Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: Res/November ElectionEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: Resolution 4850 Calling a City Election on November 8, 2005, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Amending the Eugene Charter of 2002 to Authorize the City Council to Provide for External Review of Police- Related Complaints Meeting Date: August 8, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Dennis Taylor www. eugene-or, gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5010 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item on the proposed amendments to the Eugene City Charter. It has been placed on the agenda at the request of the City Council after its review of the report submitted by the Police Commission and its recommendation on an external auditor and a citizen review panel. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2005 the City Council met in a joint work session with the Police Commission. At that meeting, the Police Commission presented its recommendation regarding the police complaint system. The recommendations were the result of almost a year of study and review of internal affairs procedures and civilian oversight systems. (For more detailed information on the study by and work of the Police Commission, refer to the materials provided to the City Council for the July 25, 2005, meeting.) The City Council received the recommendation which called for a City Council-appointed external auditor to review complaints about the Eugene Police Department. The Police Commission further recommended that a citizen review board, also appointed by the City Council be created. In response to the Police Commission recommendation, the City Council approved a motion directing the City Manager to "bring back to the council at its August 8, 2005, meeting 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." The timing of actions relating to the resolution needs to be noted. The last day the council may pass a resolution or ordinance placing a measure on the November 8, 2005, ballot is August 31 (Eugene Code 2.992). The City Recorder must file a certified measure with Lane County Elections no later than September 8 (ORS 254). The council is scheduled to meet twice (August 8 and August 10) before its summer recess from August 11 through September 11. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050808\S0508084.doc If the council takes action on August 8 or 10, an appeal of a ballot title could require the council to reconvene during its recess to hear that appeal. Deadlines for such a hearing would be August 29 for an August 8 resolution and August 31 for an August 10 resolution. Selection of members to serve on voters' pamphlet committees would occur August 23, with initial pro and con statements due on September 15 (EC 2.996). The Eugene Code dictates that at least one City Councilor who voted in support of the ballot measure serve on the voters' pamphlet committee; up to three are allowed. 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 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 1. The council can approve the resolution as written. 2. The council can request changes to the resolution. 3. The council can decide not to place a measure on the November 2005 ballot. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that no change be made to the Eugene Charter and that he be given budgetary authority to hire an auditor and establish a citizen review board as proposed in the Manager's May 17, 2005, letter to Tim Laue, a copy of which is attached as Attachment C. If this is not the desire of the City Council, he further recommends that the election on the charter amendment take place in May 2006 in order to lower the cost of the election, provide a longer time period for public and community discussion, and increase the likelihood of greater voter participation in a primary election. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Move to adopt Resolution No. 4850 calling a city election on November 8, 2005, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending the Eugene Charter of 2002 to authorize the City Council to provide for external review of police-related complaints Move to authorize the expenditure up to $100,000 from the General Fund contingency account to pay for a special election on November 8, 2005. Move to authorize the expenditure of up to $20,000 from the General Fund contingency account to produce a voters' pamphlet for the November 8, 2005, election. Move to appoint, , and to the committee to prepare the voters' pamphlet proponent statement. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050808\S0508084.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Number 4850: A Resolution Calling a City Election on November 8, 2005, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Amending the Eugene Charter of 2002 to Authorize the City Council to Provide for External Review of Police-Related Complaints (including Exhibit A - Proposed Charter Amendment Language) B. Memorandum from City Recorder Mary Feldman to Police Commission dated July 14, 2005 C. Memorandum from City Manager Dennis Taylor to the Police Commission dated May 17, 2005 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dennis Taylor Telephone: 682-5010 Staff E-Mail: dennis, m.taylor~ci, eugene, or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050808\S0508084.doc ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CALLING A CITY ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING TO THE LEGAL ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF EUGENE A MEASURE AMENDING THE EUGENE CHARTER OF 2002 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW OF POLICE-RELATED COMPLAINTS. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. On July 25, 2005 the Eugene Police Commission presented to the City Council its report and recommendations on a police complaint system and civilian oversight. The Commission recommended that an amendment to the Eugene Charter of 2002 be placed on the ballot authorizing the City Council to provide for external review of police-related complaints. B. During a work session on July 25, 2005, the City Council determined it would be in the public interest to submit to the legal electors of the City a measure amending the Eugene Charter of 2002, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. A city election is called for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Eugene a measure, attached as Exhibit A hereto, concerning the amendment of the Eugene Charter of 2002 to provide for external review of police-related complaints. Section 2. The City Council orders a city election to be held in the City of Eugene, Oregon, on the 8th day of November, 2005 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 254 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, and the ballots shall be counted and tabulated and the results certified as provided by law. Section 3. The City Recorder is directed to give not less than ten days' notice of the city election by publication of one notice in the Register Guard, a newspaper published in the City and of general circulation within the City. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted this __ day of ., 2005. City Recorder Resolution Measure No. Section 15-A is added to the Eugene Charter of 2002 to provide as follows. Section 15-A. External Review of Police (1) The city council is authorized to hire, supervise and specify the salary of an independent police auditor to oversee investigations of complaints of misconduct by police employees. Notwithstanding section 16 of this charter, the city council may authorize the auditor to: (a) receive complaints about sworn police officers and civilian police employees; (b) contract with persons or entities to perform outside investigations of such complaints; (c) monitor the city's internal investigations of such complaints and require the city to undertake additional investigation; (d) make recommendations to the city manager or designee following the investigation; and (e) prepare reports on complaint trends. (2) The city council is authorized to appoint a citizen review board of not more than seven members to review investigations of misconduct by sworn police officers. Notwithstanding section 16 of this charter, the city council may authorize the citizen review board to: (a) review the city's completed investigation and adjudication of complaints of misconduct filed against sworn police officers; (b) require that the city re-open an investigation; (c) provide comments on an investigation, including recommendations to the city manager or designee about the investigation; and (d) review trends and statistics of complaints against such officers. Exhibit A ATTACHMENT B ~.~..~..,,,..~.. City Recorder's Offic City of Eugene 777 Pead Street, Room 105 MEMORANDUM (541Eugene' Oregon 97401-2793) 682-5042 (541) 682-5414 FAX www.eugene-or.gov Date: Suly 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 Coy 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 C ~ City Manager's Office City of Eugene May 17, 2005 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793 (541) 682-5010 Commissioner Tim Laue, Chair (541) 682-5414 Fax (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 Angle 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 cra~ed 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 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 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, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager