The work plan divided this project into three main phases to be completed over a fifteen month time
period. The first was a background research phase that included an extensive literature review,
becoming familiar with the city's current procedures for handling complaints, and identifying key
issues, values and expectations to be considered during the process. This portion of the project
included:
- staff presentations on internal affairs procedures, complaint investigation, and city
disciplinary processes;
- attendance by Councilor Bonny Bettman and Commission Chair Tim Laue at the National
Association for Civilian Oversight in Law Enforcement (NACOLE) Conference in October,
where participants collected information on different law enforcement complaint processes
and learned first-hand about the successes and challenges of these models; and
- public presentations of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) report on police
oversight models in existence nationally that might be applicable to Eugene.
2005 Annual Report Page 4 of 8
A significant public outreach effort ensued to help the commission determine where process
improvements were most desired. A series of public forums were hosted that targeted different
neighborhood associations and gathered perspectives from social service providers and other advocates
for vulnerable communities. One forum was hosted by Downtown English to share basic information
about the complaint process and solicit feedback from mono-lingual Spanish speaking community
members. Police Commission members also attended four police in-service training sessions to solicit
input from personnel regarding complaint process perceptions and requests for improvements. These
sessions provided useful suggestions and insights from officers and helped assure EPD personnel that
the commission was considering the needs of both officers and the civilians in its process.
The commission recognized that given the magnitude and complexity of the project, a process
adjustment was needed to help it meet its projected timeline without compromising the quality of
work. In December, two committees were convened to develop preliminary recommendations for how
complaints are received and handled (intake process) and how they are resolved and reviewed (case
adjudication and civilian oversight process). The committee process was intended to facilitate an
expeditious yet thorough analysis of these specific areas of the complaint process as well as expand
opportunities for including stakeholders and other community members in the committee's
deliberations.
Also in December, the commission met with members of Communities United for Better Policing
(CUBP), to discuss how the groups would proceed in developing recommendations for civilian review
of the police department. The two groups agreed to work collaboratively on parallel but separate
efforts and exchange progress reports and information when appropriate. CUBP members invited
Commission Chair Tim Laue to share presentation time at a well-attended December 31 City Club
session on police civilian oversight. In May, the leadership of CUBP and the Police Commission
Complaint Process Committee chairs met to compare proposed models and at the June 9th meeting, the
CUBP gave its support to the commission's draft proposal if the governance of the model was under
the auspices of the City Council.
In addition to CUBP's involvement in the process, members of the Eugene Police Employees
Association participated in deliberations and presented their own proposed oversight model to the
commission in April.
B. Oversight Model Development
The preliminary recommendations for an oversight model were drafted by the Complaint Intake and
Adjudication/Review Committees. In drafting the model, the following values were sought:
o Creation of an accessible, safe, impartial and responsive complaint intake system
o Assurance of high quality, thorough and unbiased investigations
o Accountability and fairness for all involved throughout the process
o Increased transparency in how complaints are handled and the process for determining a case
disposition to build credibility and trust in the complaint system
o Ability to identify organizational improvements that enhance the quality of police services to
the public
o Avoidance of pitfalls encountered in other communities when implementing civilian review
2005 Annual Report Page 5 of 8
The Complaint Intake Committee analyzed three different models for receiving and classifying
complaints and agreed to a variation of a dual intake system, where complaints can be lodged with
either Internal Affairs or with an independent entity (assumed to be the auditor's office). The
Adjudication/Review Committee agreed with the 1998 External Review Advisory Committee (ERAC)
proposal of a hybrid oversight system that included both an auditor function and a civilian review
board, but decided that its proposal should include a more detailed description of the roles and
authority vested in each component of the system.
Once the committees decided on a hybrid oversight model, research then focused on other
communities with similar systems, including Seattle, Portland, and Denver. The Deputy Director of
the Portland Independent Police Review Division and Chair of the Citizen Review Committee
provided an overview of Portland's system to the commission in April. In June, Richard Rosenthal,
formerly the Independent Auditor for the City of Portland and recently hired as Denver's police
monitor, gave his assessment of the commission's proposed model. Two additional meetings were
scheduled to refine the oversight model drafted by the committees, with a significant discussion on
whether Internal Affairs should have any role in accepting complaints and whether the review board
should be involved in monitoring open investigations. Further advice was requested from the City
Attorney's office in an attempt to resolve these and other outstanding issues in advance of the July 25th
work session with City Council.
The resulting report detailing the commission's work to date on the project is included as a separate
document for City Council review. Originally, these recommendations were to be forwarded for
Council consideration in September 2005. The commission has since revised the timeline, advancing
its proposal to accommodate the procedural requirements should the City Council seek voter approval
for a Charter amendment in November 2005. Due in part to the earlier presentation time and the sheer
complexity of this project, the commission's proposal is a fi:amework that, if approved, will require a
substantial effort to finalize. If the commission's FY06 work plan is approved as proposed, the group
will continue to refine the oversight model and assist with ordinance and policy development necessary
to support the model's implementation.
C. Contingency Request and Utilization
At the July 28, 2004 work session, the City Council approved the Police Commission's request for
contingency funds in the amount of $65,000 to facilitate an expeditious yet comprehensive review of
internal affairs procedures and civilian review options. The additional funding was used primarily to
augment staff support to the commission through a twelve month .5 FTE career development Program
Specialist position. It also enabled the commission to contract with the Police Assessment Resource
Center for a report on national models of police oversight, to retain additional professional services
such as City Attorney advice and to supplement funding for public outreach efforts on the project. The
remainder of the contingency fund will be used to retain additional staff support through September
and as appropriate to assist the commission with this project.
2005 Annual Report Page 6 of 8
IV. Work Plan Objectives, Adjustments and Next Steps
Since its inception, the Police Commission has maintained a highly qualified and dedicated
membership that works extremely well together in support of the community. In early October,
several commissioners interviewed applicants to fill the vacancy on the Police Commission pending
the early resignation of Kimbefly Shore. On October 25, the City Council appointed John Ahlen to fill
the two-year vacancy on the Police Commission. In November, Angle Sifuentez was elected to serve
in the vice-chair position vacated by then Councilor-elect Andrea Ortiz and Nell Van Steenbergen was
appointed fill Ms. Ortiz's position as liaison from the Human Rights Commission. Councilor Bonny
Bettman was appointed to her fourth consecutive year as council liaison and Councilor Andrea Ortiz
was appointed to fill the other councilor position, replacing Councilor Jennifer Solomon.
In the past, the Police Commission has identified process improvements to help it better serve the
public. The commission selected a few procedural objectives to focus on last year, as follows:
1. Incorporating policy implementation status reviews into the work plan to help evaluate the
impact and effectiveness of the commission's policy recommendations.
2. Creating a process for the internal affairs policy and civilian oversight review that is
transparent, easily accessible to community members, and offers multiple opportunities for
public participation and input.
3. Acting in a monitoring and oversight role as the department conducts an internal assessment of
its recruiting, hiring, training and supervision practices that may have allowed criminal officer
misconduct to go undetected.
An evaluation component is now included as a routine part of its policy recommendations to the Chief.
This enables the commission to assess the implementation status of its policy recommendations, ensure
that the new procedures are working as intended, and identify any areas that merit further refinement.
This year, the commission received the first report detailing Eugene police use of force statistics,
which confirmed that an overwhelming majority of police/community interactions are resolved without
any physical force. Status updates on the drug detection dog policy, SWAT policies, and verified
alarm response procedures were also delivered. As the body of commission-reviewed policies
continues to grow, methods for sharing updates in a timely and succinct manner, such as a consolidated
annual report, may need to be coordinated with the department.
The commission's success in meeting the second objective has been briefly described earlier in this
report and is detailed in its oversight recommendations. Regarding the last objective, Police
Commissioners were pleased to have the opportunity to meet with PERF/ICMA representatives to help
identify key issues for analysis in the report and to hear the team present its findings at the March 9th
City Council meeting. The audit was anticipated as one of at least two national consultant reports that
would assist the commission's work on the police complaint system. The commission read and
discussed the PERF/ICMA report, with particular attention given to the recommendations surrounding
the handling and investigation of complaints.
2005 Annual Report Page 7 of 8
It then developed a response to the PERF/ICMA recommendations, focusing on those that either
directly or tangentially affected its work. This memo was submitted to City Council on April 7, 2005
and included an offer to assist the department and City Council in implementing the report
recommendations and evaluating the progress and timeline for implementation. As a follow-up, the
commission has proposed that in its upcoming work plan, it review and comment on the draft
department strategic plan, which will include many of the PERF/ICMA recommendations, to ensure
consistency with community values and resource priorities.
For the second year in a row, the work plan item on the use of 'tasers' as a new less lethal tool for
police officers has been postponed. The commission had planned to assist the department in
evaluating a pilot project where 'tasers' would be issued to a small group of officers trained in their
use. However, these devices have come under increased public scrutiny following incidents where
suspects have died after being "tased" and in circumstances involving youth and elderly suspects. In
response to the growing national debate, the Department of Justice has funded two independent studies
on the risks posed by stun devices like 'tasers.' The Police Commission and the Chief agreed to put
the pilot project on hiatus pending the results of these studies.
Next Steps
Over the next six months, police oversight will continue to be a focus of the commission's attention.
The commission anticipates that following the July 25th work session, Council will provide direction to
the commission for refining the police oversight proposal and bringing back final recommendations for
further discussion and possible adoption. The commission's FY06 work plan, as proposed, includes
participation in reviewing ordinance and policy language in support of the new oversight system.
Commission members also hope to be involved in developing an evaluation tool that will assess the
effectiveness of the oversight system implemented.
The Police Commission is committed to improving its effectiveness as a citizen advisory body. The
annual policy implementation status reports have been helpful in measuring how its recommendations
impact police practices and alerting the commission to additional policy or training modifications that
might be needed. As this commission continues to assist in development of a more robust policy
oversight system, its own function will be analyzed and possibly, redefined, to ensure that its role is
distinct from and compatible with the other oversight bodies. As this report indicates, the commission
has worked with due diligence to accomplish its work plan obligations in a way that results in high
quality outcomes and meets community expectations for an inclusive and thoughtful process.
2005 Annual Report Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT B
Police Commission Report to
Eugene City Council:
Police Complaint System and
Civilian Oversight
Recommendations
July 25, 2005
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
II. Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2
III. Research and Community Values ............................................................................................ 3
IV. Model Development/Committee Process ................................................................................ 4
V. Proposed Oversight System Description ................................................................................... 8
Complaint Intake ................................................................................................................ 9
Preliminary Investigation and Complaint Classification .................................................. 11
Complaint Routing and Possible Outcomes ..................................................................... 12
Other Intake-Related Recommendations .......................................................................... 13
Auditor Role in Monitoring Investigations ...................................................................... 17
Civilian Review Board Role ............................................................................................. 20
Board Membership Recommendations ............................................................................ 22
VI. Oversight Model Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................... 23
VII. Outstanding Issues and Next Steps ...................................................................................... 25
VIII. Attachments ...................................................................................................................... 28
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
I. Executive Summary
Over the past year, the Eugene Police Commission has conducted an extensive review of current practices
for handling complaints against police, including a re-examination of different models of civilian
oversight. Background research for this project included a significant literature review and a consultant
report on civilian oversight models in operation nationally. Multiple community forums were held to
seek public input on concerns with the current police complaint system and to compile suggestions for
improvements. Committees were formed to develop specific recommendations for how complaints are
received, classified, investigated and, once a conclusion is developed, reviewed. The committees
submitted a conceptual oversight model to the Police Commission that instills more robust civilian review
into the complaint process. The conceptual model was revised following additional commission
discussion and community input. On July 25t~, the resulting recommendations will be presented to City
Council for its consideration. The commission hopes that following the Council work session, it will
continue to refine the oversight model and assist with the development of the ordinance and policies that
will support implementation of the new complaint system.
Values/Outcomes Sought in New Complaint System
o Creation of an accessible, safe, impartial and responsive complaint intake system
o Assurance of high quality, thorough and unbiased investigations
o Accountability and fairness for all involved
o Increased transparency in how complaints are handled and dispositions are generated to build
credibility and trust in the complaint system
o Identify organizational improvements to enhance the quality of police services to the public
o Avoid pitfalls encountered in other communities when implementing civilian review
Itow Proposal is Different than Current System
o Community member complaints are lodged with independent auditor's office
o Investigations are removed from police supervisors and transferred to an expanded investigative
unit within IA
o Full time auditor, independent from the police department, monitors on-going IA investigations
for quality assurance
o Citizen review board oversees the work of the auditor to ensure that investigations are fair
o Options for alternative resolution to complaints are expanded and utilized more frequently
Proposed Oversight System Authority 0tybrid Model of Auditor and Civilian Review Board)
o Auditor's office receives complaints, conducts preliminary investigations and classifies how
cases will be handled
o Auditor actively monitors internal investigations, including ability to participate in interviews,
require additional investigation, contract with outside entity to conduct certain investigations and
recommend case dispositions to the Chief of Police
o Auditor seeks improvements to police services by identifying policy and training issues
associated with complaints and reviewing tort and risk claims
o Auditor identifies cases for review board to oversee and provides quarterly reports to board on
complaint processing decisions, investigative findings and case outcomes
o Civilian board reviews and comments on investigations sent to it by the auditor, upon request of
the complainant, or at its discretion, and in specific situations, can require the case to be re-
opened for further investigation
o Board monitors the work of the auditor's office to ensure that complaint handling decisions and
recommendations to the Chief on case investigations reflect community values
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
II. Project Overview
At the March 11, 2004 Police Commission meeting, Chief Lehner requested that the commission
consider a review of how complaints and internal investigations were handled by the department.
The Chief was concerned that the department's current procedures for handling and investigating
complaints did not meet professional standards. The 2004 audit of internal affairs cases
confirmed some of these concerns, specifically identifying deficiencies in the quality and
timeliness of complaint investigations. Several commissioners noted that this project seemed to
fit naturally into the group's on-going discussion of strategies to improve police/community
relations. Furthermore, the commission was highly sensitive to the breach in public trust that
occurred when two former Eugene police officers were convicted for criminal misconduct that
occurred over a period of years while on duty.
The commission decided to take on a review of the police complaint system, adding a re-
examination of civilian oversight models that might be appropriate for Eugene to its effort.
Commissioners agreed that this was a timely and necessary project given that recent events had
cast doubt over the reliability of the current internal affairs procedures to treat all parties
involved in a complaint fairly, and to hold people accountable for inappropriate conduct in a
timely manner. A thorough review of existing policies and procedures, coupled with an
examination of models of civilian oversight, could help rebuild credibility in the department's
complaint system and improve police/community relations.
In June 2004, the commission developed a work plan for the upcoming year that was devoted
almost entirely to this project. That same month, Chief Lehner presented a set of interim
improvements the department's complaint process in response to the auditor's report, noting that
more substantive changes would be occur following receipt of the commission's
recommendations. The commission realized that this project would be an undertaking unlike any
of its past efforts, requiring an infusion of resources to meet community expectations for a
thorough and timely review. The commission proposed a 15-month process with the following
main components:
- review current Eugene Police Department (EPD) policies and procedures for
filing complaints and conducting internal investigations;
- examine other models of civilian oversight in place nationally;
- conduct a robust public outreach effort to solicit a broad range of ideas and
suggestions for improvements to the complaint system; and
- develop recommendations to improve the internal affairs process, including
options for incorporating additional civilian oversight in the system and re-
evaluating the commission's role as a policy review body.
The commission requested contingency funds in the amount of $65,000 to assist in this effort.
The funds were primarily used for additional staff support to the project (0.5 FTE) and to
contract with the Police Assessment Resource Center for a report on national models of police
oversight. On July 28th, 2004, the City Council approved the commission's work plan and
contingency fund request.
2
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
III. Research and Community Values
Even before the work plan was approved, the commission began two efforts to jumpstart the
information gathering phase of the project. An extensive literature review was initiated to collect
current information on best practices and issues surrounding police complaint systems. A binder
of written material on police oversight was compiled and provided to commissioners, including
the 1998 External Review Advisory Committee (ERAC) report. This information was also
posted on-line with links to the material where available, and a binder was placed in the library
to facilitate public access to this information. See Attachment A for the commission's research
material list.
Also beginning in June 2004, a series of community forums were conducted to solicit public
input on perceived barriers to lodging a complaint against the police, expectations for a model
complaint system, and suggestions for improvements to the process. Specifically, participants
were asked these questions:
· What, if anything, wouldpreventyoufromfiling a complaint with thepolice
department?
· If you havefiled a complaint in the past, what was your experience like?
If you have not, what would you expect from the process?
· What ways can you think of that would improve the complaintprocess?
Community members were also encouraged to share comments by email or phone. All
comments were captured, summarized and provided to the commission to help identify the key
issues and community values to be addressed. See Attachment B for the list of public input
sessions and commentary.
In November, several commissioners attended police in-service training sessions to gather
employees' perceptions about the current complaint system and ideas for improvements. These
sessions provided useful suggestions and insights from officers and helped assure EPD personnel
that the commission was considering the needs of both officers and civilians in its process.
In addition to the public forums, the commission began reviewing existing policies and practices
used in the complaint process. Staff presentations on internal affairs procedures, complaint
investigations, and city disciplinary processes were delivered. Commissioners Bettman and
Laue attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight in Law Enforcement conference to
collect information on different law enforcement complaint processes in place and learn first-
hand about the successes and challenges of these models. The conference also afforded an
opportunity to build relationships and network with others who are involved in this work.
A crucial portion of the background information received was the report "Review of National
Police Oversight Models." A contract was signed with the Police Assessment Resource Center
(PARC) to conduct a national review of civilian oversight models for jurisdictions that are
comparable to Eugene and to develop recommendations on models that might be a good fit for
our community. Two public presentations of the PARC report were delivered in February 2005.
The report reviewed thirty different oversight systems, grouping them into three broad
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
categories: 1) review and appellate models; 2) investigative and quality assurance models, and
3) evaluative and performance based models. The report was especially useful for comparing
individual elements of the different models when the commission began developing its preferred
oversight system.
Based on the input received and the research conducted, the commission agreed that the
complaint system recommendations should strive for the following outcomes:
o respect and protect community members' rights, civilians and officers alike, in an
atmosphere that is accessible, safe and fair;
o take complaints seriously and provide options for advocate support and alternative
methods for resolution;
o address the issues and reflect the values of this community;
o be impartial, transparent and timely, promoting credibility in the complaint system and
trust in the police department; and
o facilitate continued evaluation of the complaint system and overall department practices
improve the quality of police services to the community.
IV. Model Development/Committee Process
The commission recognized that, given the magnitude and complexity of the project, a process
adjustment was needed to help it meet its projected timeline without compromising the quality of
work. In December, two committees were convened to develop preliminary recommendations
for how complaints are received and handled (intake process) and how they are resolved and
reviewed (case adjudication and civilian oversight process). The committee process was
intended to facilitate an expeditious yet thorough analysis of these specific segments of the
complaint system as well as expand opportunities for including stakeholders and other
community members in the committees' deliberations.
Also in December, the commission met with members of Communities United for Better
Policing (CUBP) to discuss how the groups would each proceed in developing recommendations
for civilian review of the police department. The two groups agreed to work collaboratively on
parallel but separate efforts and exchange progress reports and information when appropriate.
CUBP participated in many of the committee meetings, providing insight and perspective~ to the
commission as it worked to develop its own oversight model.
In January, a stakeholders email list was developed as a means of providing project information
with a large network of interested parties. The stakeholder list, containing more than 300
addresses, was used to distribute information on the committee process, as well as to provide
notice of other commission-sponsored events related to the development of the oversight
proposal.
The commission also specifically encouraged the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA)
to participate in the process. EPEA representatives attended and provided input at both the
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
committee and commission level. The EPEA's formal positions on the oversight system are
included as Attachment C.
Complaint Intake Committee
The goal of the Complaint Intake Committee was to "develop recommendations to improve how
complaints are received and processed to create and accessible, safe, and responsive intake
system that engenders the trust and confidence of all involved and that promotes accountability."
The committee reviewed three separate models for complaint receipt and handling, and from
these models, developed an intake process that it believed would meet the values described in its
goal statement. The three intake models that were considered are described as follows:
o Internal Intake - systems where all complaints regarding police personnel are funneled to
the police department for processing, although various access points may exist. While
there may be multiple avenues for complainants to initiate the process, all complaints are
referred to police personnel who are responsible for all case handling decisions
(investigate, dismiss, mediate, etc.). Like most police departments, Eugene currently has
an internal intake system.
o Independent Intake - systems where all complaints against police personnel are required
to be submitted to and processed by an entity outside the police department. This entity
has sole responsibility for complaint intake and categorization decisions, and if not
resolved at intake, assigns the complaint to the investigative unit for further processing.
o Dual Intake - those systems where complaints may be lodged either with the police
department or with an independent entity that has responsibility for tracking and
reviewing the complaint. In some systems, the complainant can choose either intake
entity to lodge a complaint. In others, the police department retains responsibility for
intake of intemally generated complaints and civilians can choose either venue. Another
variation is where the nature of the complaint, rather than the complainant, determines
which intake system receives the complaint; for example, those where all excessive force
and discrimination complaints are handled by the independent entity. What distinguishes
dual intake systems from the other models is that both entities have complaint decision-
making and tracking responsibilities.
The committee was in agreement that the ability for community members to lodge complaints in
a neutral environment, independent from the police department, was an unqualified requirement
in its proposed model. It initially selected a dual intake model where complainants, both police
and civilians alike, could file a complaint with either the intemal affairs or an independent entity,
presumed to be the auditor's office. This process offered several advantages over the other
models in that it provided options for complainants to self-select the venue they were most
comfortable with and increased intake staff capacity to ensure a timely response to complainants.
The committee acknowledged that for a dual intake system to work well, data sharing and
coordination between internal affairs and the auditor's office would be a prerequisite.
In sharing its recommended intake model with other commissioners, concerns were raised that
real and/or perceived inconsistencies in complaint handling decisions between the two entities
would be inevitable. The Intake Committee reconsidered its recommendation and revised the
dual model so that the auditor was responsible for complaint classification decisions. At the July
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
14th meeting, the intake model was revised again, this time directing all civilian complaints to the
auditor's office for intake, classification, and follow up.
The Intake Committee also developed recommendations on several issues related to complaint
intake and handling decisions, such as whether anonymous complaints should be accepted and
the role of mediation and other alternative resolution options in the process. These
recommendations, along with the latest iteration of the intake model description, are described in
more detail later in this report.
Adjudication/Review Committee
The goals of the Adjudication/Review Committee were to: 1) review existing practices around
case adjudication, discipline decisions, and review/appeal of the adjudication, 2) explore other
processes/models and how civilian oversight fits into those models, and 3) make
recommendations for changes that would promote accountability, thoroughness, timeliness,
integrity, fairness, transparency and consistency. The committee began its task by reviewing the
1998 External Review Advisory Committee (ERAC) report and analyzing broad categories of
civilian complaint review to identify strengths and weaknesses of each type of system. Three
models were reviewed: Auditor/Ombudsman Only; Civilian Review Board; and Hybrid Models
that included both an auditor and review board. The committee agreed early on that it preferred
a hybrid system as advocated by the ERAC, but that its proposal should be more specific about
the auditor and civilian review board's authority, responsibilities arid reporting relationships to
city leadership and other policy bodies.
The committee cited the following benefits of a hybrid system:
o it incorporates the advantages of auditor and civilian review board-only models by
combining increased citizen involvement and professional expertise;
o it addresses requests of community and police employees for a fair, transparent and
credible system;
o it provides for more "checks and balances" within the complaint process and of police
practices in general;
o by not just focusing on individual complaints, the auditor is able monitor investigations
with an eye towards systemic improvements, adding analytical capacity to the
organization;
o there is the ability to avoid some of the legal/labor contract issues because the auditor, as
a city employee, could assume some duties that would otherwise be bargainable if vested
in a citizen board.
Committee members also acknowledged that a hybrid system could pose some challenges in
comparison to the other models:
o it may be more complex to implement and there is less chance for a seamless operation;
o there is the possibility of an adversarial relationship between the various oversight
components, policy bodies and city leadership;
o more components add bureaucratic layers and expense to the process;
o complaint resolution is apt to be less timely than in other models.
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
In spite of these challenges, committee members agreed that community expectations for an
independent, credible complaint process that is accountable to the public would not be met with
just an auditor in place. Similarly, the committee did not believe that a review board alone
would help identify the procedural and training changes that would improve not only the
complaint system, but enhance police services to the public.
With a focus on hybrid oversight models, the committee developed four distinct civilian review
board models and requested City Attorney advice on the legal and employee contract challenges
associated with implementing each variation. Several common characteristics were shared
between all the civilian review board models under consideration:
o The review board would be comprised of community volunteers appointed/selected
by the Mayor and City Council.
o Staff support to the board would be provided through a police auditor's office, which
at a minimum, reports to the board on complaint trends/statistics and other work
relevant to the auditor's office. The review board and the auditor would provide
trends and policy information to the Police Commission.
o Investigations would normally be conducted by the internal affairs unit and monitored
by the auditor, although the auditor would have the authority to request additional or
outside investigations.
o Final decisions for employee discipline would remain with the Chief of Police.
o A charter amendment would be required to enable the City Council to appoint a
civilian review board that reviews complaints surrounding employee conduct and to
allow the hiring of an auditor that is answerable to the City Council.
o Review board meetings would be open to the public; confidentiality issues should be
addressed through procedural or contract negotiation avenues.
Of the four models discussed, the committee was least interested in a system that allowed
complainants to appeal the outcome of their investigation to the civilian review board. These
systems posed the most potential for legal and employee contract problems, could become a
costly, adversarial and duplicative quasi-judicial proceeding, and were unlikely to create
improved satisfaction from those involved in the process (appellants, review board members, and
employees alike).
The committee agreed that its preferred options were a:
o Bifurcated Investigation Model, where the board would oversee specific cases as they
were being investigated and with the auditor, would develop findings on those cases
prior to the Chief developing an adjudication; and
o Closed Complaint Review, where a complainant can present concerns about the
outcome of the case to the review board, which will review the file and develop
findings on the case for delivery to the auditor and Chief of Police, but would not
impact the outcome of the investigation.
7
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Upon further discussion of the merits of these two models, the committee decided to combine
elements of both options into a new model. This oversight system was presented to the Police
Commission at its May meeting for preliminary discussion and conceptual approval of the hybrid
oversight system. Also in May, committee chairs met with members of CUBP to compare
oversight models. This discussion indicated that the two group's proposals, while not identical,
were alike in many important aspects.
Once the commission agreed to a hybrid oversight model, research then focused on other
communities with similar systems, particularly Seattle, Portland, and Denver. The Deputy
Director of the Portland Independent Police Review Division and Chair of the Citizen Review
Committee provided an overview of Portland's system to the commission. In June, Richard
Rosenthal, formerly the Independent Auditor for the City of Portland and recently hired as
Denver's police monitor, gave his assessment of the commission's proposed model.
The commission held three meetings in June for deliberation and revisions to the model,
considering further input from City Manager Dennis Taylor (see Attachment D), the City
Attorney, stakeholder groups, and input received at two public forums. At the June 9th meeting,
the CUBP gave its support to the commission's draft proposal if the govemance of the model
was under the auspices of the City Council. On June 23r°and 28th, the commission worked
through the intake system and auditor/review board roles to determine where there was
consensus on the model and identify areas in need of further refinements (see Attachment E for
the commission's voting record on the substantive portions of the oversight model).
At the July 14th meeting, the commission held a 30-minute discussion session with CUBP
members to determine how the CUBP would proceed with sharing its proposal and/or comments
on the commission's oversight model with the Council. A memo from the CUBP regarding the
civilian oversight proposal is included as Attachment F. Also attached is the Human Rights
Commission's statement of support for the oversight proposal that was read into the record at the
July meeting (see Attachment G).
After the conversation with the CUBP and another discussion with the City Attorney on the
function of the review board, the Police Commission made several adjustments to the model and
voted to forward the oversight recommendations to the City Council for its review. Attachment
H includes the City Attorney's review of the oversight model and specific advice regarding the
function of the review board.
V. Proposed Oversight System Description
In its research of civilian review models, the Police Commission established that police oversight
has evolved from purely citizen volunteer boards charged with reviewing complaints against
police. Civilian review of police now includes a range of different oversight systems with
structural and procedural variations that are unique to each community. The commission agreed
early on that it favored a model that provides for an external review of complaints by
professional staff to ensure competent, thorough, objective and timely investigations. It also
valued models that enabled identification of systemic issues within the police department that
helped generate complaints. Rather than being confined to the review of individual complaints, a
8
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
model that had strong evaluative capabilities to determine where changes to policy, procedures
and training would improve the overall performance of the department was desired.
The proposed model is a hybrid oversight system that consists of both a full-time professionally-
staffed auditor's office and a civilian review board. The role of the auditor's office is to provide
a neutral location to lodge complaints and to actively monitor on-going internal affairs
investigations to ensure objective, thorough and high quality investigations. The auditor
identifies policy, practice and training concerns to promote organizational changes that improve
police services to the community and reduce risk and liability to the city. In addition, a civilian
review board, consisting of five to seven community members, will oversee the work of the
auditor's office. The role of the review board is to evaluate the case handling decisions and
investigative recommendations of the auditor's office, and in a set of pre-established
circumstances, assess how complaints are being investigated and responded to. By involving
community members in the review of complaints, the commission sought to increase the
transparency and public understanding of incidents under investigation, and, over time, hoped to
reestablish trust and credibility in the complaint process.
The proposed model is broken down into three main components: 1) complaint intake,
classification and routing decisions, 2) investigation monitoring and adjudication
recommendations, and 3) case review. The auditor and review board's function in these three
areas are described in more detail below.
Complaint Intake
The success of any complaint system is contingent on an intake process that is easily accessible
and perceived as credible and responsive to the end users. The current police department
complaint intake process is wholly internal, meaning that the police department has sole
responsibility for complaint handling and resolution decisions. In soliciting public input on this
system, people often expressed anxiety that if they complained about a police officer, they would
be subject to some form of retaliation, their concems wouldn't be taken seriously, and/or that
nothing would come of their complaint. In response to these concerns, the commission is
recommending that the auditor's office become the singular intake center for community
member complaints, and that police employees can choose to lodge complaints through either
internal affairs or the auditor's office. The auditor's office can also process commendations.
The Police Commission recognizes that designating the auditor's office as the receptacle for all
community member complaints will require a significant public education process. It
recommends that information on the redesigned complaint process with an accompanying
complaint form is available at multiple locations throughout the community, including
community centers, social service providers and even large retail centers. The brochures should
encourage honest feedback about police conduct and department services and be available in
English and Spanish. The commission is willing to participate as appropriate in developing a
revised complaint intake form and associated information that clearly explains the process,
options for complaint resolution and possible outcomes, and timeline expectations.
The commission also acknowledges that internal procedures for referring community members
to the appropriate entity to take a complaint, answer a question, or access other information
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
about police services will need to be developed. The objective is to assist members of the public
in getting swift resolution to their requests, and to the greatest extent possible, capture and route
complaints about employee conduct to the auditor's office for documentation and processing.
The commission recommends a policy statement be developed that directs all police employees
to mute complaints from community members to the auditor's office for processing and tracking
purposes. The auditor's office will be responsible for documenting all contacts and referrals for
statistical reporting purposes.
Similar to the Police Commission, the review board will be an access point to the City and serve
a public education and outreach function to community members regarding the police complaint
system. As such, the board can receive and forward complaint information to the auditor's office
for processing. The review board can also provide a forum to gather community member
concerns about an event where police actions generate considerable public concern. The board's
function is not to investigate the incident, but to collect public comments, help educate
community members on the complaint process, and in the event that officers' conduct is
investigated, ensure that the original complaints brought to the board's attention were addressed
through the ensuing investigation.
There are some situations where a community member has concerns about a police incident and
utilizes redress options other than the complaint process. The commission believes that the
auditor's office should be able to review and potentially initiate a complaint investigation in
specific situations where community members have clearly expressed concern about police
practices absent the established complaint process, i.e., filing of a tort or risk claim, holding a
press conference, etc.
The Police Commission acknowledges that some portion of community contacts to intake staff
will not necessarily be complaints, but will be questions about police practices or referrals to
other agencies for assistance with a problem. The commission recommends that issues that can
be easily resolved to the person's satisfaction at intake are documented via a "Contact Log" and
closed. A community contact appropriate for the contact log has been preliminarily defined as
"questions about police policies and practices, referrals to other agencies/resources, and dispute
of facts where the contact is satisfactorily resolved at intake." All other issues will be treated as
complaints and handled as described in the next section.
In its redesign of the complaint intake process, the commission agreed that a classification
system was necessary to facilitate efficient use of resources, timely response to complainants and
meet customer service expectations. It is recognized that any intake system will require a certain
level of judgment and flexibility to most appropriately address each concern. While there is
discretion built into the system to enable staff to exercise sound decision-making, there are also
checks and balances in place to ensure that these decisions reflect the values established for the
complaint system. In monitoring the work of the auditor's office, the review board will
periodically evaluate the complaint intake and classification system to ensure that the goals of an
accessible, neutral, and responsive intake process are being met. A review of the number and
types of contacts made to intake, case handling decisions, utilization of alternative resolution
options, and other outcome measures will be conducted, and any recommendations for
procedural improvements will be forwarded to the appropriate policy body.
10
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Preliminary Investigation and Complaint Classification
Internal affairs statistics over the past several years show that the office responds to over 300
citizen contacts a year. These contacts range from simple requests for information to allegations
of criminal misconduct against police officers. As such, the department has used two broad
categories of complaints to distinguish cases that require a full investigation from other contacts:
allegations and inquiries. Complaint categorization has both procedural and public perception
implications. Procedurally, how a complaint is classified affects the level and type of
investigation conducted, disposition outcomes, timeline for completion, and record retention
requirements. In terms of public perception, the department's internal categorization process has
been criticized as being biased, inconsistent and dismissive of valid concerns. Alternately, some
police employees have voiced frustration that the department's intake system creates an open
door policy for frivolous complaints that redirects sergeants' attention from supervising
employees to conducting pointless investigations. Clearly, this was an area ripe for change.
The Police Commission believes that all complaints should be treated with due diligence, but has
found that to make the most efficient use of resources, facilitate a timely response to
complainants, and offer multiple options for complaint resolution, a categorization system is
necessary. To ensure that the basis for classification decisions is independent, consistent and
transparent, the commission recommends that the authority for categorizing complaints rest with
the auditor's office. A basic process description follows, but more formalized procedures should
be established to provide clear, standardized practices.
The auditor's office will be responsible for conducting a preliminary investigation of all
complaints to determine how the issue is best handled. Vesting the authority to classify
complaints with the auditor's office is intended to reassure the community that these decisions
will be informed, professional judgments that consider how to achieve the best resolution to an
issue, and are not formed on the perceived credibility of the complainant. For consistency, the
auditor should classify both internally generated and community-based complaints. To enable
the auditor to conduct a preliminary investigation into the involved incident requires that the
auditor have access to law enforcement databases.
The auditor will classify complaints into two categories: service complaints and allegations of
misconduct. A service complaint will include concerns about police officer performance or
demeanor, customer service and/or level of police service complaints, or complaints where the
person is dissatisfied with current procedures or in disagreement with established police policies.
The complainant does not allege behavior that would constitute a policy violation. Service
complaints, in large part, will replace the category of complaints currently treated as "inquiries."
The formal definition of a service complaint will need to be developed and incorporated into
police department policy. An allegation of misconduct will be those complaints that, if true,
would be a violation of department policy, a violation of a person's civil rights, or a criminal
offense. Both service complaints and allegations of misconduct will be further categorized by
type for statistical tracking purposes and to allow trends analysis on the nature of the complaints
received.
11
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Complaint Routing and Possible Outcomes
The Police Commission has found that issues involving employee performance are often most
appropriately addressed by the supervisor.-This encourages a learning environment for the
employee and retains supervisory involvement in employee development and initial corrective
action. Service Complaints provide for resolution of complaints without a time-intensive, formal
investigation and enable supervisors to address "minor" performance and demeanor issues
through management intervention techniques (training, coaching, etc.). If the auditor classifies
the contact as a service complaint, a variety of outcomes are available to the complainant,
including notification to the supervisor, alternative resolution options, or referral to supervisor
for follow-up investigation. If misconduct is discovered through supervisor follow-up on a
service complaint, the complaint will be reclassified as a misconduct allegation.
Complaints categorized by the auditor as misconduct allegations will be routed to internal affairs
for investigation. The Police Commission recommends that supervisors no longer investigate
complaints about their subordinates and that instead, internal affairs is restructured into a
specialized investigative unit that will conduct the majority of complaint investigations.
If the complainant alleges behavior that would be a criminal offense, the auditor will route the
case to the Chief of Police for review and a decision to involve the District Attorney.
Both service complaints and misconduct allegations may be appropriate for alternative
resolution, depending in part on the type of complaint and the employee's past history. The
auditor's office will be responsible for identifying cases that are most appropriate for alternative
resolution options. More information and refinements on the alternative resolution process will
be developed as part of the commission-sponsored Mediation and Advocacy Task Team.
Timely notification on the receipt and disposition of complaints will be the responsibility of the
auditor's office. Ifa case is dismissed, the auditor will inform the complainant for the basis of
the dismissal. If the case will proceed to a formal investigation, the auditor's office will notify
the complainant and explain or provide information on process expectations, options and
timeline. A final disposition letter will be generated after case adjudication clearly explaining
the outcome of the case and the basis for the decision. The commission recognizes that while
increased transparency and understanding of the complaint process is an overarching goal, public
records constraints and confidentiality issues need further discussion and resolution.
The auditor's office will maintain a robust case-tracking database documenting the receipt, status
and disposition of all complaints. The database should be shared with Internal Affairs as both
entities will have responsibility for tracking cases. If policy or training deficiencies are noted
through the review/investigation of a complaint, these would be documented as an outcome of
the complaint. Timelines for complaint notification, classification and routing decisions,
investigation, and case disposition will need to be developed. Adherence to the established
timelines will be one of the outcome measures tracked and reported by the auditor's office.
Attachment I is a flow chart that illustrates how a community complaint will move through the
proposed model.
12
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Other Intake-Related Recommendations
Staffing and Physical Location of the Auditor's Office
The intake model as described will require additional staffing to be successful. This includes, at
a minimum, an auditor and requisite staff (approximately 3 FTE) and additional investigative
capacity in the internal affairs unit. The commission recommends that physical location of the
auditor's office be separate from the police department but in close proximity to facilitate a close
working relationship with others involved in the complaint process.
Anonymous and Third Party Complaints
Currently, the Eugene Police Department has a practice of accepting anonymous and third party
complaints on a case-by-case basis, but there are no formal, documented procedures in place. In
general, anonymous and third party complaints can only be investigated if there is enough
credible and specific information provided to identify the incident/personnel involved. For
clarification, it was agreed that third party complaints include both those submitted by a witness
to the incident (can be either an involved party or not), or by a person who is did not witness the
event but is bringing the complaint forward on behalf of another person based on information
relayed to his/her. In the latter case, the third party may be a parent or an advocate, for example.
Noting that anonymous and third-party complaints can serve an important role in the complaint
process and can offer a sense of safety to complainants who are fearful of coming forward, the
following is recommended:
c> The police department should have a formal policy of accepting both anonymous and
third party complaints.
o Anonymous complaints should be documented and investigated until they either meet a
lack of credibility threshold or investigative leads are exhausted. It is acknowledged that
complaints alleging more serious misconduct or criminal behavior will be allocated more
investigative resources than other anonymous complaints. It is also recognized that the
chances for successful resolution of anonymous complaints are low, particularly if the
investigator cannot contact the complainant for additional information, and that these
cases may be closed after a preliminary investigation due to insufficient evidence or
information.
o In addition to accepting anonymous complaints, the department should allow
complainants to request that their personal information be kept confidential from named
employees if an investigation ensues.
o The policy should acknowledge the acceptance of two categories of third party
complaints:
· Those with a reasonably direct relationship to the incident, such as a witness or
person with professional or organizational knowledge of incident (supervisor,
other employee).
· Advocates or others with a special relationship to complainant (e.g., parent
assisting a minor child who was directly affected, advocates for persons with
disabilities, mental health issues, non-citizens or persons with language barriers).
13
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
o Whenever possible, the department will encourage the complainant to contact the person
directly involved in the incident to participate in the investigation to verify/clarify and
provide additional information relevant to the complaint.
o Intake personnel have a responsibility to advise complainants of the availability of
advocates, particularly in cases where juveniles or other vulnerable populations may be
involved in a formal investigative process. The actual role of advocates should be
addressed as part of the redesign of the mediation program.
Requesting Sworn Statements
One of the objectives of the redesigned intake process is to encourage honest feedback from
community members about police employee performance and quickly correct misconduct once
identified. The commission recognizes that malicious complaints do occur, and that these often
result in serious personal and professional hardship to involved officers. Spurious complaints
also take a toll on agency resources and employee morale. However, it is also recognized that
requiring all complainants to sign a sworn statement attesting to the truthfulness of their
complaint could be perceived as an obstacle to accessing the complaint system and act as a
deterrent in reporting actual police misconduct. The following recommendations attempt to
balance values around enhancing the accessibility and safety of the complaint intake process
with setting a clear expectation for truthfulness and accountability for all:
o Sworn statements will not be required as part of the complaint intake process.
o If upon review of the complaint, it is determined that criminal behavior is alleged and the
allegation passes an initial credibility test to warrant further investigation, a signed
statement from the complainant will be taken during a follow-up interview.
o The statement developed should use language that is neutral and non-threatening.
o Any requirement for a sworn statement should be clearly articulated in all public
information on the complaint process and described in a way that is factual and
encouraging of participation.
o All cases where sworn statements are collected will be documented for review and trends
analysis.
o Refusal to sign a sworn statement will not be the sole basis for discontinuing an
investigation.
Complaint Dismissal
A more formalized process for when complaints can be dismissed may alleviate community
concerns that complaints are not being handled consistently or fairly and will help standardize
procedures. The following are guidelines to be refined at a later date for situations where complaints
could be dismissed so that procedures are clear to the public and intake and investigation resources
are used wisely. It should be noted that these procedures indicate areas where complaints may be
justifiably dismissed, but do not limit the auditor's discretion in making such decisions.
o Document all complaints received and if dismissed, why they were dismissed.
14
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
o Justification for dismissal
- Acknowledging that timeliness of the complaint is important, as memory diminishes
over time and witnesses and evidence may be more difficult to locate/uncover, a
timeline for complaint acceptance should be established. A six month timeframe is
recommended, as it would be consistent with the retention time for dispatch tapes and
any video recordings taken. The procedures allow, but do not require, the intake
entity to dismiss complaints involving incidents more than six months old.
Exceptions to the timeline should be included, such as delays due to advice to first
resolve a criminal case, hospitalization, or incarceration. No specific deadline for
complaints alleging serious criminal conduct should be in place.
If the complaint is about an employee who does not work for the City, the complaint
can be declined as outside the jurisdiction of the auditor's office and the complainant
referred to the appropriate entity;
If upon review of the complaint it is determined that the substance of the complaint is
solely to contest the enforcement action taken (not the manner in which it was taken)
the complaint may be dismissed and the complainant directed to the appropriate
remedy or channel for that grievance, e.g., municipal court to contest traffic citation;
o Complaints that are closed due to insufficient information should be flagged as such in the
final case disposition.
Warrant/Records Checks
Some community members have expressed concern that the practice of running a records check
on complainants, which not only provides basic incident information but also indicates whether a
person has an outstanding warrant, could have a chilling effect on the complaint process and
prevent people with old or active criminal histories from coming forward with complaints.
Further, it was feared that reviewing a complainant's record would have a prejudicial impact on
the process, i.e., people with more police contacts would not be given as much credibility as
others. It should be noted that a records check is a query of the local law enforcement database
to show the number and types of police contacts, and includes notification of any outstanding
warrants (state and national). This differs from a "background check" which is a more extensive
search of a person's law enforcement record, any resulting court proceedings and sanctions,
credit checks, employment history, etc.
By moving the preliminary investigation and classification of complaints under the auspices of
the auditor's office, the commission hopes to ameliorate some of the issues associated with law
enforcement databases queries which inextricably determine the information necessary to
process the complaint and indicate the existence of outstanding warrants. Unlike a police
department employee, auditor's office staff would not be obligated to act on an outstanding
warrant, but could instead encourage community members to responsibly take care of court
orders. The following process is recommended.
o Records/warrant checks should not be conducted on a routine basis as part of complaint
intake as this can be a deterrent to potential complainants.
o The auditor's office will have the responsibility to screen and conduct a preliminary
investigation of complaints for classification purposes. As part of this process, intake
15
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
personnel may need to run a records check to identify involved personnel and gather
other incident information necessary for the complaint categorization. If an outstanding
warrant is discovered during this process, intake personnel will have the discretion to
notify the complainant of this fact so that the warrant can be resolved without risk of
arrest. In situations where the complaint is of a serious nature, the fact that an
outstanding warrant exists will not delay processing the complaint. Similarly, if an
outstanding warrant for certain crimes (e.g., a violent felony) is discovered, intake staff
will notify police of this fact when appropriate. Procedures will be developed to provide
guidance for when intake staff should take more direct action on an outstanding warrant.
o The Police Commission recognizes that records checks are a routine portion of all police
investigations, including internal investigations. However, as only a subset of all
complaints will require a formal investigation, removing a records check from the initial
complaint intake process significantly reduces the risk that filing a complaint will trigger
an arrest. Since a records check will occur if the complaint proceeds to the investigation
phase, public information on the complaint process should explain that as part of
investigating the complaint, any outstanding warrants will be identified. The language
should encourage people who are concerned about the possibility of an outstanding
warrant to access the auditor's office to file a complaint and/or to clear their warrants
with the Court before filing a complaint. The actual language selected should attempt to
balance transparency with other values such as neutrality, open access, safety and
accountability.
Alternative Resolution to Complaints
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 and 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's actions.
The commission agreed at its May 12, 2005, meeting to appoint a task force of Police
Commission, Human Rights Commission, and community stakeholders to look at current
practices and make proposals regarding the enhancing the role of mediation and advocacy in 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 regular complaint process, and how
community advocates may best be utilized in the process. The task team will include interested
commission members, HRC staff and volunteers, and other key stakeholders, such as
Community Mediation Services.
16
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
In the interim, the commission recommends the following improvements:
o Reconsider and develop more specific definitions of"mediation" and "facilitated
conversation"
o Formalize procedures for which types of complaints can be mediated and who
decides which complaints are appropriate for alternative resolution
o Develop procedures for how advocates are involved in complaint intake, investigation
and alternative resolution options
o Improve data collection and tracking of mediations/facilitated conversations so that
the number and types of complaints that were resolved through alternative resolution
processes and how successful those efforts were can be evaluated
o Integrate alternative resolution options into the complaint process (promote/share info
about mediation and advocacy options, etc.) and increase publicity and outreach for
mediation both internally and to the public.
Auditor Role in Monitoring Investigations
Investigation Assignment
The auditor's office screens and classifies complaints to determine if the issue is a misconduct
allegation that will require an internal investigation. The Police Commission believes that there
is certain subset of internal investigations that, due to the nature of the complaint, are of high
public interest and require the utmost scrutiny to ensure a fair and credible outcome. The auditor
will identify these complaints as "community impact cases," which will include, at a minimum,
excessive force, violation of constitutional rights, and bias/disparate treatment allegations. The
review process for "community impact" cases is discussed later in this report.
In the preliminary review of an allegation of misconduct, the auditor may decide that to reduce
the potential for real or perceived bias, the investigation should be conducted by an external
entity. In authorizing the auditor to require external investigations, the commission recommends
that criteria are developed to guide the auditor in making such decisions and that a source of
trained, outside investigators is identified.
Allegations that involve possible criminal offenses will be routed to the Chief of Police with a
recommendation for District Attorney involvement. The auditor will not be directly involved in
any criminal investigations but will have access to the case files relevant to the administrative
portion of the allegation and as part of his/her role in systemic review.
The auditor will route all other allegations, including "community impact cases", to the internal
affairs unit for investigation.
Case Monitoring
The auditor will actively monitor on-going investigations to ensure a thorough, objective, and
timely process and a high quality end product. This requires that the auditor have unfettered
access to all relevant investigative materials, an authority which the commission believes should
17
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
be specified by ordinance. The Police Commission recognizes that the auditor's level of
involvement in a specific case will depend on the type of allegation. For instance, internally-
generated investigations that involve employee performance issues may not merit the same
attention and resources as other cases, but these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case
basis.
In the course of monitoring an open investigation, the auditor may sit-in on and participate in
investigative interviews involving employees, complainants and/or witnesses. A policy statement
may be necessary to clarify that employees are required to cooperate fully with the investigative
process and the auditor as part of that process.
In his/her review of an investigation, the auditor may require additional investigation by internal
affairs staff to ensure that, to the extent feasible, all relevant investigative leads were explored and
the facts of the case have been fully established. Additionally, if while monitoring a case, the
auditor believes that the standards for a high quality investigation are not being met, the auditor can
contract with an outside entity to assume the investigation.
Adjudication Recommendations
Once the investigative portion of the complaint review is complete, all case materials will be
provided to the auditor. The auditor will make every reasonable effort to contact the complainant to
let him/her know that the investigation is complete, summarize the case findings, and determine if
the complainant has any additional information to share relevant to the case. One of the objectives
of this contact is to promote a better understanding of the process and options available to the
complainant, including possible involvement of the review board once the case is closed. Also, if
new information is provided during this contact, the auditor can then direct further investigation.
If the auditor is satisfied that the investigation is complete at this point, s/he will meet with the
involved employee's supervisor to develop a case adjudication recommendation that will then be
forwarded up the chain of command to the Chief of Police. Any disagreements on the adjudication
recommendation between the auditor and the command staff will be documented and forwarded to
the Chief. Final adjudication and discipline decisions rest with the Chief of Police.
An associated effort pertaining to case adjudications was to review the existing disposition terms
and determine if other adjudication types and/or names would help complainants better
understand the outcome of their complaint. It is important to note that these terms apply only to
complaints that have undergone an investigation; these definitions do not apply to complaint
outcomes that, after being classified, are processed without a formal investigation. The revised
adjudications being recommended are as follows:
1) Sustained: The complainant's allegation(s) were determined to be a violation of EPD's
policies, rules, and/or procedures and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the employee(s)
involved committed the violation as alleged.
2) Insufficient Evidence~: The chain of command was unable to determine, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether or not a violation of EPD's policies, rules, and/or
procedures occurred.
Replaces "Not Sustained"
18
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
3) Unfounded: The claim is unsubstantiated. It was determined by a preponderance of the
evidence that the employee(s) involved did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the
complainant.
4) Within Policy2: It was determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the behavior
of the employee(s) involved did occur but was consistent with EPD policies, rules, practices
and/or procedures.
5) Mediated: During the process of an investigation, it was determined that the case would
likely be more successfully resolved through mediation; all parties agreed to mediate the
complaint and the mediation process was completed.
6) Inactive: The investigation cannot proceed forward without additional information. The
investigation may be reactivated upon the discovery of new, substantive information or
evidence.
7) Administratively Closed: The investigation is closed prior to reaching a conclusion. For
instance, the complainant does not provide the information needed or refuses to cooperate
with the investigation.
Systemic Review
One of the primary strengths of the auditor model as proposed is to afford additional analytical
capacity that is not merely focused on individual complaints but strives towards systemic evaluation
of the complaint process and departmental practices in general. In furtherance of this objective, the
commission recommends that the auditor:
o be summoned to the scene of critical incidents to enable first-hand knowledge of high
profile events should a complaint ensue;
o participate in deadly force review boards (contingent on the result of SB301)
o review risk/tort claims and develop risk/liability reduction plans
The City Manager's contracted annual audit of closed internal affairs investigations would no
longer be necessary if the auditor model proposed is implemented.
The commission has found through its research that the ability to influence police policy is one
of the strongest accountability measures. While this authority may be vested in either the
auditor's office or the review board, experience nationally has indicated that the volume of
complaint investigations tends to diminish the capacity to conduct thorough policy reviews. As
such, the Police Commission recommends that it is retained as the department's policy review
body and that the auditor is charged with reporting any policy issues to the commission.
The auditor's office will also develop an annual report of its workload, case handling and
investigative recommendations and suggestions for procedural improvements. The report may
also evaluate discipline decisions for consistency across personnel and relevant to specific
violations. The annual report should highlight any situations where the auditor recommended
actions that were not supported by the Chief of Police and how those disagreements were
resolved. The annual report should also enable both the review board and City Council to assess
the performance of the auditor's office to ensure that it is functioning as intended.
2 Replaces "Exonerated"
19
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Civilian Review Board Role
Individual Case Review
A fundamental responsibility of the review board is to oversee the work of the auditor's office
and, from a civilian perspective, ensure that the case recommendations developed promote high
quality, objective investigations. The board's oversight function can occur in two ways. First,
the auditor's office will develop quarterly reports for board review that document the auditor's
case handling decisions, input on investigations, adjudication recommendations, and
identification of departmental procedure and/or training issues. The board may also participate
with the auditor in more specific, periodic evaluations of the complaint system. These may
include satisfaction surveys from complainants and other involved parties, case handling audits,
and investigation trends analysis, etc.
Secondly, the board can review closed investigations upon request of the complainant, at its own
discretion through a majority vote of board members, or by the auditor's recommendation.
Additional criteria to guide board decisions to accept or decline the review request should be
developed. For example, can police employees request the board review a case or should they be
required to use the established grievance procedures? The closed case review is prospective in
nature, the focus of which is to establish if the complaint system worked as intended in that
particular case and to develop recommendations for process improvements. The board's case
findings will be provided to the auditor and Chief of Police.
If the board agrees to a closed case review, it will be provided access to the full investigative file
so that it can make a reasoned judgment about the quality of the investigation and the rationale
for the case disposition. To enable more transparency into the process, actual discussion of the
closed case will occur in a public meeting. A case summary that redacts identifying information
will be provided at the meeting to protect confidentiality of involved employees. More formal
procedures for closed case reviews in a public setting will need to be developed (i.e., auditor/lead
investigator reporting requirements, questions and comment period, public input, etc.).
The board, in turn, will develop and present an annual report to the Mayor and City Council
evaluating the auditor's work, assessing whether the auditor's office is functioning as intended,
and recommending improvements to current policies and procedures. The report will also note
concerns about complaint investigations and/or the adjudication recommendation made by the
auditor, which may precipitate policy and practice changes as directed by the Council and/or
indicate deficiencies in performance expectations within the auditor's office.
Community Impact Cases
The commission had a thorough discussion on the function of the review board as it related to
monitoring "community impact cases." The commission had considered a model where the
board had access to these cases prior to the adjudication decision so that its comments and
recommendations could be formulated and shared before the outcome of the case was decided.
However, upon City Attorney review of this process, the commission recognized several
significant risks with the proposal:
20
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
o Board members would have access to case information that, if purposely or inadvertently
released to others, can breach the integrity of the investigation;
o For the board to have a meaningful discussion on an open case while protecting
confidential information, it would need to meet in executive session, which compromises
the transparency of the board's deliberations and actions;
o Even if conducted in executive session, board members' actions and statements directly
and indirectly related to the case can be called into question in an arbitration setting. It
will be more difficult for the city to sustain discipline because it will have to prove that
the board's involvement (or individual member's actions) did not influence the Chief's
adjudication decision.
The commission reconsidered this model in light of these issues and approved a substitute
process whereby the review board would have access to closed investigations, but have the
authority to re-open the investigation with cause. It was agreed that the alternative proposal
mitigated some of the most serious issues without compromising the impact of the board in these
high profile cases. The review board's function in community impact cases is described below.
Investigations that meet the pre-determined criteria for a community impact case will be
provided to the board upon adjudication of the complaint, but prior to a discipline decision if the
case is sustained. The board would receive both sustained and un-sustained community impact
case investigations. As a starting point, community impact cases will include allegations of
excessive force, bias/disparate treatment and allegations that involve violation of constitutional
rights. A formalized definition will need to be developed as a matter of policy.
The board would have full access to all investigative materials related to these cases, in a non-
public setting, in preparation for discussion of the case in a public meeting3. The board will then
convene to discuss the quality of the investigation and the outcome of the case with the
auditor/lead investigator, and based on its discussions, could: Concur with the adjudication; and/or
Develop findings regarding possible improvements about the investigative
process, complaint handling practices, and/or other police procedures relevant to
that case; and/or
Find that there were deficiencies in the investigation that impacted the outcome of
the case, or that the adjudication was not supported by the facts in the case, and
vote to re-open the case to examine those areas.
Unless the board votes to re-open the investigation, if the complaint was sustained, the case
would proceed to the discipline phase. If the board requires further investigation, the auditor
would report back to the board on the outcome of any additional investigation and whether the
adjudication was modified. The board would have access to that portion of the investigation
after it was completed and can develop a final set of findings on the entire case at that point.
The complainant would not be able to request any further review of "community impact" cases.
However, complainants will still be able to request the board to conduct a prospective review of
3 Cases where the complaint is sustained could not be reviewed in a public meeting under the current EPEA
contractual agreement.
21
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
other types of closed cases. It will be the auditor's responsibility to alert complainants that their
case will be automatically reviewed by the board as a matter of policy for community impact
cases, and will notify complainants of their ability to request review by the board in other types
of cases.
Board Membership Recommendations
The commission strongly believes that the success of the proposed model rests in large part on
the quality of community volunteers that serve on the board. A high level of integrity and
discipline will be required, as will the ability to review cases impartially, acting primarily as fact
finders. The commission has developed the following board membership and selection process
parameters:
o A smaller board size comprised of 5-7 members is recommended to maintain a highly
effective and qualified membership. The existing enabling ordinance for the Police
Commission already provides that one member of the review board is appointed to serve as a
member of the commission to facilitate information exchange.
o Members should serve 4-year staggered terms, with a two-term limit (some members
preferred 3-year terms).
o Members must be age 18 or older and must meet residency requirements (residency within
the urban growth boundary and city limits were both discussed, but a decision on which
requirement was preferred was not reached).
o Real and perceived impartiality is critical to the credibility of the board. As such, city
employees are not allowed to serve, nor should direct family members of police employees.
Those with felony convictions should also be prohibited from serving on the board.
Additional recommendations for background qualifications, skills and training requirements
will be developed once the function of the board and its reporting relationships are decided.
o Selection of members should strive to be reflective of the community, but should not be
based on representing a particular constituency (council wards, special interest groups,
neighborhoods, etc.). Instead, members should be selected based on a demonstrated ability
to be fair and impartial.
o The Mayor should develop and oversee the selection process, possibly in consultation with
the auditor, so that it includes broad community participation in application screening
process. The community panel would review applications and select a slate of candidates for
City Council's consideration. However in making the board appointments, Council may
select an applicant outside the selection panel's recommended candidate pool.
o Procedures for removal of members after appointment should be developed.
o The commission agreed that to protect the board from outside influence, the Chief should not
serve in an ex-officio capacity on the board, nor should any city officials have specific
nominating authority for board members.
22
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
VI. Oversight Model Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is a hybrid police oversight system and why was it selected?
A hybrid system combines two distinct components into one system. In this case, the two
components are a professional police auditor and a civilian review board. The commission is
recommending a hybrid system of civilian oversight to build on the strengths of each
component to best meet the community's expectations. The full time auditor monitors
investigations for quality assurance and identifies systemic changes needed to improve the
overall performance of the organization. The civilian review board creates opportunities for
community members to review and comment on how the department investigates and
responds to complaints, promoting a fair and transparent process.
2. What makes this model independent of the police department?
To ensure structural independence of the oversight system, the commission recommends that
the auditor be hired and report to the City Council, and that the City Council, with
community input, appoints the review board members. The auditor's office will provide the
staff support to the review board. So while the auditor and his/her staff are city employees,
they will not be employed by the police department, physically located in the police
department, or supervised by the Police Chief.
3. How does this model assure that all complaints are handled appropriately and that
complainants are protected from retaliation?
The intake and classification of complaints, which determines how a complaint is handled,
will no longer occur within the police department. Instead, based on clear protocols, the
auditor's office will decide how a complaint would be classified. The review board will
monitor these decisions through review of quarterly reports. In addition, the ability to lodge
complaints in the auditor's office is intended to provide a safe and neutral environment for
complaint intake. People who are still anxious about the possibility of some form of
retribution for filing a complaint may choose to lodge their concerns anonymously.
Anonymous complaints will be taken seriously and will be classified. However, the auditor
will not be able to conduct follow-up communications with an anonymous complainant.
4. Why does this system still allow police to investigate police?
One of the fundamental values for the complaint system is the desire that investigations are
impartial, thorough and fair. Misconduct investigations, which carry the possibility for
discipline up to and including employee termination, must meet rigorous standards for
objectivity and integrity. The outcome must be based on a preponderance of evidence. For
these reasons, the commission believes that the investigations should be conducted by trained
professionals, but monitored for quality assurance by an outside, independent civilian
employee, i.e., the auditor. To help protect these investigations from real or pemeived bias,
the commission is also recommending that the involved employee's supervisor no longer
conduct internal investigations. Instead, the internal affairs unit should be restructured so
that it has the capacity to conduct investigations of employee misconduct.
23
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
5. Who decides the outcome of my case and what if I disagree ?
In an effort to achieve the best possible outcome, the proposed oversight system offers
multiple resolution options. In reviewing your complaint, the auditor will determine if your
case should be handled at the line supervisor level, is appropriate for alternative resolution, or
requires a misconduct investigation. If an internal investigation is required, the auditor will
monitor the case and develop an adjudication recommendation. Ultimately, the Chief of
Police will determine the disposition of internal investigations and if the allegation is
sustained, what level of discipline is warranted. If you disagree with the outcome, you can
request that the review board take another look at your case to ensure that the investigation
was thorough and fair and that the adjudication decision was consistent with the facts of the
case.
6. Isn,t subpoena power necessary to compel police officers to provide information needed by
the board to review my case?
The review board will have access to the full investigative file, which will include taped
interviews with the involved officers. Therefore, the commission determined that compelling
testimony was unnecessary to access the information needed to review an investigation.
7. How do / know what type of discipline occurred in my case?
You will be notified of the adjudication decision and if discipline will be imposed. However,
the type of discipline cannot be disclosed. Oregon public records law dictate that employee
discipline records be treated confidentially and are not open to the public. The auditor will
develop an annual report that will show the number and type of allegations investigated, the
adjudication decisions, and type of discipline rendered. In this way, the public will have
access to statistical information that explains the outcome of investigations and meets
confidentiality requirements.
8. Does this model require a vote to implement?
An amendment to the existing city charter will be required to enable the City Council to hire
the auditor and appoint review board members. City charter amendments require an
affirmative vote of the public. However, if the charter amendment vote fails, the model can
be implemented under the City Manager's purview with largely the same role and
responsibilities.
9. How much will this system cost?
Once the oversight model is finalized, a budget will be developed that includes staffing for
the auditor's office (approximately 3 FTE). Other costs associated with the model's
implementation include additional investigative capacity in the internal affairs unit, and
training and other requisite support for the board to operate effectively.
10. Will the police union oppose a civilian oversight system in Eugene ?
The Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) has voiced support for additional
oversight that is accountable to the public and respectful of the rights of police officers. The
EPEA has a responsibility to ensure that the due process rights of its membership are
24
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
protected in any new system that is implemented. In the commission's proposed model,
there are several elements that will require negotiation with the union to enable the
contractual changes necessary to implement the system.
11. How will members of the review board be selected to ensure broad community
representation ?
The police commission believes that the review board's success lies in its ability to be
impartial. To achieve this, the review board membership should reflect the community, but
not be appointed to represent any particular constituency or organization. The commission
has suggested a selection process that involves a Mayor-appointed community panel that will
screen applications using a set of standard criteria, and forward a pool of candidates for City
Council consideration. If the charter amendment passes, the City Council will ultimately
make the review board member selection decisions.
12. How will we know if the oversight system is effective?
Experience in other communities indicates that civilian oversight systems are continually
evolving as direct experience grows and national best practices are established. A robust
database will be developed as part of the system to enable tracking and analysis of
complaints as they move through the system. The commission plans to evaluate the
complaint system six months and a year after implementation to determine where
improvements are needed. This may include both a review of the data collected and
satisfaction surveys of people involved in the system (review board members, police
employees, complainants, etc.).
VII. Outstanding Issues and Next Steps
Jurisdiction of Oversight Model
One of the overarching, but unresolved, issues surrounding the oversight proposal is a
determination of which police department employees would be subject to the new procedures.
There are several key issues to consider when making a decision regarding the scope of authority
for the oversight system. The unique role and broad authority police officers have, which in turn
has the most potential for abuse of power and community impact, is the primary impetus for
additional civilian oversight. It is this role that distinguishes police officers from other city
employees. Therefore, an oversight system that applies to sworn officers only would be a
reasonable and practical delineation, and not inconsistent with the direction taken in other
communities.
However, another underlying principle is the desire to facilitate systemic change in the police
organization. Limiting the scope of authority for both the auditor and the board to reviews of
swom employees may counteract this objective. Other key considerations include:
o Providing a consistent process across employees who work in the same units or have
the same job functions within the city;
o Applying oversight resources where they will be most effective;
25
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
o Creating a system that is not overly confusing to the public or procedurally
complicated to maintain; and
o Developing a system that has credibility to employees and the public.
The commission discussed this issue at its June 23rd meeting and considered five options for
determining which employees the oversight system had jurisdiction over. It narrowed the
options to the following two categories for City Council consideration.
Categories of Employees Covered Considerations
1) All EPD employees Simplicity and consistency in procedures
within the department; however, it would
create inconsistency among AFSCME
represented employees and non-sworn, non-
represented employees City-wide; requires
negotiation with two bargaining units.
2) Auditor's role would include complaint Maintains consistent, simple process for intake
intake for all EPD employees, access to all and allows the auditor to be aware of and
EPD records and ability to monitor all identify issues regarding investigation of all
investigations; review board's authority is employees; targets oversight resources on
sworn employees. Board would be kept complaints that normally have highest liability
apprised of all complaints through auditor's and community interest.
quarterly reports.
Govemance Issues
Another key decision point for the Council's consideration is whether it will seek voter approval
for a charter amendment to implement the model as proposed by the commission, and if so, the
timing for the election. The commission considered the following points when deciding whether
the oversight bodies should report directly to the City Council:
o Costs and timing constraints to enable a November 2005 ballot initiative
o Uncertainty of the election results may delay model implementation
o Structural independence for the auditor may be necessary to make decisions that may
not be otherwise supported by city management
o Review board will become a governing body per the public records law and subject to
open meetings requirements; other legal and contractual issues
o Model may have more credibility with the public, but is not likely to gain the support
of the police union
o More potential for politicizing the complaint process if oversight entities report to
elected officials
o Tangential issues associated with modifying the current city manager/council form of
government
The commission agreed that the credibility of the oversight system required that it have structural
independence and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council hire the auditor and
appoint the citizen review board.
26
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Next Steps
The Police Commission's report is intended to be a comprehensive description of its proposed
complaint system. However, as a conceptual model, the commission recognizes that multiple
procedural refinements will be necessary prior to implementation.
One area that will need considerable attention is the design of a robust data collection and case
tracking/reporting system that can be utilized by both the auditor's office and the intemal affairs unit to
flag personnel, policy and training issues. This database should support a rigorous initial assessment
and continual evaluation to identify where adjustments are needed so that the complaint system
maintains relevance to current needs and expectations and meets established outcomes for
effectiveness. Complaint records retention procedures should be reconsidered as part of the
system design.
The commission also recommends that the data collection and reporting system be designed to
facilitate the seamless integration of an early intervention system in the future. The
implementation of a formal early warning system to identify officers who may need intervention
and assistance is one that the commission believes holds promise and is related, but adjunct, to
the immediate revisions to the complaint process. This is a topic that merits a thoughtful and
collaborative process that involves police department managers, human resources staff and the
EPEA, and could be included as a project in a future police commission work plan.
The Police Commission's proposed oversight model mitigates many of the major legal and
contractual obstacles that would have required resolution prior to implementation. Nonetheless,
if the Council moves forward with the model as proposed, there are issues that will require
negotiation with the EPEA, revolving mainly around maintaining confidentiality of records and
public meetings.
Other outstanding issues identified at this time that the Police Commission can address, if
requested, include:
o Whether the board should have the ability to audit a random selection of closed cases in
addition to those that are brought before it by the complainant?
o Better defining the relationship between the review board, the auditor and the Police
Commission, i.e., does the role of the commission alter in any significant way?
o Hiring decisions around the auditor position including:
o should the auditor be hired as an at-will employee?
o should there be specific removal procedures to protect him/her from unpopular
decisions (i.e., requiring a super-majority vote of council?)
o should the auditor be hired prior to finalizing the enabling ordinance and policies
so that s/he can assist in formulating the operating procedures for the auditor's
office and review board?
o Should the commission participate in developing the hiring process and criteria
for selection of the auditor?
o To what extent should the commission be involved in the design of a system evaluation
tool and actual assessment of the oversight system after implementation?
27
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Upon review and discussion of the recommendations contained in this report, the commission is
happy to assist in resolving these and other outstanding issues with the input and direction from
City Council.
VIII. Attachments
Attachment A. Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Project: Commission Research
Material List
Attachment B. Complaint Process Public Forum Summary
Attachment C. July 12, 2004 and May 10, 2005 Memos to Police Commission from EPEA
President Willy Edewaard
Attachment D. May 17, 2005 Memo to Police Commission from City Manager Dennis Taylor
on Proposed Oversight System
Attachment E: Police Commission Oversight System Decision Points: Commissioner Voting
Record
Attachment F. July 21, 2005 Memo to Police Commission from Communities United for Better
Policing
Attachment G. July 14 Memo to Police Commission from Human Rights Commission
Attachment H. June 7 and July 8 Memo to Police Commission from City Attomey Sharon
Rudnick
Attachment I: Police Oversight Model Flow Chart for Community Concems
28
Attachment A
POLICE COMPLAINT SYSTEM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT PROJECT:
COMMISSION RESEARCH MATERIAL LIST
Listed in order received by Police Commission between April 2004 and June 2005
o "Community Centered Policing: A Force for Change," PolicyLink, 2001
http://www, po licylin k.or.q/pdfs/ForceSu m ma ry. pdf
o "Police Integrity: Complaints and Misconduct Investigations, Department of
Justice
o "A Fair and Accountable Discipline System: An Integral Component of
Community Oriented Policing," Sheriff, January 2003.
o "A Grand Jury Review of Citizen Complaints," NACOLE Review, Summer 2003
http://www.nacole.orq/NACOLE Review Summer2003.pdf
o District of Columbia Office of Citizen Complaint Review Helpful Links
http :llwww.occr.dc.qovloccdcwplview,a,3,q,495526,occrNav , % 7 C31080% 7 C.asp
o Recommendations of Eugene External Review Advisory Committee (ERAC),
February, 1998.
o "Models of Civilian Oversight: Similarities, Differences and Expectations," Sue
Quinn
http://www.cacole.ca/conference%202003/conf presentations/Civilian%20Oversi
.qht%20Models%20in%20the%20US%20-%20Sue%20Quinn.pdf
o "Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation Executive Summary"
National Institute of Justice, 2001. Full report is available @
www.ncirs.or.q/pdffiles1/nii/184430.pdf
o Best Practices in Police Accountability, Samuel Walker, 2002
www.policeaccountability.or.q/statementopa.htm
o "Civilian Oversight of the Police in the United States," Merrick Bobb, 2003
http://www.parc.info/pubs/pdf/SLUmerrickpaper, pdf
o Roster of Civilian Oversight Agencies in the U.S., NACOLE, July 2004
http://www.nacole.or.q/RosterCivilianOversi.qhtA.qencies.pdf
o "Addressing Citizen Complaints about Police: A Proposal for Change," Office of
the City Auditor, Portland, Oregon, March 2001
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/imaqe.cfm?id=5735
"Proposed Ordinance for Independent Police Review," Office of the City Auditor,
Portland, Oregon, May 2001
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/imaqe.cfm?id=8086
"Seattle Police Department Office of Professional Accountability Annual Report,"
Fall 2003
http://www.cityofseattle.net/police/OPA/Docs/OPA AR 03.pdf
City Council Report: Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study
Police Oversight Citywide Focus, City of Mesa, June 2004
http://www, ci.mesa.az.us/citymgt/police oversiqht/pdf/Recommendations.pdf
"City Studies Police Oversight," Denver Post, July 2004
http ://www.d enve rpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E4330%257E2250123,00, ht
mi
"Fighting Police Abuse: a Community Action Manual," American Civil Liberties
Union Freedom Network, 1997
http://archive.aclu.or.q/library/fi.qhtina police abuse.html
"Early Warning Systems: Responding to the Problem Police Officer," National
Institute of Justice, July 2001
htt p://www, n ci rs. o r.q/pdffiles 1/nii/188565. pdf
Department of Justice Consent Decrees and Investigations Regarding Law
Enforcement Complaint Process
http://www.usdoi..qov/crt/split/findsettle.htm#Settlements
"Cop-review group is all ears", Portland Tribune, January, 2005
Review of National Police Oversight Models for the Eugene Police Commission,
Police Assessment Resource Center, February 2005
"Mediation gets public on a path with police", The Oregonian, March, 2005
City of Boise Community Ombudsman 2004 Mid-Year Report
www.boiseombudsman.orq
Executive Summary and Annual Report 2004, Portland Independent Police
Review Division, City of Portland Auditor's Office
.http:/Iwww. portlandonline.comlauditodindex.cfm?c=26646&
Denver's Civilian Oversight System - September 2004
Proposed Civilian Oversight Model, City of Tacoma Human Rights Commission
Attachment B
Complaint Process Public Forum Summary
Location of Forum # of
Participants
University of Oregon EMU 10
Eugene Public Library 40
Crest Drive Neighborhood Association 15
Petersen Barn 10
Jefferson/Westside Neighborhood Association 10
Harlow Neighborhood Association 20
Cal Young Neighborhood Association 15
River Road Community Organization meeting 10
Downtown English (forum facilitated in Spanish) 25
Human Rights Support System advocates and staff 25
Social service providers forum 20
Issue Areas Summarized from Public Forums on Police Complaint Process
INTAKE
Concerns:
Fear of retaliation by officer being complained about (complainant is identified to officer
as part of process, officer has access to personal info)
Perception the complaint won't be examined/taken seriously
· Complainant won't be given credibility against officer, particularly if person is from
certain socio-economic class/race/political/criminalPaomeless/transgender backgrounds
· Anxiety about interacting with police would prevent from complaining; intimidating to
come downtown to file complaint
· Uncertainty if what happened was wrong - unsure of laws and procedures governing
police conduct
· Lack of trust in system - is unresponsive, complaining won't make different
· System is not accessible and visible enough in community/too confusing
· Experience of no follow up to initial IA intake
· Concern that complainant whose first language is not English will be misunderstood
· Handling/documentation of complaint varies based on by what means it was received
(through officer, through watch commander, at safety station, on "Tell Us About It"
form)
· Vulnerable populations more likely to be targeted by police if they complain
(humiliation/harassment/enforcement actions) and less likely to have their complaints
taken seriously; very fearful
Suggestions:
· Want complaints to be taken by neutral party at neutral site (independent intake)
· Publicize how process works and sincerely encourage participation in complaint process:
"we want you to help us do our jobs better" attitude
· Educate community on what types of behavior/performance/actions EPD wants public to
report
· Need system that is respectful and complainants believe they will be listened to
· Treat all complaints as complaints, not as inquiries or something else
· Complaint form/submission suggestions:
o Simplify complaint form and make it just for complaints and questions, not
commendations
o Include process overview, what to expect and timeline on form - easy to
understand
c> Make complaint form and submission available on City web page
c> Suggest officers carry complaint forms or mechanisms for comments in cars
· Ensure that any retaliation by officer against complainant is treated very seriously
· Want information in Spanish about complaint process in schools, retail businesses, other
places that serve Latino population
· Need to address issue of when and how anonymous complaints can be accepted
· Intake process should include screening mechanism to eliminate spurious complaints and
consistency differentiate between serious and minor issues
· Require signed statement from complainant when serious allegations are filed
INVESTIGATION
Concerns: · Belief that immediate supervisors should not investigate their employees (conflict of
interest)
· Experience that timeline was not followed
· Received misleading information as to action department would take
· Concern that background check on complainant is first step of process - prevents people
from participating in process
· Perception of one-sided and biased investigations
· Concern that if policy is not violated, officer discourtesy is ignored - investigations are
narrowly focused and not thorough enough to uncover performance and attitude issues
· Union involvement protects officers
· Facts of case are lef~ out or documented in misleading ways - whole story is not
presented to make complainant have less credibility and protect officer
· Lack of notification about status of investigation
· Sometimes "Tell Us About It" form is only method for collecting information from
complainant - personal interview of complainant should be standard practice
· IA sergeant is put in awkward position of assuming investigatory duties during
assignment, then moves to another assignment with supervision responsibilities that
might be in conflict
· Investigations should only be conducted by trained professionals, not citizens.
Suggestions: · Want access to investigative information and outcomes so that public can find out about
incidents and facts
· More serious investigations should to conducted outside of department
· Advocates/mediators should be available to provide support during investigation process
and to assist in developing effective complaints
· Resolve "us v. them" model inherent to current complaint process
· Police shouldn't investigate themselves; bring in outside investigative entity
· Lara and Magana victims and others representing vulnerable communities should be
asked for input on complaint process and improvements
· In-Car Video and Audio will enhance investigations
DISCIPLINE/REVIEW Concerns:
· Perception that EPD has no interest in holding officers accountable for actions
· Process is too secretive and closed
· No appeal process or outside venue to turn to if complaint ignored or mishandled
· Lack of trust that city is serious about wanting to hear and respond to complaints
· Told that discourtesy or rudeness by officer was just following policy
· Lack of accountability for officers in current system - no real discipline
· Review board/Police Commission are not truly independent, co-option by City
government or political agendas
· What will the criteria and selection process for review board members be?
Suggestions:
· Wants independent review of complaints (subpoena, investigative powers)
· Utilize performance auditor or ombudsmen model
· More documentation/record of police contacts: video tape for example, larger numbers
on police cars for identification, business cards handed out after contact, etc.
· Community needs to take control of the complaint process.
· Wants to hear EPD ask community to "help us do our job better"/City leadership help
build credibility by encouraging public to file complaints
· Appeal process is needed, EPD should not have final' say in outcome of complaint
· Clear expectations and outcomes from process should be described and followed
· Investigations should be disclosed to public - including types of discipline, incident
information, etc.
· Develop "What to expect when stopped by EPD" info to clarify standard practices
· Method for tracking complaint trends regarding specific officer or type of incident
· Develop specific training and qualification requirements for review board members and
give veto power to Chief/City Manager in selection process
Attachment C
EUGENE POLICE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
777 HIGH STREET- SUITE 120- EUGENE, OREGON 97401
54D342~ 1814 - WWW.EPEA 1971.COM
MEMORANDUM
Date: May l0th, 2005
To: Eugene Police Commission
From: Willy Edewaard - EPEA President
Re: EPEA Review Model Proposal
The Eugene Police Employees' Association is supportive of substantive changes in the City's
current hiring and internal investigative practices within the police department. As the Police
Commission has learned from its research and discussions with other cities which have some sort
of external oversight, it is not the be-all and end-all to addressing citizen concerns about the
police department, or to improving the systems which have resulted in the call for such external
oversight. Many of the issues which have prompted the call for oversight are due to inadequate
staffing and inadequate pre-hire screening mechanisms. Merely adding additional layer(s) of
oversight will not produce the results sought after by the citizens of Eugene. The adoption of
any model of external review will not succeed unless it is coupled with the additional hiring of
police officers and additional, highly trained internal affairs staff.
As an Association, we are committed to the values statements of our department and are
committed, professional law enforcement officers. We are committed to a professional agency
which is accountable to the public we serve, and respectful of the rights of the individual
officers. To that end, we would propose a conceptual oversight model (which will still require
some contractual modifications and officer protections) which is accountable to the citizens of
Eugene and protects the rights of individual officers.
External Auditor Model:
Adoption of an oversight model which primarily focuses on an auditor's office will be both cost-
effective and should result in a non-political, objective oversight of the police department's
internal investigations.
I. Qualifications: The auditor should have an extensive background in law
enforcement and/or should have an extensive background in litigation. This
person should have no current or previous employment history with the City of
Eugene.
II. The auditor will be hired and supervised by the City Manager.
III. The auditor will be responsible for:
A. Intake of citizen complaints which come into the auditor's office.
Complaints can continue to be received through the current intake
channels (the police department, the Human Rights Commission, etc.).
Complaints received by the auditor will be forwarded to the Internal
Affairs Division for action.
B. The auditor will monitor the disposition of citizen complaints and
will provide input into the level of investigation required by each
complaint.
C. The auditor will review all completed investigations after the
disposition of the complaint, and after any discipline or resulting
grievance has been concluded. The auditor will provide feedback to the
Internal Affairs Department concerning any suggested improvements in
their investigation and will provide feedback to the Police Commission
regarding any suggested policy changes.
D. The auditor will maintain a database concerning the subject of the
complaint and disposition of the complaints. Such a database will not be
officer-specific.
E. The auditor will provide a quarterly report to the Police
Commission. The Police Commission will make recommendations to the
Police Chief and to the Police Auditor for policy and/or investigative
changes. The Police Commission will act as a liaison with the citizens of
Eugene and shall report concerns and suggested changes to the auditor and
the Police Chief.
IV. Intake: any citizen complaint shall be in writing and signed by the complainant.
Anonymous complaints shall not be used to trigger an internal investigation.
V. Intemal Affairs: The City shall fund a minimum of three full-time investigators
for this division. These investigators shall report directly to the Police Chief and
shall work in concert with the auditor and ensure high quality, non-biased
investigations. All investigations will be completed by the Internal Affairs
Division or an outside agency, if so directed by the Chief of Police.
VI. The City shall maintain its mediation services for the potential resolution of
citizen complaints. The Police Commission shall study and recommend any
necessary changes to this program. Participation in mediation will remain
voluntary.
VII. The Police Chief will be responsible for the supervisor of the Intemal Affairs
Division and shall have the final authority regarding the disposition of all
complaints, including any discipline of a Eugene Police Department employee.
Respectfully,
Willy Edewaard - President
Eugene Police Employees' Association
Copy: Chief Robert Lehner
Rhonda Fenrich - Attorney at Law
EPEA Executive Board
Jeannine Parisi - City of Eugene
EUGENE POLICE EMPLOYEES ASSO CIA TION
~l' ~ 777High Street, Suite 120 · Eugene, OR 97401 · Office: (541) 342-1814 · Fax: (541) 342-1814
TO: Eugene Police Commission Members July 12'h, 2004
FM: Eugene Police Employees' Association
SUB J: IA/Complaint Process
I'd like to use this occasion to thank the Police Commission for allowing me the
opportunity to address the subject of the Eugene Police Department's IA process, and for
giving me the chance to provide input from the EPEA perspective. Hopefully, after
reading this document, you will get a better understanding of our goals as an organization
and how that can fit into plans to re-organize the internal process at the EPD.
Contrary to what some may think, the Police Union has spent an enormous amount of
time and energy over the years trying to bring this very subject to light. We view the
problems not with the current policy, but how that policy has been applied. In order for
an internal investigation and subsequent discipline to have any credibility it must be
thorough, objective, lair, and consistent.
I have outlined five points that I believe need to be included in any discussion regarding
the reva~nping of the IA process, and more specifically how investigations are conducted
and discipline rendered. I understand that this document is just one tool for you and
ka~ow that further discussion will need to occur.
Please keep in mind while reading that some of the details I discuss are already practice
in many communities.
It is our belief that complaints generated from outside the police department
should be in writing and signed by the complaining party. Further, the
complaining party should sign the document with the understanding that in cases
where the complaint is malicious, they could be subject to arrest for false
swearing. This provides a much needed filter for the complaint process and
protection fbr the officer from malicious complaints.
· The IA process needs to be open. The officer needs to be told the exact nature of
the complaint against them. Complaints against police officers are very stressful
for the involved officer as well as thek t:amily members. Officers are often
distracted when complaints are brought against them making it difficult to focus
on their job, which leads to obvious officer safety concerns.
· There should be at least two investigators involved in a complaint against an
officer. The initial investigators sole job should be to fact find. That investigators
role isn't to determine the violations of policy, but to find out what facts occurred.
A good investigator will always try and prove an officer acted appropriately. If
they are unable to do so, then the complaint is solid. The second investigator
determines which if any violations of policy occurred. That investigator then
contacts the involved officer and advises him or her of the nature of the
complaint. The officer then has the opportunity to view the investigation, and
contact union representation. A subsequent interview should take place within 48
hours. Currently, situations occur where the investigator is also the adjudicator.
· Any complaint against an officer should be investigated quickly and thoroughly.
It is unfair to both the involved officer and the complaining citizen that the
investigation could take months. Outside a criminal complaint, it's reasonable
that an investigation be completed within 30 days, barring any objective rationale
that may delay its completion.
· The City of Eugene ItRRS department has often times been involved from the
very beginning of an internal investigation. I have found in my twelve or so years
on the Executive Board, that this is the most fi-ustrating part of the process. 9~q'~en
the decision to discipline has been made, the Chief of Police should be able to
contact HRRS who can provide information to assist the Chief in making his final
decision. Once in receipt of that information, the Chief makes his decision based
on what he believes to be fair and appropriate discipline.
I encourage the Conunission to take the time necessary to accomplish this daunting task,
however long that is. The changes already put in place by Chief Lehner will get us
through to that end.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
~m d - President
Eugene Police Employees' Association
Attachment D ~ City Manager's Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
May 17, 2005 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 Fax
Commissioner Tim Laue, Chair (541) 682-5045 TTY
Police Commission www. ci.eugene.or, us
Eugene Police Department
777 Pearl Street, Room 106
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Dear Tim:
I want to thank you and Commissioner Angie Sifuentez for meeting with Chief Lehner and me
last week to review the evolving work of the Police Commission on possible approaches to
external review of complaints regarding the Eugene Police Department. I am impressed by the
commission's work to-date on these important concepts. I also appreciate the opportunity to
share my thoughts on what might be a workable model for the City of Eugene. By way of this
letter, I recommend the following ideas to the Police Commission for consideration as possible
approaches to improving our investigation and review processes.
The proposed complaint investigation and review process should be based upon several
underlying principles:
· The review process should ensure that investigations of community complaints are conducted
in an appropriate, competent, and thorough manner. Investigations should also be conducted
in such a manner that they ensure fairness to both the complainant and the Eugene Police
Department (EPD) employee, as well as protect the procedural and substantive due process
rights of the EPD employee.
· The review process should provide community members with opportunities to review how the
City is investigating and responding to complaints. It should also allow oppommities for
people to provide the City with suggestions on how to improve the investigation process.
· The review process should not discourage complainants from filing legitimate complaints, and
it should ensure that complainants feel their complaints have been appropriately investigated.
Complainants should also feel they have been adequately involved in, and informed of, the
investigation process.
