HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Update on the Implementation of Measure 20-106 (Police Auditor)
Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Mary Walston
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5406
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is a work session on the status of the implementation of Measure 20-106 - the development
and hiring of an auditor and citizen review board to oversee and investigate complaints against
members of the Eugene Police Department.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2005, the voters of Eugene approved a charter amendment to allow the City
Council to hire an external auditor and appoint a citizen review board. The measure added new
language to the charter 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 involving police employees.
Notwithstanding section 16 of this charter, the city council may authorize the auditor to: (a)
receive, classify and route 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, including but not limited to access to all evidence
developed as part of the investigation and participation in investigative interviews related to
such complaints, and require the city to undertake additional investigation; (d) make
recommendations to the city manager or designee following the investigation; (e) prepare
reports on complaint trends and police practices in general; and (f) act as a liaison to and
provide staff support for the civilian review board.
(2) The city council is authorized to appoint a civilian review board of not more than
seven members to review investigations of complaints involving sworn police officers.
Notwithstanding section 16 of this charter, the city council may authorize the civilian review
board to: (a) review the completed investigation and adjudication of complaints filed against
sworn police officers; (b) require that the city re-open an investigation; (c) provide comments on
an investigation, including recommendations to the independent police auditor, city manager or
designee about the investigation; (d) review trends and statistics of complaints against sworn
police officers and civilian employees, and provide reports and recommendations to the city
council; and (e) oversee and evaluate the work of the independent police auditor.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118Ba.DOC
At the City Council meeting on November 14, 2005, following voter approval of the charter
amendment, a memorandum from the Police Commission was presented to the City Council. This
memorandum (see Attachment A) proposed a short-term and longer-term role for the Police
Commission.
After a discussion of the proposals contained in the memorandum, the City Council, by a vote of
6:1, approved a motion to allow the Police Commission to:
“Conduct research from other communities with police auditors and based on a compilation
of that data, present (1) elements to be considered in a job description for the police auditor
position that are tailored to the responsibilities as proposed in the Police Commission’s
proposal; and (2) a recommendation for a set of characteristics and qualifications to be
considered for the police auditor position. Additionally, to (1) assist with the development of
enabling ordinance language necessary to establish the oversight system; (2) work with city staff
to craft new policies and modify existing policies to ensure consistent operating practices for the
oversight system and to reflect changes in the internal affairs process; (3) develop
recommendations regarding the role and organizational structure of the Police Commission with
regard to the new oversight components; and (4) provide input to council on the disposition of
other outstanding issues.”
A subcommittee of the Police Commission was formed to address the short-term charge with
regard to the auditor job description and candidate profile.. The committee submitted its
recommendation to the Police Commission for review and approval at the January 12, 2006,
Police Commission meeting which is after the press date of this agenda packet. If the Police
Commission makes a final recommendation on the short-term tasks assigned to it on January 12,
those recommendations will be provided via special courier on Friday, January 13.
In addition to the efforts of the Police Commission, work is in progress to secure budgetary
authority in Fiscal Year 2007 to hire the police auditor. The FY07 budget is to include one-time
start-up expenses for the auditor and citizen review board, as well as expenses for FY07
operations. The Facilities Division is researching options for office space for the auditor and staff
and Human Resource and Risk Services is available to assist the council as necessary with the
recruitment process.
A number of short-term and long-term decisions remain in order have the oversight model in
place and fully functioning. The short-term issues to be addressed by the City Council are:
1) Affirmation by the City Council that an auditor is to be hired and citizen review board is to
be appointed as per the July 25, 2005 Police Commission report to the City Council;
2) Creation of a timeline and plan for the recruitment and selection of the auditor;
3) Agreement on a job description and candidate profile for the auditor;
4) Process for screening and reviewing auditor candidates;
5) Role of the Police Commission in the above noted recruitment and selection processes; and
6) Development of policies and/or ordinances related to the auditor and citizen review board itself.
Longer-term decisions include:
1) Hiring and supervision of staff to support the auditor;
2) Process and procedures for recruitment, selection and appointment of citizen review board
members;
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118Ba.DOC
3) Data collection and reporting work of the auditor and citizen review board; and
4) Ongoing role of the Police Commission with regard to the auditor and review board.
Short-Term Decisions Discussion
The Charter amendment approved by voters in November only authorizes the council to hire and
supervise an independent police auditor. The City Council has not yet formally stated its intention
to implement that authority, nor has it formally stated it will also appoint a citizen review board.
At the present time, there is no budgetary authority in the FY06 budget to recruit or hire the
auditor. A timeline for the recruitment and hiring process for the auditor needs to be developed.
It is estimated that the recruitment and selection processes will take three to four months from
start to having the auditor on the job.
The Police Commission has worked on a job description and a candidate profile. These need to
be agreed upon the City Council in order to begin the recruitment and selection processes.
The recruitment and selection process needs to be agreed upon by the City Council. For the
position of City Manager, also hired, supervised and evaluated by the City Council, an outside
recruitment firm was engaged to conduct the candidate search and narrow the applicant pool to a
final few candidates to be interviewed. The Police Commission has developed elements to include
in a job description and a candidate profile. Once the recruitment process is determined, the
council will need to determine if the information is sufficient or if additional information is needed.
Policy and legislation regarding the auditor and citizen review board needs to be developed to
address items such as removal of the auditor, codification of the review board, and autonomy of
the review board itself. The Police Commission, which has been instrumental in the development
of the external review model approved the by the voters, could continue to assist the council at
this time with regard to the development of immediate or overarching policy or ordinance issues.
Long-Term Decisions Discussion
The City Council is authorized to hire an independent auditor. An issue to be decided is the status
of the auditor; that is, is the auditor to be a regular employee or a contract employee, similar in
status to the Municipal Judge.
The Charter amendment authorizes the appointment of a citizen review board, but does not
identify how the board members will be recruited and selected. The Police Commission report of
July 25, 2005, makes suggestions on this topic, but the City Council needs to agree on these
issues prior to the appointment of the citizen review board. Further, the Charter amendment
states that the citizen review board may oversee and evaluate the work of the independent
auditor.
In the Charter language, the auditor may receive and classify complaints about sworn police
officers. A reporting system which provides protections to all involved in such complaints, as
well as accurately capturing information must be developed. A further issue is how this
information is made public and available to the larger community.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118Ba.DOC
RELATED CITY POLICIES
This item relates to the adopted vision and goals of the City Council as well as one of the City
Council priorities for 2005. These are a safe community where people feel safe, valued and
welcomed and effective and accountable municipal government that works openly, collaboratively
and fairly with the community to achieve measurable and positive outcomes. This work is also a
part of the City Council priority to implement the recommendations of the ICMA/PERF report.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
There are several options for the City Council at this point in time with regard to the short-term
issues. Options for the longer-term issues will, in part, be dependant on the short-term options
presented herein. It is also anticipated that the implementation of Measure 20-106 will be the
subject of additional City Council work sessions and will most likely be addressed at that time.
These are the options addressing the short term issues.
1) Affirm that an auditor is to be hired and citizen review board is to be appointed or do nothing
with regard to the implementation of the ballot measure.
2) Appoint a committee of the City Council to develop a timeline and plan for the recruitment
and selection of the auditor or assign this duty to the City Manager and direct that the plan be
submitted to the City Council within a certain time frame for approval by the City Council.
3) Appoint a committee of the City Council to finalize a job description and candidate profile
for the auditor or, direct the City Manager to refine the recommendations of the Police
Commission within a certain time frame for approval by the City Council.
4) Appoint a committee of the City Council to address recruitment issues including screening
and reviewing auditor candidates or choose to use an outside recruitment service.
5) Appoint a committee of the City Council to review policies and/or codification of the role of
the auditor and citizen review board or direct the City Manager to conduct such analysis and
present those recommendations to the City Council within a certain time frame.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager makes these recommendations regarding the above options:
1) Take action to affirm that an auditor is to be hired and a citizen review board is to be
appointed and specify approximate dates for both of these.
2) Take action to form a committee of the City Council, similar to that used to recruit and hire
the position of City Manager, to address the timeline and plan for recruitment and selection
of the auditor, to finalize the job description and candidate profile for the auditor, to make
decisions regarding recruitment processes, and to develop a proposed contract for the auditor.
3) Direct the City Manager to assess and propose new policies and/or ordinances which need to
be developed to begin the implementation of the police external review system.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
Move to develop and implement necessary plans and processes, as well as budgetary authority to
hire an independent police auditor as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter.
Move to develop and implement necessary plans and processes to recruit, select and appoint a
citizen review board as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118Ba.DOC
Move to appoint the Mayor, Council President and Council Vice President to an ad hoc
committee of the City Council to develop a timeline and plan for recruitment and selection of the
auditor; to finalize the job description and candidate profile for the auditor; and to make decisions
regarding recruitment processes.
Move to direct the City Manager to review current policies and code language to determine if
current language is in need of revision or expansion as they relate to the implementation of
Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution 4850, Calling a City Election for the Purpose of Amending the Charter to
Authorize the City Council to Provide for External Review of Police Related Complaints
B. Memorandum from Police Commission to City Council dated November 14, 2005
C. Selected pages (1-27) from the Police Commission Report, “Police Complaint System and
Civilian Oversight Recommendations,” July 2005.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mary Walston
Telephone: 682-5406
Staff E-Mail: mary.f.walston@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118Ba.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
RESOU.fTION NO, 4850
ARESOLunON CALUNG A CITY ELECTION ON NOVEl\mER 8,
2005, FOR HIE PlJRPOSE OF Rf~FERRING TO THELEC;A.L
ELECT()RS OF THE CITY OF EUGENE A MEASURE A.MENDING TIn.:
EUGENE CHARTER OF 2001 TO AUTHORIZE 'n-lE cnv COUNCIL
TOPROVU)E FOR EXTERNAL RE"VIE\V OFPOI:lCf>RELAT.E.H
COI\lPLAiNTS,
The (:ity Counclt of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A, On July 25,2005 the Eugene Polic:e Connnission presented to the City Council
m1d n.:.;comrncndaflol1s on a poliee complaint system and civilian oversight-
Commission n:::cormncnded that an ,mlcndtnent to the Eugene Charter of 2002 be placed on
baUot authorizing the City (~OUHC,n to provid{:.~ for external revle.\v of poEcc.~relatcd co.rnplaint;~<
B. During a work session on July 25, 2005, the City Council determined it \\'oll1d be
in the public interest to submit to HK legal electors of t.he City amc:asure amen.ding the Eugene
(~hartcr of2002:. ~t~~ described in F:.xhibit l".. attached h,eretQy
NOW} THEREFORg, based upon the above Hnd.ings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY 'nIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVGENE~ a
l\lullkipal Corporation of the State of On~gon} as foll.o~vs:
arnelldrnent of tl.H;
A. dty election is caUed tbf the purpose subnlitling tn qua li fi,:d
of' f:~ng(:ne a roeasure:- attached as l~xh.ibitA hen~to, concerning the
Charter of 2002 to Huthol"ize the City Council to provide D:;r exh::rna!
