Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Police Auditor/Civilian Review Board Update ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board Report Meeting Date: November 10, 2008 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Police Auditor Staff Contact: Dawn Reynolds www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5028 ISSUE STATEMENT This agenda item, by request of the council, is an update on services provided by the Police Auditor’s Office and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). BACKGROUND In the past year, questions have been raised as to how the oversight system is supposed to work. Recent changes in personnel in both the Police Auditor’s Office and the Eugene Police Department coincided with the resolution of several issues relating to the interpretation and application of City ordinances governing the civilian oversight system. The City Manager provided critical leadership and direction in resolving these issues. On November 4, 2008, Eugene voters approved a Charter Amendment demonstrating Eugene’s commitment to the Auditor and the CRB. Some concerns remain. This is an opportunity for the council to encourage the auditor and City Manager to work together to improve the oversight system and service to the community. RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene City Ordinance 20374 establishing the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board. 1. The Police Auditor provides citizens an independent location and means through which citizens can lodge complaints involving police employees. The auditor is charged with monitoring internal investigations to ensure objective and thorough investigations, and with developing recommendations to improve police services and the oversight system and providing status reports. (2.454) 2. The Civilian Review Board serves as an advisory body to the City Council and the Police Auditor. The CRB is charged with increasing the transparency of and public confidence in, the police complaint process. This is consistent with the principles of community policing and government accountability. (2.244) COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may: 1.Create a subcommittee to develop recommendations for the supervision and management of the Police Auditor and regular communication and coordination with the Civilian Review Board. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081110\S081110B.doc 2.Create a reporting schedule by the Police Auditor to Council. 3.Direct the City Manager and Police Auditor to work with the Police Commission and Civilian Review Board to review current policies and procedures and, where appropriate, recommend changes necessary to accomplish the goals of the civilian oversight system. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to establish a council subcommittee to develop recommendations for the supervision and management of the Police Auditor and regular communication and coordination the Civilian Review Board. Move to adopt a reporting schedule by the Police Auditor to the council. Move to direct the City Manager and Police Auditor to work with the Police Commission and Civilian Review Board to review current policies and procedures and, where appropriate, recommend changes necessary to accomplish the goals of the civilian oversight system. ATTACHMENTS A. Auditor’s Report to Council B. Civilian Review Board’s Report to Council C. Spreadsheets D. Survey Forms E. Memo to Mayor and Council from Interim Auditor, Dated 9-11-08 Re: Notes from Meeting with Council President, Chris Pryor Communication and Reporting to Council FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dawn Reynolds Telephone: 541-682-5028 Staff E-Mail: dawn.m.reynolds@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081110\S081110B.doc ATTACHMENT A City of Eugene Office of Police Auditor 777 Pearl, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5016 (541) 682-5414 FAX www.eugene-or.gov TO: Mayor Piercy and Members of the City Council FROM: AIC Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds DATE: November 10,2008 RE: Report to Council Overview: In light of recent developments affecting the Auditors Office and the Civilian Review Board, much of the content of this report has been revamped to reflect the current operating climate. As Council has not received a report from the Auditors Office since the first of the year, a comprehensive report is not feasible. With a new work plan establishing a regular reporting cycle in place, we will be able to address specific areas of the oversight system in greater depth. Vicki Cox is the new Administrative Assistant in the Auditors Office and has been an invaluable addition. Tracking & Reporting: 1) SS: The Auditors Office has adopted a new format for tracking UMMARY PREADSHEET and reporting allegations of misconduct through the use of an expanded spreadsheet. I would appreciate your feedback on this format and whether you find the information 1 useful. The spreadsheet is attached to this report. The report, attempts to provide some narrative context in a succinct, accessible format. This format is different I believe from earlier reports you have seen in that it tracks an internal affairs complaint from the date of opening through review and adjudication. In looking at reports from other jurisdictions, including those jurisdictions under consent decrees, it appeared this level of information and the ability to track the progress and outcome of individual cases would be useful to policy makers. It will also allow us to measure the response of civilians involved in reviewing cases. In instances in which the CRB has reviewed the case, data is provided which allows a comparison between the 1 2.454 (f) Perform a quality assurance function with the goal of identifying systemic changes that will improve police services to the community. Page 1 of 4 final adjudication of the allegations by EPD, what the auditor had recommended, and how the CRB voted on the individual allegations. If an allegation was sustained by EPD, the report also reflects what measures were taken. These range from counseling to termination. If there was a related risk claim filed, that information is available as well. Over time, we hope to track the Service Complaints in this manner as well. 2) CRBCRS:In order to track outcomes of the IVILIAN EVIEW OARD ASE EPORT URVEY civilian oversight review process, the Auditors Office has worked with a volunteer, David Murphy, to develop an instrument which will allow us to track specific trends. Dr. Murphy teaches Criminal Justice at Western Oregon University and lives in Eugene. He has undergone a complete and thorough background check. In time, data gathered through this process might be used in a variety of ways to improve EPD performance, shape policy and address issues of training. The instrument has several components but the object is to measure the fairness, thoroughness and timeliness of investigations, the work of the Auditor, and whether adjudication recommendations and outcomes are perceived as being reasonable and fair. A copy of the survey form used in the September 2008 case review is attached. 3)POSIS:A third survey has been OLICE VERSIGHT YSTEM MPLEMENTATION URVEY developed to measure attitudes and beliefs about the oversight system, how effective it is perceived to be, and the level of support of different entities within the community. This survey is brand new and has not been administered to anyone as yet. Again, feedback is welcome. A copy of the survey form is attached. General Observations: RA:Not all civil claims against EPD have a related administrative file ISK SSESSMENT based on a service complaint or allegation of misconduct. From January 1 through September 30, 2008, 29 risk claims were filed with the City; of these claims, five are associated with conduct or service complaints. While most of the claims are quite modest, i.e., reimbursement for lost or damaged property, others represent more significant liability. SC: Service complaints are less formal and are handled through the ERVICE OMPLAINTS chain of command. Typically, this means that the identified officer’s sergeant makes an inquiry into the alleged complaint. When we reach full staffing levels we should be able to pull this data together. We are currently tracking the instances in which a complaint originally classified by the Auditor was reclassified by the Chief of Police. Since May, this has occurred eight times. It should be noted, these do not include cases in which the Auditor, upon further information, reclassified the complaint. Auditors Report to Council—11-10-08, page 2 UF: The community is greatly concerned regarding the use of force by EPD SE OF ORCE employees. The adoption of Tasers as a less-than-lethal tool has been the focus of much debate and we are seeing more complaints in which Tasers have been a factor. Eugene’s experience in this matter is similar to that of other jurisdictions. Literature on the subject indicates that the device is frequently used as a pain-compliance tool. Some jurisdictions are questioning whether the use is appropriate in instances involving minor offenses. Others prohibit use of the device against mentally ill persons or someone known to be on drugs. Because we are a smaller jurisdiction, attention to lessons learned in larger cities may prove helpful. APM.CP:We have seen several instances in ARAMILITARY ODEL VS OMMUNITY OLICING which warrantless entries into homes were justified as community policing while the tactics used during the entries were described in paramilitary terms. This may be a valuable topic of discussion. TFI:In designing the instrument used by HOROUGHNESS AND AIRNESS OF NVESTIGATIONS the CRB to review cases and measure investigations, the issue of sufficiency of evidence had become apparent. CRB members stated they often felt compelled to conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain an allegation because the investigation itself had been insufficient in key areas. Examples included the lack of timelines during the critical periods which gave rise to the allegation, witnesses who had not been interviewed at all, and those who had been interviewed but key questions had been overlooked. This may have been exacerbated by the practice of suspending administrative investigations while criminal proceedings against the complainants or witnesses were resolved. Investigators may have become over reliant on using testimony and evidence in the criminal trials as the basis of the administrative investigation. We are optimistic that this will improve over time. Progress: 1)I,CT: The CRB and the Auditor provide a MPROVEMENT OOPERATION AND RUST small, but valuable, perspective of how well Internal Affairs is functioning and, by extension, the police department in general. In working with IA staff and investigators, it is apparent they are dedicated, thoughtful individuals committed to public service. Neither the Auditors Office nor the CRB could function without their help and cooperation. Much of this has to do with Captain Steve Swensen. Captain Swensen graciously accommodates our needs and requests through every means at his disposal—including the following: a.When we were without an administrative assistant this summer, Kathy Quinn, IA Administrative Specialist, came over and helped with office tasks and helped us develop a new and more effective filing system. Kathy was also instrumental in providing data and helping with formatting the new spreadsheet for tracking complaints. b.Cindy Coleman, IA Program Coordinator, has patiently trained the Interim Auditor and the new Administrative Assistant in using the IAPRO Auditors Report to Council—11-10-08, page 3 software upon which we depend. We continue to rely on her expertise, and patience, as we learn how to make more effective use of this software. Both she and Vicki Cox will be attending a 3-day training session with IAPRO in Scottsdale. c.Lt. Carolyn McDermed regularly attended all of the CRB meetings, was an invaluable resource to the board. When issues arose with regard to some parts of individual investigations she provided feedback and worked with investigators. They have all born this with professional fortitude and patience. d.Sergeant Scott Mckee and Sergeant Doug Mozan have worked collaboratively with the Auditor and the Deputy Auditor on over 70 misconduct cases since the year began. Sergeant Jerry Webber will be stepping in to fill Scott McKee’s shoes and we are anticipating a good working relationship with him. 1)MO: The question frequently arises, is the system working? As EASURING UTCOMES an optimist I have always answered that question in the affirmative. However, one of the reasons I have chosen to work with Dr. Murphy is that we want to base our perspectives on information that is quantifiable and reliable and not merely anecdotal. 2)CL: AIC Chief Kerns and I have committed to working OMMITMENT AND EADERSHIP closely together. As the Patrol captain, Pete Kerns made it a practice to meet every other week with the Auditor so in many ways this will be a natural extension of our working relationship. Through these frequent discussions I believe we have both gained a great appreciation for our respective roles. We are both committed to improving performance, showing genuine appreciation for the good work performed by EPD employees, and gratitude for the dedication of the many volunteers who help EPD and who serve on the Civilian Review Board. Continued support from staff in the City Managers Office is essential for the Auditors Office. Jon Ruiz has made a point of inviting us to participate in CMO training and team building opportunities. The retreat earlier this fall provided a welcome opportunity to meet and get to know the many talented individuals at the heart of City government. CMO helps us with everything from payroll to purchasing to covering our phones and fitting us into the busy schedules of Council Members and the City Manager. Throughout my short tenure with the City, Mr. Ruiz’s thoughtful approach to problem-solving has been especially appreciated. Finally, I want to thank a pro-active and involved City Council. You have been instrumental in steering the oversight system through four very difficult months. I am looking forward to continuing the work of the oversight system with your support and involvement. Dawn Reynolds Auditors Report to Council—11-10-08, page 4 ATTACHMENT B Civilian Review Board Norton Cabell, Chair 777 Pearl, Room 105 Kate Wilkinson, Vice Chair Eugene, Oregon 97401 Munir Katul (541) 682-5005 Anne-Marie Lemire (541) 682-5414 FAX Richard Brissendon www.eugene-or.gov Civilian Review Board Report To City Council January – September 2008 The goal of the CRB, under Eugene City ordinance, is to “increase the transparency of, and public confidence in, the police complaint process.”We do that by (1) evaluating the work of the Auditor, (2) reviewing selected completed complaint investigations,(3) reviewing trends and statistics regarding complaints,and (4) providing a forum for the expression of community concerns about specific incidents. Evaluating the Police Auditor: We began discussions this past spring, assisted by Alana Holmes of the City’s Human Resources Department, regarding a process for reviewing the work of the Auditor. However, that came to a halt once former auditor Cris Beamud announced her resignation. We, both the CRB and the community, were fortunate that we already had Dawn Reynolds on board as Deputy Auditor. The Council has since appointed her as the Interim Police Auditor. While the Board members certainly miss Cris, the transition has been quite seamless. Dawn and Cris had worked well together so there have not been any gaps in service to the public or support for the board, and we have witnessed welcomed innovations to the process. Reviewing Investigations of Complaints: The Board began reviewing actual complaints in January 2008. Through September 2008 we have reviewed 10 cases. At the end of each month the Auditor provides a summary of cases that have closed and makes her own recommendation as to which case(s) she believes would have the greatest value to the oversight system. Although we have had occasion to review two cases in a single meeting, the norm is to review a single case. The reviews follow lengthy preparation on the part of the Auditor and her staff and our board members. Before each meeting we review a complete case file. Typically this consists of an AIC Report prepared by the IA investigator, underlying police reports, occasional medical reports, and taped interviews of the complainant, witnesses, involved officers and, where available, in-car videos. Preparation time for CRB members before a meeting probably takes an average of eight hours. We decided not to draft a formal process for determining what cases to review until we had more experience, though we have paid particular attention to requests from complainants and to recommendations from the Auditor. Of the ten cases reviewed, four were in response to requests from complainants. In our reviews, we have sometimes agreed with the Chief and sometimes not; we have also sometimes agreed with the Auditor and sometimes not. At present, the sample is too small to draw any statistically reliable conclusions. However, it has become apparent that we are compiling a number of cases from which themes appear to be emerging. We have provided feedback to the Internal Affairs team on their investigations and believe we have seen improvement in the quality of the investigations. For example, we now see noticeably fewer leading questions asked of the witnesses and, while there is still room for improvement, the general tone of questions asked in interviews seems more neutral. The lieutenant in charge of IA regularly attends our meetings, observes our case reviews and then takes information back to IA staff and Police Chief. We have developed a set of procedures so that at our public hearings we do not disclose names of complainants or officers. Unfortunately, on the rare occasion when a name has become public through other means, the CRB and the oversight process has been unfairly blamed. The Board and Auditor are working on this important issue and hope to develop additional safeguards for confidential information while preserving transparency in the oversight system. Reviewing trends: We are fortunate in that the AIC Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, has experience in market research. She has initiated a program to help us develop a framework for collecting and analyzing the information we are gathering. She recruited David Murphy, Ph.D. and Associate Professor in the Criminal Justice Department at Western Oregon University, to help with this task. The initial task was to develop and refine an instrument for use in our case reviews that should provide a range of data, including how our response to investigations and outcomes reflects: 1) The thoroughness and fairness of the investigation. 2) The degree to which we perceive the Auditor's recommendation to have been based on relevant facts and applicable legal and administrative standards. 3) The degree to which we perceive the Chief’s final adjudication to have been based on relevant facts and applicable legal and administrative standards. Dr. Murphy is now volunteering with the Auditor to setup a similar framework for other studies applicable to the civilian oversight process here in Eugene. Because our system is relatively new, we cannot claim to have identified specific trends. But we believe that now is the time to establish the tools for analyzing the data we are collecting. We are appreciative of Ms. Reynolds’s initiative in this area and the support of Dr. Murphy. As we perform our duties in support of the oversight system, we hope our discussions will become increasingly reflective of the values of the community. Ms. Reynolds and Dr. Murphy are working to consider the best means to understand what the expression “community values” means within the context of Eugene public safety and police oversight, and how we might reach out to different parts of the community for their understanding of what community values are. Providing a Public Forum for Oversight Issues and Concerns Through the first part of the year we continued our outreach program. The Auditor and at least one CRB member would visit various organizations and groups around the city, both to explain and publicize our existence, and to listen to the concerns of various constituencies. This has been very valuable. We continue to visit groups, though at a slower pace because the Auditor’s office is short- staffed. We also work with and coordinate efforts with other City agencies and programs. For example, our work in reviewing an allegation of excessive force in which a flashlight was used to strike and injure, a teenager has resulted in our proposing to the Police Commission a policy change on the use of flashlights. The Auditor provided research on the issue and on what other jurisdictions have done in making the switch to lighter, brighter flashlights that would meet the needs of officers but that would discourage their use as primary impact weapons. At each of our regular meetings, we provide a time for public comment. Since June, almost all public comment has been focused on two incidents: IA08-122 (the so-called “secret” case) and IA08-123 (the so-called “May 30Taser” case). We named IA08-123 as our first-ever Community Impact Case, because of the intense public interest (143 column-inches in the Register Guard in one month). The public, we believe, is legitimately concerned about both these cases and they go to the heart of the CRB’s mission of increasing transparency and public confidence. When ex-Chief Lehner adopted a policy suspending administrative investigations until all criminal proceedings had been exhausted, the CRB expressed its concerns. With the goal of correcting the precedents set over the past few months, the CRB worked with and encouraged the Auditor to continue to press for renewed access to records, to monitor investigations, and to participate in interviews as anticipated under the ordinance. The CRB wishes to express its gratitude to the City Manager, Mayor, Council Members, and the City Attorney for the work leading up to the City Manager's recent announcement that he was instructing the AIC Chief of Police to rescind these previous policies and to work within the boundaries of the ordinance. While it may at times have been an uncomfortable and unwelcome process, the protracted public debate and increased scrutiny of the system has had a positive effect in that more people in Eugene now understand what is at stake and why oversight is important in our community. Commitment to the oversight system and upholding the Ordinance is vital if we are to see overall improvement in police performance and a building of the public’s trust and confidence in the department. With the changes in staffing at EPD, we are hopeful that the system will get back on track and that the AIC Auditor and AIC Chief will be able to work well together. We look forward to working with AIC Chief Pete Kerns. Finally, the CRB wishes to extend an open invitation to individual Council members to attend our monthly meetings and learn more about the Eugene oversight system. We would certainly welcome your feedback and would be glad to answer any questions you may have. But most of all, we want you to judge for yourselves how well the system is working. It is still a work in progress, but with each passing month, we are discovering ways to improve the system. It is a civilian system and as the elected representatives of the community, your observations and input would be of great benefit. Thank you for your continued support. Norton Cabell, Chair Kate Wilkinson, Vice-Chair Richard Brissenden Munir Katul Ann-Marie Lemire November 10, 2008 ATTACHMENT D Police Oversight System Implementation Survey Please identify the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling the appropriate response. X. Eugene’s police oversight system is being implemented as originally designed/intended. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is being implemented in a fashion that would be satisfactory to the average resident of Eugene. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of investigating citizen complaints against the police. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of resolving citizen complaints against the police. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of holding EPD officers accountable for their actions. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of promoting police professionalism and ethical conduct. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of reviewing/examining EPD policies. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of initiating policy changes (when necessary). a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree X. Eugene’s police oversight system is an effective method of promoting effective management and supervision of officers. a. strongly agree b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. strongly disagree Please circle your response to the following items: X. To what extent have the following parties/entities been supportive of Eugene’s police oversight system? The police chief a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive The police auditor a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive The Police Commission a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive The Civilian Review Board a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive EPD supervisors/management (sergeants, lieutenants, etc.) a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive Police Officers (patrol officers and line-staff) a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive The EPD Internal Affairs Unit/Division a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive Citizens a. very supportive b. moderately supportive c. undecided d. moderately unsupportive e. very unsupportive ATTACHMENTD1 CRBCRS IVILIAN EVIEW OARD ASE EPORT URVEY Case #: IA08-109 Review Date: 9/22/08 A. Outcome ALLEGATIONS: Concur Concur Chief 1. POM 1101.1B.2 Abuse of Position, the officer ? ? allowed personal motives to govern his response 2. POM 308.14 Missing Persons, the officer ? ? did not follow policy 3. POM 1101.1 Judgment ? ? 4. POM 1101.1(B)(2) Prompt submission of ? ? reports/truthful and complete 5. POM 1101(b)16 Integrity ? ? B. Handling of the Complaint The complaint was processed promptly. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The nature of the complaint was categorized appropriately. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The follow-up with complainantwas conducted promptly. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The interview of the complainant was conducted in a fair, thorough and timely manner. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The nature of the alleged violation was clearly addressed. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The complainant was notified of the result of the investigation. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree 1 C. Fairness and Thoroughness of the Investigation The allegations in this case were investigated thoroughly. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Investigators made the necessary efforts to identify and locate witnesses. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The witnesses were treated fairly/properly. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Interviews with witnesses were conducted in a thorough manner. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Interviews with witnesses were conducted in an unbiased manner. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Investigators used available investigative resources (in-car video, police databases, etc.) in a satisfactory manner during the course of the investigation. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Internal Affairs reports were written clearly and logically. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Internal Affairs reports were written without apparent bias. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree D. Reasonableness of the Adjudication The Auditor’s recommendation to the Chief was well reasoned. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The Auditor’s recommendation was based on facts supported by a preponderance of evidence. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree 2 The Chief’s decision was well reasoned. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The Chief’s adjudication was based on facts supported by a preponderance of the available evidence. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree The Chief’s adjudication was consistent with community values. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree D. Issues Related to Policy and Procedure This case reveals the need to review/examine certain Department policies. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree If yes, please indicate which policy/policies should be reviewed and any additional recommendation/comments here: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Certain investigative procedures should be analyzed as a result of this investigation. ? strongly agree ? agree ? undecided ? disagree ? strongly disagree Include additional comments here: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Other Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3 ATTACHMENT E City of Eugene Police Auditor 777 Pearl, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5005 (541) 682-5414 FAX www.eugene-or.gov To: Mayor and Council From: Dawn Reynolds, Interim Auditor Date: 09-11-08 RE: Notes from 09-10-08 Meeting With Council President, Chris Pryor Chris Pryor and I met to discuss how to maintain and improve communication between City Council members and the Interim Auditor. While this is clearly a work in progress, and will benefit from input from each of you, the following ideas were discussed: 1)Schedule meetings with individual Councilors to review activities, solicit feedback, and maintain communication. 2)Develop a regular reporting structure to Council on current workload, general case activities, and operational statistics. The best format to use for these reports still needs to be worked out as well as the level of detail which Council wants to see in the reports. Some ideas include: a)Updates on the intake of complaints filed during the year including: i)A brief synopsis of each case and it’s resolution (maintaining appropriate confidentiality of complainant and employee information) ii)The recommended adjudications made to Chief in those cases requiring one iii)The role of the Citizen Review Board in selecting or reviewing closed or adjudicated cases iv)An update on service level complaints for which the Auditor’s Office provided intake v)Any needed analysis of trends evident in service level complaints b)An update on activities being undertaken to reinforce the relationships between the Auditor’s Office, the Police Department, the Citizen Review Board, and the Police Commission: i)Identify ongoing activities to increase communication ii)Work collaboratively to identify any policy issues which require clarification. 3)Develop an informational outline on the role of the Auditor’s Office as required by the ordinance. Articulate the specific authority of the Auditor, the general scheme of checks and balances governing the Auditor, and those tasks required to be performed by federal, state, or local regulation or statute. Provide an overview of the discretionary authority the Auditor has to perform tasks versus those tasks which are obligatory. 4)Prepare a report on the coordinated role of the Auditors Office, EPD and the CRB: a)Allegations of Misconduct: In general terms, the Auditor’s Office receives a complaint, EPD Internal Affairs performs the investigation, then the Auditor’s Office reviews the investigative materials and makes a recommendation to the Chief on adjudication; the Chief then makes the final decision and the CRB may choose to review the case. b)Service Complaints: In general terms, the Auditors Office receives and process service complaints which are subsequently investigated and handled via the named officer’s chain of command. c)The data from both forms of intake are then studied collected to determine if there are significant trends, or issues, which might be used to improve police performance and better serve the needs of the community. 5)Set a time to report to the Council (sooner rather than later) on these initiatives. Hopefully this can assist in the selection process for a new Police Auditor. 6)At its earliest convenience, have the City Council define the ongoing supervision and reporting structure to be used between the Auditor and the Council. During the interim, the Council President has assumed the job of meeting regularly with the Auditor, but does not want to assume this to be the official practice without the endorsement of the Council. To ensure good communication, meetings between the Council President and the Auditor will be summarized by email to the Council and Mayor. I am looking forward to hearing from you collectively as well as individually. Dawn Reynolds AIC Auditor Eugene Police Auditors Office 800 Olive Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 682-5028 Cell: (503) 931-4224