· The review process should work within the existing City Charter structure so that additional
expenses and bureaucratic layers are not unnecessarily created.
Tim Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 2
In addition to using resources the City already has in place, the proposed investigation and
review process should include the creation of two new resources: an internal auditor and an
External Review Board.
The intemal auditor, who would be located within the City Manager's Office, should be
appointed by, and report to, the City Manager. Appointment of the auditor by the City Manager
(and not the City Council) means this new process can be commenced more quickly and less
expensively, since no vote will be required to amend the Charter. The internal auditor should
play an integral role throughout the investigation and review process.
An External Review Board should be established within the confines of the existing City
Charter. The board should be comprised of three to five community members appointed by the
City Manager. By having the City Manager appoint the review board members, issues regarding
the City Charter, as well as issues relating to the confidentiality of certain documents can be
avoided because the review board will essentially be acting as agents of the City as opposed to as
a public board.
The review board members should serve staggered terms of perhaps three years. The City
Council could review and approve criteria (proposed by the City Manager) that would govem the
appointment of the review board members. The criteria should be crafted to ensure that the
members represent a diverse cross-section of the community and that they are knowledgeable
about, or have expertise regarding, law enforcement, employment, and community issues.
The City Council's role with respect to the board shbuld include review and adoption of the
appointment criteria. In the event the council wishes to have a larger role in the appointment of
review board members, the council could interview and nominate candidates for the City
Manager's consideration. The City Manager could then select from among the council's
nominees (or reject them and request the council to nominate additional individuals).
The following is an overview of the proposed complaint investigation and review process I am
recommending:
Complaint Intake/Internal Auditor
Individual complaints regarding the EPD should be received by the internal auditor.
Investigation of Complaint
The internal auditor should forward a complaint to the EPD for the actual investigation of the
complaint. The decision on who should conduct the investigation would depend upon the nature
and severity of the complaint. For example, complaints that involve performance or customer
service-related issues, such as discourtesy to citizens, could be investigated by the employee's
Tim Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 3
supervisor. Complaints involving more serious allegations of improper conduct, such as use of
excessive force, racial profiling or abuse of power, should be investigated by the Internal Affairs
unit. The internal auditor would consult with the investigator and may make recommendations
regarding the investigation plan, information to be gathered, etc.
Complainant Review After Investigation
After the investigator has completed the investigation of the complaint, and the investigator's
report has been reviewed by the Lieutenant and Captain, the report and chain-of-command
recommendation for adjudication should be forwarded to the internal auditor. The internal
auditor could then contact the complainant to discuss the investigation and the recommended
adjudication. This may require a change to the collective bargaining agreement, which could
only be accomplished with the consent of the union. The purpose of this contact would be to
provide the complainant an opportunity to disagree with the recommendation and request review
by the board before a final decision is made by the Police Chief or City Manager.
Review by External Review Board
If the complainant requests board review, the investigation would then be reviewed by the
External Review Board. The review board could state whether it agrees with the
recommendation and, if it does not, could provide its own recommendation to the final decision-
maker, i.e. the Chief of Police or City Manager.
Final Determination Regarding Discipline
The final decision about whether or not to discipline the EPD employee against whom the
complaint has been lodged would be determined b~, the Chief of Police or City Manager. Prior
to making the final determination, the City Manager or Police Chief could choose to ask the
internal auditor to review the investigation to determine whether there is evidence that the
investigator completed all of the necessary steps and gathered all of the necessary information.
Internal Auditor's General Review and Reports and Recommendations
Once the investigation has been completed and a final decision regarding whether or not to
impose discipline has been made, the internal auditor could review the investigation as part of an
on-going auditing process to evaluate the investigation process in general. This general review
would identify systemic issues, track trends, and gather statistical information. The internal
auditor could use this information to make periodic reports to the City Manager, Chief of Police
and City Council, as well as to provide recommendations for improving the way complaints and
investigations are handled in the furore. Copies of such reports and recommendations could also
be provided to the External Review Board.
Tim Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 4
I fully support efforts to improve our internal affairs capacity and our EPD complaint-handling
processes. I believe that the addition of an auditor in the City Manager's office together with an
appointed External Review Board composed of knowledgeable community members who would
provide review and oversight of our complaint handling process is needed. By following these
few but important recommendations, I believe that it is possible to move forward with this type
of a police auditor, improve internal affairs capacity and create a civilian review process that is
wholly consistent with the existing City Charter. I thank you for considering my suggestions as
you complete this important work and I look forward to the Police Commission's final
recommendations.
Sincerely,
· TaylOr
City Manager
Attachment E
Oversight System Decision Points: Commissioner Voting Record
The Police Commission adopted its recommendations for the police oversight model over the course of four meetings in June and
July, 2005. To the extent possible, members used consensus to make final decisions. However, where there were substantive issues
on the fimction of the model, or disagreement with some portion of the process, a formal vote was taken. Provided below are the
results of votes pertaining to the conceptual model that were taken during this decision-making period.
TOPIC DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATION VOTE VOTING
AGAINST
Dual Complaint Community members and EPD personnel may file complaints with 7:2 Bettman, Denner
Intake Model auditor's office or with internal affairs office, but auditor's office is
(vote taken June 23l) responsible for all classification decisions (original proposal from
Complaint Intake Committee to Police Commission)
Alternative Convenes a joint task team to develop recommendations for more 9:0
Resolution Options formalized procedures for alternative resolution to complaints and role of
(vote taken June 23) advocates
Anonymous Formalizes procedures for acceptance of anonymous and third-party 9:0
Complaints (vote complaints
taken June 23rd)
Requesting Sworn Requires complainant to attest to the veracity of complaint where 8:1 Denner
Statements (vote criminal actions are alleged
taken 6/23)
Complaint Dismissal Develops procedures for when complaints can be justifiably dismissed 9:0
Warrant/Records Recommends process for auditor ability to notify complainant of 8:1 Bettman
Check outstanding warrants
Auditor Function Description of authority and role of professional auditor in hybrid 9:0
(vote taken June 282) oversight system
George Bennett and Andrea Ortiz absent at June 23ra meeting; Neil Van Steenbergen left early
George Bennett, Andrea Orfiz and Floyd Prozanski absent at June 28th meeting
Role of Civilian Describes review board function in overseeing work of the auditor's 10:0
Review Board office and reviewing closed cases upon request of complainant; does not
(vote taken June 28) include board's function pertaining to review of community impact cases
prior to adjudication (open-case review)
Governance Issue Recommends auditor be hired and report to Mayor and City Council and 10:0
(vote taken June 28) Mayor and City Council appoint review board members. Recommends
Mayor appoint a community-based selection panel to develop slate of
candidates for City Council consideration.
Closed vs. Open Recommends that review board receive all "community impact" cases 10:0
Case Review of for review after adjudicated, and with cause, can vote to re-open those
Community Impact cases. Reviews other closed cases upon request of complainant and at its
Cases discretion.
(vote taken July 143)
John AMen and Neil Van Steenbergen absent.
Attachment F
July 21, 2005
To: City of Eugene Police Commission
City of Eugene City Council
From: Communities United for Better Policing (CUBP)
Subject: Response to the Eugene Police Commission Complaint System and
Civilian Oversight Draft.
Communities United for Better Policing (CUBP) is in conceptual support of the
Eugene Police Commission's (EPC) Complaint System and Civilian Oversight
recommendations.
CUBP is interested in a complaint system with an External Review Board that
creates as much independence from the Eugene Police Department (EPD) as
possible. To that end, CUBP is in full support of, but not limited to, the following
elements of the recommendations:
· A charter amendment that gives the City Council the authority to hire an
auditor and appoint an External Review Board both of which are directly
accountable to the City Council.
· A single intake auditor based system for community members.
· A dual intake system for internal complaints, where police officers have
the option to contact either the auditor or internal affairs.
· A five to seven member External Review Board.
· An External Review Board that reflects the community, but is not
representative of any constituency.
It is CUBP's understanding that not all of the details have not been worked out.
For example, CUBP is very interested in developing mechanisms that ensure
complaint calls are directed to the auditor's office and tracked.
CUBP plans to remain involved in the development of the final product and in
future improvements to the system.
Attachment G
Human Rights
~k~l ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~~ Commission
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
MEMORANDUM (541Eugene') 682-51Oregon77 97401-2793
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www.ci.eugene.or, us
Date: July 14, 2005
To: Eugene Police Commission
From: Sara Rich, Human Rights Commission Chair
Subject: Human Rights Commission Statement of Support for Police Commission Recommendations
to City Council on Police Oversight
At the June 30, 2005 Agenda Committee meeting, the Human Rights Commission leadership
voted unanimously to support the following statement regarding the Police Commission's
recommendations to the Eugene City Council on police oversight:
The Human Rights Commission endorses the Police Commission's conceptual model for police
oversight. Although we have not studied all aspects of the proposed recommendations and we
know that portions are still being refined, members of the Human Rights Commission have been
monitoring the process and in May received a presentation from Police Commission members.
We believe the Police Commission 's proposal reflects the values of this community. Such values
include the respect and protection of everyone's rights, community members and department
members alike, in an atmosphere that is safe and free from retribution. We believe the oversight
proposal will promote a transparent, timely, and accessible complaint process, while ensuring
individual and organizational accountability.
The Human Rights Commission is especially pleased with the considerable value placed on
alternative resolution options, specifically in the expansion of mediation and advocacy as a
method of dealing with police complaints. The Human Rights Commission has agreed to
participate with members of the Police Commission and the service provider community in
developing an enhanced mediation and advocacy program as a key component of the complaint
system.
gFe recognize and appreciate the Police Commission's thoughtfulness and diligence in
developing a comprehensive proposal that takes into consideration the needs of a diverse
community.
I:LPolice Commission\ComplaintProcess~nalreport attachG.doc
Attachment H
CITY OF EUGENE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT
To: Police Commission Date: June 7, 2005
Subject: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model
I CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT I
SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
You have asked for our opinion on a variety of legal issues related to the Police
Commission's proposed model for civilian review of conduct by the Police Department.
I. INTRODUCTION
As we understand it, the proposed model anticipates the creation of two levels of review:
an auditor and a civilian review board ("CRB").
The role of the auditor is to monitor and participate in ongoing internal investigations of
complaints of police misconduct for quality assurance and to identify policy, operational or
training issues that may require changes to current policies or procedures. A CRB, made up of
five to seven community volunteers, will monitor the work of the auditor and the Department by
evaluating the course and outcome of completed internal investigations and develop appropriate
findings and recommendations for changes in policy or procedure. No decision has been made
about whether the civilian review model will review investigations involving all Police
Department employees or only sworn officers.
The CRB may undertake a review of completed investigations based on pre-established
criteria, at the suggestion of the auditor or at the request of the complainant. In addition, the
CRB may participate in the consideration of certain types of investigations prior to their
adjudication. Final adjudication decisions rest with the Chief of Police. Neither the auditor nor
the CRB will participate in decisions involving the level of discipline to be imposed, if any.
The process envisioned by the Police Commission, as we understand it, as is follows:
1. The auditor takes the complaint and decides whether it requires CRB involvement
pre-adjudication. The auditor then decides, based on pre-established criteria,
whether it will be investigated by Intemal Affairs or by a supervisor, or whether to
recommend an outside investigation. As we understand it, the Commission
anticipates that IA will investigate all claims involving misconduct, and
supervisors will investigate only inquiry-level service complaints. The auditor
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 2
also will identify cases appropriate for mediation or alternative dispute resolution
and will coordinate such mediations or facilitated conversations.
2. Internal Affairs conducts the investigation, and the auditor provides input during
the course of the investigation. After the initial investigation is completed, the
auditor and perhaps a supervisor or Internal Affairs officer meets with the
complainant to review the initial results of the investigation. The auditor may
recommend additional investigation as a result of that interview.
3. The auditor's office will provide timely notification to complainants of the
status of the investigation, including options and time frames for resolving
complaints, and inform the complainant of the final decision.
4. Once the investigation is complete, the results are provided to the
supervisor who makes a preliminary recommendation on adjudication.
The auditor meets with the supervisor, reviews the investigation and
provides input regarding the supervisor's recommendation. The
recommendation then proceeds up the chain of command, and the auditor
may participate at each level (including meeting with the Chief) to discuss
adjudication. The final adjudication decision rests with the Chief of Police.
5. The auditor plays no role in determining what discipline, if any, should be
imposed and thus does not need to review prior discipline decisions for
consistency.
6. The auditor provides quarterly reports to the CRB and the Chief regarding
suggestions for changes to policies or procedures. The CRB may conduct
"closed case" reviews of completed investigations based on pre-
established criteria.
7. If the complaint is one in which the CRB gets involved prior to adjudication, the
auditor meets with the CRB, reviews the investigation, the proposed findings of
fact and the proposed adjudication. The CRB may hear directly from the
complainant or other involved parties, but cannot compel testimony. The CRB
may make suggestions or express concems, which will be relayed to the chain of .
command for potential reconsideration. Like the auditor, the CRB will have no
role in determining discipline.
Questions related to the auditor function and the CRB function are addressed separately
as follows.
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 3
Il. AUDITOR FUNCTION
A. Issues related to hiring of auditor
The City currently contracts with an outside auditor who reviews a sampling of the
investigations conducted as a result of complaints against police employees. The auditor
conducts his/her audit after the file is closed and can have no impact on the outcome of any
particular case.
The City could expand the role of the auditor by creating a position whose role would be
to audit and participate in investigations as they unfold. The position could be implemented
without bargaining with the Eugene Police Employees Association. See Opinion dated March 1,
2005.
The City Council currently has no authority under the City Charter to hire or supervise an
auditor who will participate in the adjudication of complaints. (Eugene Charter, Chapter IV,
Section 16(l)(e).) Therefore, the Charter would have to be amended if the Council or its
designee, rather than the City Manager, is to appoint and supervise the auditor?
There are also considerations with regard to whether the auditor should be a City
employee or an independent contractor. Oregon law provides that independent contractors must
comply with at least four of the following requirements: He or she must (1) carry out the
services at a location other than the person's residence; (2) possess business cards customary for
similar businesses; (3) have a business telephone listing separate from that of the person's
residence; (4) perform services only pursuant to a written contract; (5) perform services for two
or more different entities or individuals within a one-year period; or (6) assume financial
responsibility for defective workmanship or services through performance bonds or liability
insurance. ORS 670.600(8). Further, an independent contractor must be free from direction or
control over the means and manner of providing the labor or services, except that the City
Council could specify desired results. ORS 670.600(1). An individual who works full time on
City business, has an office at the City, uses City telephones and computers to perform his/her
duties and takes direction from the City Council or City Manager would not be considered an
independent contractor. If the Council has concems around being able to terminate the auditor
on short notice, the Council can make the auditor an at-will employee.
~ If the auditor reports to the City Manager, no change in the current City Charter would
· be required.
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 4
Bo Complaint intake
As we understand the Police Commission's model, both the Internal Affairs Division and
the auditor's office would accept and process complaints from community members and police
personnel. The auditor would screen complaints and conduct a preliminary investigation to
determine which cases should be reviewed by the CRB before adjudication.
Criteria must be developed for determining which allegations of misconduct would be
investigated and adjudicated internally and which ones would be reviewed by the CRB before
adjudication ("community impact" cases). In our view, investigation and adjudication of
complaints or concerns about an officer's performance that do not involve interaction with the
community (such as timeliness to work and effective report writing) should remain internal to the
department and should be handled initially by the immediate supervisor. The auditor should
focus its efforts on complaints that have an impact on the Department's interactions with the
community, such as complaints of excessive force, discrimination or misuse of position.
The auditor would recommend whether the complaint is investigated by a supervisor or
by the Internal Affairs Decision, or the auditor could recommend that an outside investigator be
appointed. Such a recommendation should be based on pre-established criteria adopted by the
Department based on the nature of the complaint. Final authority for assigning an investigation
would remain with the Police Chiefi
C. Investigations
The auditor would monitor ongoing internal affairs investigations for thoroughness and
objectivity. The investigations themselves, however, should be conducted by the supervisor or
by the Internal Affairs Division, depending on pre-established criteria adopted by the Police
Department.
The auditor may recommend that an outside entity conduct the investigation, but the final
decision should remain with the Police Chief. We do not recommend expanding the auditor's
role to allow the auditor to require an outside investigation. Such an expanded role could
jeopardize the supervisor status of sergeants and lieutenants under PECBA and federal law. The
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that supervisors participate fully in the adjudication of
complaints and the imposition of discipline in order to remain exempt from overtime. The
Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA) requires a similar level of involvement in
order for sergeants and lieutenants to be "supervisors" and thus remain outside of the bargaining
unit. Deschutes County Sheriff's ~4ssociation v. Deschutes County, 16 PECBR 328 (1996).
The auditor may observe or participate in interviews which are part of the internal
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 5
investigation. However, he or she should not participate in any portion of the criminal
investigation because courts have determined this to be coercive. Garrity v. State of New Jersey,
385 US 493, 87 S Ct 616 (1967). The auditor may review and rely upon the criminal
investigation once it is complete.
D. Adjudication
Adjudication outcomes should be recommended by the auditor at the initial level of
review in the chain of command, not for the first time at the level of the chief. As noted above,
in order to maintain police sergeants and lieutenants as supervisors exempt from the PECBA and
the FLSA, they must maintain an active role in the adjudication of complaints and the imposition
of discipline.
We do not recommend that the auditor have the authority to dictate the outcome of an
investigation or override the Police Chief's decision as to whether a complaint is sustained or
unfounded. As a public employer, the City has the burden at arbitration to prove that federal
procedural due process requirements were met and that the discipline is supported by just cause.
If the auditor is able to override the recommendations of the police chain of command and to
dictate a different outcome in a particular case, the City's ability to sustain the discipline would
be seriously compromised. For example, if the auditor recommended that a complaint be
sustained, but the Police Chief recommended otherwise, the union could call the Chief as its
witness to demonstrate that the Chief's determination supported a different outcome. This
potential conflict would compromise the City's ability to sustain discipline decisions at
arbitration.
E. Mandatory subjects of bargaining
The auditor's role as described above does not give rise to mandatory bargaining.
However, if the auditor's role creates any substantial change to the current time lines for
investigation of complaints, the time lines for the investigation will need to be bargained. The
reasons for this are described in further detail in the opinion dated March 1, 2005.
III. CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD FUNCTION
A. Appointment of the Board
The City Council currently lacks Charter authority to appoint a CRB which would be
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 6
advisory to the Council and have authority to dictate or affect the outcomes of particular cases.2
If a change in the Charter were to provide such authority to the Council, the board it appoints
would be a "governing body" under Oregon's public meetings laws. ORS. 192.610(3).
Therefore, the board would have to conduct its business in an open session except when.there is a
specific statutory basis for an executive session, which presents a series of issues that are
described more fully below.3 For the purposes of this opinion, we assume that the CRB is
advisory to the City Council.
B. Involvement in investigations: Participation in ongoing community impact
cases and closed case review
The CRB would be involved in investigations at the pre-adjudication stage only when
those cases meet predetermined criteria (community impact cases) and then only if the review
board votes to participate. The CRB may recommend an outside investigation, but that decision
ultimately lies with the Police Chief according to predetermined criteria.
All other cases would be reviewed by the CRB only after the investigation is complete
and the adjudication decision is made ("closed case" review). The CRB may conduct the review
based upon pre-determined criteria, upon the recommendation of the auditor or at the request of
the complainant. The board may review the case files within the parameters of the open
meetings and public records laws and then forward its recommendations or concerns about
policies and procedures to the Police Chief(or to the City Council or Police Commission,
depending on reporting guidelines).
As discussed above with regard to the auditor's role, the CRB may review a completed
criminal investigation into matters that are also the subject of an internal investigation, but may
~ Under the current Charter, the City Council could appoint a CRB to advise the Council
on matters of policy related to investigation and adjudication of complaints about police conduct.
In this scenario, the CRB could review closed case files and make recommendations about
policies and procedures related to investigations and adjudication standards and outcomes. The
Charter would prohibit the CRB from involving itself in investigations and adjudications prior to
their completion.
3 The City Manager could appoint a Civilian Review Board whose role is to review
investigations in certain cases before adjudication and to provide advice to the City Manager and
Police Chief on the appropriate outcome. Because the review board would be advisory to the
City Manager and thus would not be a "governing body," the board would not be subject to the
requirements of Oregon open meetings laws.
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 7
not participate in the criminal investigatiOn or sit in on interviews conducted as part of the
criminal investigation, because it is considered coercive.
In cases where the CRB is participating prior to adjudication, the following must be
considered:
1. Public records issues
Oregon's public records law conditionally exempts some personnel records from
disclosure, but the employee's privacy interests are weighed against the public's right to know.
ORS 192.501 (12) conditionally exempts "a personnel discipline action, or materials or
documents supporting that action." Only completed disciplinary actions when a sanction is
imposed, and materials or documents that support that particular disciplinary action, fall within
the scope of the exemption. City of Portland v. Rice, 308 Or 118, 775 P2d 1371 (1989).
Consistent with this policy, there are situations where the public interest in disclosure
outweighs the employee's interest in confidentiality, despite the imposition of a disciplinary
sanction. For example, the Oregon Court of Appeals has held that the public interest required
disclosure of records pertaining to an investigation and disciplinary action against a police
captain who allegedly had engaged in sexual conduct through an escort service that might have
served as a front for prostitution. City of Portland v. Anderson, 163 Or App 550, 988 P2d 402
(1999). The court reasoned that the public has a legitimate interest in confirming the police
captain's integrity and ability to enforce the law evenhandedly.
It is the high profile cases involving the Eugene Police Department and the community
that are most likely to draw the attention of the CRB. As recently as last week, the Oregon Court
of Appeals affirmed a decision ordering the City of Portland to produce certain documents
relevant to the investigation and discipline of a police officer who killed a civilian during a traffic
stop. City of Portland v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 2005 WL 1283302. The court reasoned that
the public's need to have complete confidence in a thorough and unbiased inquiry is most urgent
and compelling in high profile cases where a police officer has killed a citizen in the line of duty.
Id. at *3. The court rejected the City's argument that the need for confidentiality was weightier
than normal in such cases in order to prevent the chilling of self-critical investigation and
analysis. The court said that the confidence in an unbiased inquiry comes from transparency,
"and its value is not outweighed by the speculation that transparency will quell candor at some
future date." Id.
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 8
Three categories of personnel files are relevant in this context:
a. A complaint that does not lead to discipline or criminal
investigation becomes a public record as soon as the file is closed
because it does not fall within any of the exemptions listed in ORS
192.501 or ORS 192.502.
b. Files which involve a disciplinary action are potentially subject to
the conditional exemption for disciplinary records, which would
include investigations and Internal Affairs files, unless the public
interest requires disclosure. ORS 192.501 (12).
c. Complaints that result in criminal review are exempt from
disclosure until the criminal review is completed and the case is
closed. ORS 192.501(3).
Although disclosure of an otherwise-exempt public record is not illegal, the City's current
contract with the police union requires that the City assert any applicable exemptions to protect
personnel records from public disclosure. (Article 37.2) Thus, implementing this model of
civilian review would require negotiation with the Association. See Opinion dated March 1,
2005.
2. Open meetings issues
Under Oregon law, a "governing body" means the members of any public body which
consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations
to a public body on policy or administration. ORS 192.610(3). If the recommendations of the
CRB are made to the City Council or to the Police Commission, rather than to the Police Chief or
to the City Manager, any deliberations of the review board would be subject to Oregon's public
meetings law. ORS 192.630(1). Generally, unless the CRB is meeting for a social occasion or a
training session, the board would be meeting "for the purpose of deciding on, or deliberating
toward a decision" and would have to meet in open session. ORS 192.630(3). The board could
meet in executive session under two circumstances: (1) to discuss records that fall under the
public records exemptions cited above, or (2) to discuss advice from an attorney.
It is likely that the CRB could meet in executive session to discuss open "community
impact" investigations prior to their adjudication, because we may assert that those investigatory
files remain exempt until it is determined whether or not discipline will result, and then whether
the conditional exemption applies. However, any record related to investigations and discipline
may be used in an arbitration or in litigation, even if the record would normally be exempt from
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 9
disclosure. Thus, comments made by and recommendations resulting from CRB meetings could
be used as evidence in an arbitration or lawsuit and CRB members could be compelled to testify
in an arbitration challenging any discipline imposed or in litigation against the City. This
situation could pose a particular problem if, for example, the CRB was divided in its response to
the adjudication proposed by the City, with some members agreeing with a recommendation that
a complaint not be sustained, and others recommending otherwise. A similar issue will arise if
the Department were to change its recommended outcome from unsustained to sustained in
response to a CRB recommendation. While the CRB recommendation may be well founded and
the resulting change in outcome may be warranted, it is likely that such a scenario would cause
the Association to claim in arbitration that the Department's ultimate decision to sustain the
complaint was due to "political" pressure. Also, under the current collective bargaining
agreement, information related to an open investigation, including CRB input must remain
confidential until the matter is closed and the information becomes a public record. Breaches of
confidentiality by CRB members, even if inadvertent, could potentially breach the parties'
contract. Such potential scenarios could compromise the City's ability to sustain discipline
decisions at arbitration or hamper the City's ability to defend related litigation.
"Closed case" review of an investigation that resulted in an unfounded or unsustained
adjudication, or in which no discipline was imposed, would have to occur in open session, since
those flies would not be exempt under the public records law. As discussed above, because the
current EPEA contract requires the City to adhere to the public records exemption if it applies,
the union contract would have to be modified in order to allow the review board to discuss
personnel records in a public session.
3. Confidentiality
Each member of the civilian review board would be required to sign a confidentiality
statement in order to have access to confidential records. However, a confidentiality agreement
is only as good as the individual signer's willingness to adhere to it. Once confidential
information is released, there is no way to undo the harm caused to the parties.
The potential for unauthorized disclosure needs to be seriously assessed because such
disclosure can jeopardize the City's legal obligation to provide the full, fair and unbiased
investigation required under due process and to defend any resulting litigation.
4. Bargaining issues
In Oregon, collective bargaining between public employers and employees is governed by
the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement ("PECBA"), ORS 243.650 through
243.782. It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer to "refuse to bargain collectively in
Re: Civilian Review
June 7, 2005
Page 10
good faith with the exclusive representative" of a labor organization. ORS 243.672(1)(e). As
part of the obligation to bargain in good faith, public employers and labor organizations must
bargain over matters concerning employment relations, also referred to as "mandatory subjects"
of bargaining. ORS 243.656.
Matters such as what personnel-related information will be shared with the CRB in an
open meeting, and who may review investigatory information and outcomes, would likely be
mandatory subjects of bargaining.
The extent to which the investigation will involve the disclosure of personal information
about the employee is most likely a mandatory subject of bargaining. Springfield Police Assoc. v.
City of Springfield, 16 PECBR 712, 722 (1996). Proposals related to the contents and disclosure
of personnel files are generally mandatory subjects of bargaining. Id.
The time lines for the investigation will need to be bargained if the participation of the
review board extends the length of the investigation. Oregon Public Employees Union v. State of
Oregon, 14 PECBR 746, 769 (1993). In OPEU, the Employee Relations Board found that
employees had a strong interest in either being charged or cleared in timely manner, while the
employer had no interest in unreasonable delay in the investigative process.
For more detailed information about bargaining issues, please review the opinion dated
March 1, 2005.
If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. -
CITY ATTORNEYS
/s/SHARON A. RUDNICK
Sharon A. Rudnick
CITY OF EUGENE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT
To: Police Commission Date: July 8, 2005
Subject: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT
SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
You have asked us to provide our opinion regarding the legal and contractual implications
of revising the model currently being considered to allow the board to reopen, with articulated
reasons, a closed "community impact" case investigation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Under the Commission's prior iteration of the review board model, the CRB would be
involved in investigations at the pre-adjudication stage when those cases meet predetermined
criteria ("community impact" cases). All other cases would be reviewed by the CRB only after
the investigation was complete and the adjudication decisions made ("closed case" review). See
legal opinion dated June 7, 2005, which outlines that model.
As we understand it, the Commission is now considering a different model of review of
community impact cases. Rather than reviewing those cases while they are open and prior to
adjudication, the CRB would review them after they were adjudicated by the police department
("closed case" review). The CRB would have the ability to request or require that the case be
reopened for further investigation if certain objective "cause" criteria were met, or perhaps if a
super majority of the board agreed.
Generally, the legal and contractual implications for allowing the CRB to reopen closed
investigations are the same as those for allowing the board to review cases prior to adjudication.
Those issues include public records considerations, open meetings issues, confidentiality
considerations and bargaining issues, all of which were described in detail in our June 7 legal
opinion but which are covered briefly below in the context of your specific questions.
II. ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
A. Would the ability to reopen an investigation cause enough of an impact on case
resolution timelines to become a bargaining issue?
Answer: Potentially, yes. Reopening an investigation clearly could extend the length of
the investigation, which would require the City to bargain those time lines. Oregon Public
Re: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model
July 8, 2005
Page 2
Employees Union v. State of Oregon, 14 PECBR 746, 769 (1993). h~ OPEU, the Employee
Relations Board found that employees had a strong interest in either being charged or cleared in a
timely maimer and, therefore, the time frames within which investigations must be initiated and
completed was a mandatory subject of bargaining. We do not expect that this would be a difficult
agreement to reach with the Association.
B. Are time line concerns significantly different for open versus closed case review?
Answer: No. The timing issue would arise because a completed investigation is
reopened, renewing the employee's vulnerability to discipline, not because of the nature of the
CRB review. Regardless of which model the Commission ultimately decides upon, if the board
has the ability to request further investigation, the timeframe for case resolution potentially is
extended and therefore has implications for collective bargaining.
C. Would the board be able to fully discuss a closed case in a public meeting setting
under existing contract and public records law?
Answer: Yes, if the case under review resulted in an unsustained adjudication. What the
board may lawfully discuss in a public meeting depends on whether the investigation resulted in
a disciplinary action or not. A complaint that does not lead to discipline or criminal investigation
becomes a public record as soon as the file is closed because it does not fall within any of the
exemptions listed in ORS 192.501 or ORS 192.502. Files which involved a disciplinary action
are potentially subject to the conditional exemption for disciplinary records, which would include
investigations and Internal Affairs files, unless the public interest requires disclosure. ORS
192.501(12).
If the closed case resulted in disciplinary action, the records relating to the investigation
and discipline would be exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501(12). Although disclosure of
an otherwise-exempt public record is not illegal, the City's current contract with the police union
requires that the City assert any applicable exemptions to protect personnel records from public
disclosure. (Article 37.2) Thus, implementing a model of civilian review that required or
permitted public discussion of exempt records would require bargaining with the Eugene Police
Employees Association.
If the complaint at issue were initially unsustained, then those records would not be
subject to exemption from disclosure because no disciplinary action is pending or imposed, and
therefore could be discussed in public. However, once the CRB decided to reopen the case, those
records would then fall under the exemption because a disciplinary action would be pending.
Therefore, without a change in the current collective bargaining agreement, the board could only
discuss the investigation in executive session, for the reasons outlined in our June 7 opinion.
Re: Opinion of City Attomey Regarding Civilian Review Model
July 8, 2005
Page 3
The rule of thumb is this: If discipline is imposed or there is a possibility that discipline
will be imposed, the City is required under its agreement with the police union to keep the
information confidential. On the other hand, if the investigation is concluded and either the
complaint is not sustained or no discipline is imposed, the information becomes a public record
and can be discussed in public session.
D. What are the differences between the board's discussion of sustained and
unsustained cases?
Answer: As explained in C above, a sustained allegation which resulted in discipline
would be exempt from disclosure under public records law. An unsustained complaint which did
not lead to discipline becomes a public record when the file is closed. However, an unsustained
complaint becomes subject to the disclosure exemption as soon as the board reopens the case.
E. Is there any substantive difference between enabling the CRB to "request" that the
case be reopened for further investigation or empowering the board to "require" that the case be
reopened, assuming that in either case the board's decision is based on pre-established criteria?
Answer: This is a policy choice. The Commission could decide, for example, to
recommend that the CRB be empowered to require that a case be reopened for further
investigation, perhaps only by a super-majority vote of the board and for cause. Or, the
Commission could recommend that the CRB be empowered to recommend that a closed
community impact case be reopened for further investigation, and that the ultimate authority to
reopen a case be left with the Chief of Police.
F. What legal issues arise with regard to the CRB's review of community impact
cases after they are initially adjudicated by the police department ("closed case" review) as
compared to "open case" review of community impact cases?
Answer: Giving the CRB the authority to affect the outcome of a particular case, whether
by open case or closed case review, carries with it impacts on the City's ability to sustain
disciplinary decisions or to defend tort claims, and raises issues of confidentiality. As explained
more fully in our June 7, 2005 opinion, comments made by individual CRB members during a
case review and recommendations resulting fi.om CRB review could be used as evidence in an
arbitration or lawsuit, and CRB members could be compelled to testify in an arbitration
challenging any discipline imposed or in litigation against the City. This situation could pose a
particular problem if, for example, the CRB was divided in its response to the adjudication
proposed by the City, with some members agreeing with a recommendation that a complaint not
be sustained, and others recommending otherwise.
Re: Opinion of City Attomey Regarding Civilian Review Model
July 8, 2005
Page 4
Similarly, if the police department were to change its recommended outcome from
unsustained to sustained as the result of a reopened investigation, that could impact the City's
ability to defend the decision. Although the CRB recommendation may be well-founded, it is
likely to prompt a claim by the police union in arbitration that the Department's ultimate decision
to sustain the complaint was due to "political" pressure. Also, under the current collective
bargaining agreement, information related to an open investigation, including CRB input, must
remain confidential until the matter is closed and the information becomes public record.
Breaches of confidentiality by CRB members, even if advertent, could potentially breach the
parties' contract.
Closed case review of community impact cases mitigates these impacts, as compared to
open case review. With open case review, the CRB would meet and discuss each community
impact case before adjudication, and give its input to the department before adjudication. In this
way, the CRB would be drawn into every high impact case, and evidence of their discussions
would be sought by employees and plaintiffs in every related arbitration or lawsuit, even when
the outcome of the discussion was agreement with the handling of the case by the department.
With closed case review, it would be evident from the fact that the CRB did not request or
require that an investigation be reopened that the CRB found the department's handling of the
complaint satisfactory, and thus would make it less likely that an employee or plaintiff would
seek to depose or subpoena the CRB members to arbitration or trial. Additionally, community
impact cases that resulted in an unsustained adjudication could be discussed in an open meeting
without violating the current collective bargaining agreement and without risk of any breach of
confidentiality.
Of course, in those cases where the CRB requested or required further investigation, it
would be apparent that the board disagreed with the department's adjudication, creating the kinds
of impacts on arbitration and litigation described above. However, as we have suggested in
earlier discussions, these impacts can be mitigated by ensuring that the CRB's ability to request
or require that a case be reopened for further investigation be limited by objective "cause"
criteria, and perhaps by a requirement that a supermajority of the board support the decision to
reopen.
G. What impacts should be considered if the board were able to select cases other
than "community impact" cases whereby its review could result in the recommendation to reopen
the investigation?
Empowering the CRB to reopen the investigations of cases other than community impact
cases carries with it significant impacts. During the course of its consideration of various civilian
review models, the Commission has made a policy decision that the value of allowing the CRB
to impact the outcome of"community impact" cases outweighed the potential for that review to
Re: Opinion of City Attorney Regarding Civilian Review Model
July 8, 2005
Page 5
impact the City's ability to sustain disciplines in arbitration or to defend lawsuits, and the
confidentiality, public records and open meetings issues such review would raise. On the other
hand, the Commission decided that creating the potential for those impacts was not warranted in
cases other than "community impact" cases. In addition, the Commission determined that the
CRB's limited resources would best be focused on "community impact" cases. Consequently,
the Commission's model allows the CRB to review non-"community impact" cases after they are
closed, and to recommend policy, procedural or operational changes for future cases. The model
does not, however, allow the CRB to affect the outcome of those cases.
The City can legally empower the CRB to reopen any kind of case, but this would require
the board to revisit the policy decision that has already been made. Moreover, giving the CRB
the ability to reopen the investigation of a closed, non-"community impact" case on the request
of the complainant would encourage a "we'll know it when we see it" approach to choosing cases
to be reopened, rather than requiring that the cases meet predetermined, objective "cause"
criteria, and would impact the Police Chief's authority to manage his/her department.
If you have questions or concerns, please let us know.
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. -
CITY ATTORNEYS
'S~aron A. Rudnick (_/ ~ ~Z-'d
Attachment I
Police Oversight Process for Community Concerns
~.O Ix6q°°~'e~ FHe~O~e ,r ~^. PUblic
"..... Off/cerl~ta~' Rtetions ety . ....'
· · · · ?~°~e Internal Affairs * -~'ntect .. · ·
,
--Questions/Referrals AUDITOR'S Complaints '-[ Classifies
OFFICE
Complaints
· "" ,. / Supervisor I
'~ Notice/Follow- Alternative
Up Investigation Resolution
('~ocumented ~
~ Closed
(/'Documented
Community Impact Cases I~ All Other Cases ~ Closed
- I Vote to Re-
Case I Open Case Auditor Case
Adjudication '~i Civilian Review I Adjudication
Decision Board Findings Recommendations
I
Chief's
I Case Adjudication
Discipline
I & Discipline
DecisiOnsustainedif I Decision by Chief
I
~ ~ ~ ~ [ Board Review of
Complainant Complainant ,. Case Upon
*Policecomplaintscenbelodged with either Internal ~fied/Case CIo~,~/ ~fied/Case CIo~ "1 Complainant
Affairs or the Auditors Office Request
** Criminal e/legations go to
DistdctAttomey first July 15, 2005
ATTACHMENT C
City Recorder's Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
MEMORANDUM (541Eugene') 682-5042Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date: July 14, 2005
To: Jeannine Parisi
From: Mary Feldman, City Recorder
Subject: November 2005 Election
You have inquired about cost and the timeline for placing a City of Eugene measure on a November 8, 2005
ballot.
The last day the City Council may pass a resolution or ordinance placing a measure on the ballot is August
31, 2005. That deadline is established by Eugene Code 2.992, which states that measures must be filed with
the city recorder not less than five business days before the date set by state law for the city recorder to file
the measure with the Lane County Elections office. The last day for the City Recorder to file a measure with
Lane County Elections is set by ORS 254.095 as the 61st day before an election, which would be September
8 for a November 8, 2005 election. Therefore, the City Council would need to take action prior to its
summer recess which begins August 10.
Eugene Code requires that a voters' pamphlet be prepared for an election in which a City measure is on the
ballot. For council-referred measures, a written argument in favor of the measure must be submitted by one
or more the councilors who voted in favor of the measure and the written argument in opposition to the
measure must be submitted by a three-person committee chosen by the city recorder by lot.
The deadline for voters' pamphlet committees and citizens (by petition or payment of $300) to submit their
pro/con statements for the pamphlet is set by EC 2.996 as 54 days prior to the election, or September 15,
2005. The City Recorder's Office is responsible for soliciting applications for the committee and for
providing sufficient time for the application, selection, and statement development processes. To meet the
September 15 deadline, I have determined that advertising needs to occur between August 13 and August 20,
with applications due August 22, and appointment no later than August 24.
The City Council would need to authorize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund contingency
account to produce the voters' pamphlet. That approval would need to occur at the same time as the action to
place a measure on the ballot, at either the August 8 or August 10 council meeting. Based on expenditures
for the November 2004 voters' pamphlet, a pamphlet for an election with a single measure would likely cost
approximately $15,000. To ensure that adequate funding was available, I would request authorization for an
expenditure not to exceed $20,000.
Based on information provided to me by Lane County Elections, no other jurisdiction appears likely to place
a measure on the ballot this November. If only Eugene placed a measure on the ballot, the City would pay
all election costs, currently estimated to be approximately $85,000.
If you have additional questions about a potential election, please don't hesitate to contact me at 682-8353.
November 2005 Election Timeline and Cost: Memo to Jeannine Parisi p. 1
ATTACHMENT D '>
City Manager's Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
MEMORANDUM (541) Eugene,682_5010 Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www,ci.eugene.or, us
Date: July 20, 2005
To: Mayor Piercy and City Council
From: Dennis M. Taylor, 682-5510
Subject: External Review of Police Department Complaints
As part of the Police Commission's work to develop a proposal on extemal review of complaints
regarding the Police Department, police commissioners met with various parties to solicit input.
In early May, Commissioners Tim Laue and Angie Sifuentez met with me (and Chief Lehner) to
review the commission's work on external review and to ask for my thoughts and perspectives.
During that meeting, I shared my thoughts with them on external review and, as a follow-up to
our discussion, I provided Commissioner Laue with a letter that outlined the minimum principles
I believe should underlie a complaint and review system, as well as a more detailed description
of a proposal on external review.
Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the May 17 letter to Commissioner Laue. Please
contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
L:\CMOL2005 Council Agendas'~vlO50725\SO50725B-attD.doc
Attachaeat D ~ City Manager's Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
May 17, 2005 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 Fax
Commissioner Tim Laue, Chair (541) 682-5045 TrY
Police Commission www. ci.eugene.or, us
Eugene Police Department
777 Pearl Street, Room106
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Dear Tim:
I want to thank you and Commissioner Angie Sifuentez for meeting with Chief Lehner and me
last week to review the evolving work of the Police Commission on possible approaches to
external review of complaints regarding the Eugene Police Department. I am impressed by the
commission's work to-date on these important concepts. I also appreciate the opportunity to
share my thoughts on what might be a workable model for the City of Eugene. By way of this
letter, I recommend the following ideas to the Police Commission for consideration as possible
approaches to improving our investigation and review processes.
The proposed complaint investigation and review process should be based upon several
underlying principles:
· The review process should ensure that investigations of community complaints are conducted
in an appropriate, competent, and thorough manner. Investigations should also be conducted
in such a manner that they ensure fairness to both the complainant and the Eugene Police
Department (EPD) employee, as well as protect the procedural and substantive due process
rights of the EPD employee.
· The review process should provide community members with opportunities to review how the
City is investigating and responding to complaints. It should also allow opportunities for
people to provide the City with suggestions on how to improve the investigation process.
· The review process should not discourage complainants from filing legitimate complaints, and
it should ensure that complainants feel their complaints have been appropriately investigated.
Complainants should also feel they have been adequately involved in, and informed of, the
investigation process.
· The review process should work within.the existing City Charter structure So that additional
expenses and bureaucratic layers are not unnecessarily created.
Tim 'Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 2
In addition to using resources the City already has in place, the proposed investigation and
review process should include the creation of two new resources: an internal auditor and an
External Review Board.
The internal auditor, who would be located within the City Manager's Office, should be
appointed by, and report to, the City Manager. Appointment of the auditor by the City Manager
(and not the City Council) means this new process can be commenced more quickly and less
expensively, since no vote will be required to amend the Charter. The internal auditor should
play an integral role throughout the investigation and review process.
An External Review Board should be established within the confines of the existing City
Charter. The board should be comprised of three to five community members appointed by the
City Manager. By having the City Manager appoint the review board members, issues regarding
the City Charter, as well as issues relating to the confidentiality of certain documents can be
avoided because the review board will essentially be acting as agents of the City as opposed to as
a public board.
The review board members should serve staggered terms of perhaps three years. The City
Council could review and approve criteria (proposed by the City Manager) that would govern the
appointment of the review board members. The criteria should be crafted to ensure that the
members represent a diverse cross-section of the community and that they are knowledgeable
about, or have expertise regarding, law enforcement, employment, and community issues.
The City Council's role with respect to the board shbuld include review and adoption of the
appointment criteria. In the event the council wishes to have a larger role in the appointment of
review board members, the council could interview and nominate candidates for the City
Manager's consideration. The City Manager could then select from among the council's
nominees (or reject them and request the council to nominate additional individuals).
The following is an overview of the proposed complaint investigation and review process I am
recommending:
Complaint Intake/Intemal Auditor
Individual complaints regarding the EPD should be received by the internal auditor.
Investigation of Complaint
The internal auditor should forward a complaint to the EPD for the actual investigation of the
complaint. The decision on who should conduct the investigation would depend upon the nature
and severity of the complaint. For example, complaints that involve performance or customer
service-related issues, such as discourtesy to citizens, could be investigated by the employee's
Tim' Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 3
supervisor. Complaints involving more serious allegations of improper conduct, such as use of
excessive force, racial profiling or abuse of power, should be investigated by the Internal Affairs
unit. The internal auditor would condult with the investigator and may make recommendations
regarding the investigation plan, information to be gathered, etc.
..Complainant Review After Investigation
After the investigator has completed the investigation of the complaint, and the investigator's
report has been reviewed by the Lieutenant and Captain, the report and chain-of-command
recommendation for adjudication should be forwarded to the internal auditor. The internal
auditor could then contact the complainant to discuss the investigation and the recommended
adjudication. This may require a change to the collective bargaining agreement, which could
only be accomplished with the consent of the union. The purpose of this contact would be to
provide the complainant an opportunity to disagree with the recommendation and request review
by the board before a final decision is made by the Police Chief or City Manager.
Review by External Review Board
If the complainant requests board review, the investigation would then be reviewed by the
External Review Board. The review board could state whether it agrees with the
recommendation and, if it does not, could provide its own recommendation to the final decision-
maker, i.e. the Chief of Police or City Manager.
Final Determination Regarding Discipline
The final decision about whether or not to discipline the EPD employee against whom the
complaint has been lodged would be determined b~, the Chief of Police or City Manager. Prior
to making the final determination, the City Manager or Police Chief could choose to ask the
internal auditor to review the investigation to determine whether there is evidence that the
investigator completed all of the necessary steps and gathered all of the necessary information.
Internal Auditor's General Review and Reports and Recommendations
Once the investigation has been completed and a final decision regarding whether or not to
impose discipline has been made, the internal auditor could review the investigation as part of an
on-going auditing process to evaluate the investigation process in general. This general review
would identify systemic issues, track trends, and gather statistical information. The internal
auditor could use this information to make periodic reports to the City Manager, Chief of Police
and City Council, as well as to provide recommendations for improving the way complaints and
investigations are handled in the future. Copies of such reports and recommendations could also
be provided to the External Review Board.
Tim Laue
May 18, 2005
Page 4
I fully support efforts to improve our internal affairs capacity and our EPD complaint-handling
processes. I believe that the addition of an auditor in the City Manager's office together with an
appointed Extemal Review Board combosed of knowledgeable community members who would
provide review and oversight of our complaint handling process is needed. By following these
few but important recommendations, I believe that it is possible to move forward with this type
of a police auditor, improve internal affairs capacity and create a civilian review process that is
wholly consistent with the existing City Charter. I thank you for considering my suggestions as
you complete this important work and I look forward to the Police Commission's final.
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Tayl2r
City Manager
ATTACHMENT E
Police Commission Work Plan
3uly aoo5 - March aoo6
Background
Eugene City Code requires that the Police Commission submit a yearly work plan to City Council for
review and approval. On July 28, 2004, City Council approved the commission's fiscal year 2005
work plan and an associated contingency fund request to expedite completion of the police complaint
system review.
In the past year, the commission has focused almost exclusively on a large and ambitious review of
internal affairs and civilian oversight processes. The group also completed several other projects
included in its work plan, such as the In-Car Video policy development, and to the extent feasible,
responded to emerging issues such as the PERF/ICMA report. The commission's accomplishments
over the last year are documented in its Annual Report, included as Attachment A.
Normally, over the course of its June and July meetings, the commission would develop a new work
plan for City Council review and adoption. However, the commission's recent meetings have been
devoted almost entirely to the development of conceptual police oversight model and associated
procedural recommendations. It is anticipated that once the model is presented to the City Council for
its consideration, a significant body of work related to model refinement and development of requisite
policy and ordinance language will remain. Recognizing the on-going and evolving body of work
related to the police complaint system and its own meeting time constraints to develop a new work
plan, the commission is requesting a nine-month work plan extension. The extension will allow time
for the commission to:
1) Continue development of the oversight model and participate in creating draft ordinance
and policy language necessary to support model implementation;
2) Adapt the model as necessary to reflect the outcome of a vote to change the City Charter
vote, if City Council decides to put forth such a measure;
3) Make recommendations for any changes to its role/function relative to the oversight system
and consider how those changes will impact future work plans (this could require changes
to existing ordinance).
The Police Commission has updated the FY05 work plan to indicate completed projects, modify the
task associated with the internal affairs and civilian oversight project to reflect anticipated next steps,
and to include a new item reflecting the commission's role in assessing progress towards
implementation of the PERF/ICMA recommendations contained in the department's strategic plan.
These efforts are described on the following pages.
Adopted June 23, 2005
Proposed Work Plan Objectives
Internal Affairs and Civilian Oversight Project
For the past nine months, the Police Commission has conducted an extensive review of current
practices for handling complaints against police, including a re-examination of different models of
civilian oversight. Background research for this project included a significant literature review and a
consultant report on models of civilian oversight in place nationally. In addition, multiple community
forums were held to seek public input on concerns with the current police complaint system and to
compile suggestions for improvements. Committees were formed to develop specific
recommendations for how complaints are received, classified, investigated and once a conclusion is
developed, reviewed. In May, the committees submitted a conceptual model to the Police Commission
that instills more robust civilian oversight into the complaint process. The model has been adjusted
based on input from stakeholder groups and the public, legal experts and oversight practitioners and
submitted to City Council for its consideration.
The commission proposes the following next steps to assist with implementation of a redesigned police
complaint system:
· refine the proposed oversight model per City Council direction/comments;
· assist with the development of enabling ordinance language;
· work with the city staff to craft policies in support of new oversight system procedures;
· convene and participate in a Mediation and Advocacy Task Team to recommend
procedures to expand access to and utilization of alternative complaint resolution options;
· continue public outreach and involvement of stakeholder groups in the redesign process;
· assist in the development of informational materials related to the new complaint system;
· develop recommendations regarding the role and organizational structure of the Police
Commission with regard to the new oversight components.
Other Short-Term Police Policy/Resource Projects
1) In Car Video (ICV) Policy Committee
The ICV Policy Committee was formed in 2004 to assist the police department in creating a policy for
the use of digital cameras in patrol vehicles in anticipation of a funding request for the equipment. The
committee presented a draft policy to the commission in February 2005 and requested conceptual
approval of the document. The draft policy would be used both in a request for Telecomm Tax funds
and in the digital system product selection process. Pending a decision on the actual digital video
system selected, the policy will be revisited and finalized. The commission proposes the following
next steps for the ICV committee:
· reconvene to discuss outstanding technical and procedural issues once a vendor and product is
selected and where appropriate, incorporate those issues into the draft policy;
· assist in ICV project evaluation by identifying the types of data that should be collected to
assess the success of the system and the supporting policy;
· present a final policy to the Police Commission for review and possible recommendation to the
Chief for adoption.
Police Commission Work Plan Page
2) "Tasers" as a Less Lethal Force Option
As "Tasers" become a more prevalent weapon deployed by law enforcement agencies across the
country, the body of experience in the tool's use is becoming more widely available. In last year's
work plan, the commission intended to assist the department in evaluating a pilot project for testing
"tasers" and developing a policy for their use. However, with mounting concerns about the safety of
this weapon and little independent research available to discern the associated risks, the commission
suggested to Chief Lehner that he postpone the pilot project pending the results of a national study on
"tasers." As part of the extended work plan, the commission will continue to monitor and compile
information on this tool and will be available to work with the department if a decision is made to
move forward with the pilot project in the next several months.
3) EPD Strategic Plan
The Police Commission has offered to act in a monitoring role as the department implements the
recommendations contained in the PERF/ICMA report. The most significant of those
recommendations will be included in the department's strategic plan, currently under development. As
the department's policy advisory board, the commission plans at least one work session to review and
comment on the strategic plan. The commission's on-going role in overseeing the implementation of
the plan and any direct involvement in the plan recommendations (i.e., policy review associated with
seeking accreditation) will be reflected FY06-07 work plan proposal.
Next Steps
With City Council approval, the Police Commission will continue to move forward on the projects
described in this "extended" work plan. The commission will return to the City Council no later than
March 2006 to discuss the latest work on the internal affairs and civilian oversight project and present
a new work plan for the remainder of FY06 and possibly FY07. The commission will continue to
submit regular status reports to the council detailing progress made towards accomplishing the work
plan objectives and any unanticipated changes to its tasks and project timeline.
Police Commission Work Plan Page 3