Section 1,
elect.ors of the
re\.:"iev/ c,f pGlic~-reJat(:;d conlplaints.
Sfctkm 2, The Citv Council orders a c1ty eledion to be held in the City of Eugene,
",.."."...:"----:::1: 1 i" <", )1' .>' . ; '{l *h ...." ('h +. ,', ",.j t"
()regon:- on tne b' ($-a:~/ {Y[\CPitl1irJer, ,.....JU5 lfl acc.()r{tance \Vlu1 1, e prOVLSIOI1S 01 ~./( ap~er ;~<J~}' o.
Oregon Re".;sed Statutes, and the ba.Uots shall be counted and tabul[ltcd and Hw results
certified as Ilfo'o;ildedby :l:x\v
Section 3, The City Recorder is directed to give not less tha.n ten days' D.otice of the
eleeti(}n. by puhlication of o.nenoticc in t1"lC _R.cgister Guard, a 11eV~;'5rH1r!ef ptibLisbed in the
a.nd uf genera] cirCUlation within the City.
Section 4, This Resolution shall hecoJne effective immediately upon. its adoptiOn.
The foregoing Uesolution adopted this 8ih day of August, 2005.
Resolution
lvkasureNo.
Sedion 15.A is ad,1,;;d to the Eugene C11a.m.Tof200210 provide as foJjO\v~;.
Section 15../\. External Revie\v of Poiice
(1 l The city council is authorized to hire, supervise and spedfy the salary of an
police auditor to overSt;C investigations of co.rnplaints police employees.
Notwithstanding section 16 of this charier, the city conncil may authorize the auditor to; (a)
receive, classifY and route cOlnplaints about sv/urn police officers and civibul police employees;
(h) contractwilh person~~ or entities to pcrfonn outside investig~,tion5 of such complaints; icy
lnoni!.Or i.he irllernrd investigations., including bm not limited to access to all evidence
developed as part of investigation and participation investigative iBkrvicv>!~> rdated to <,uch
con1.piaiIM, and require the city to undertake additional in....,cestigation; (d) make recommendations
to the city or folki\ving the inve.stigation; (e) prepa1\' :reports on cornplaint
trends and pcdic~; practKcs in gerieral; and (f) act as a liaison to and provide staff support the
rt?vle\'i board.
(2) The city count'd 15 .authorized to appOint a civilian TIW10'},' board of not more than
se.ven members to revw\,v im'cstig:;ttions of complaints involving swom police offic,;;n;.
16 of thL~ chartcr7 the city cOl.tncd rnay' authoriz.c the cl \'ihan re\,<'ie\.v
board to: \a) review the completed investigation and <Kljudication complaints f11ed Hg<'llnSf.
S'Norn 'police officers; (h) require that the city x<.;..open an inYe~,tigaLion; provide comments on
an investi,mtiofL lncludirm rcconrmeudations to the independent 1Yolke cil\i nl,ma~~er or
t....',' ....' ....... ....
about the inve~:tig;ltion; (d) rev!c".; tn:nds and t;tatj;,;ti(;~; of complaints against sworn
,K,licc offtcen~ and dvtlian cnmloy.;es, and pro;,'ide reports and n:commendattons to the ciry
~(HLnciL and (e} over:sec <md c'v'aJuatc the \vork of the independent police auditor.
1\
)
C--:-.--::-'::,..
-_:~.~
. ___n......___..,
I :"-:'O-OOU .- \
~~~
ATTACHMENT B
Police Commission
MemorandulTI
City of Eugene
Tn Pear! Street, Room '; 06
Eugene. Oregon 97401
(541) 682.5852
Date:
To:
November 1 4, 2005
From:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
Tim Laue, Chaif
Eugene Police Commission
Subjed:
Civilian Ov~r.:ijghtJY.:{9dellmplemen\f!:.tjQn
\Vith the passage of Ballot tv1easure 20-106, the Police Comrnission is ready to as~,i~,t the City Council in
moving forward in the implementation of a civilian oversight model that is consistent with the proposal
it presented to, and \'-/3.S later accepted by, the City Council At its l-Jovernber 10\h meeting, the
commission debriefed the ejection and proposed the following shorHerrn and long..term options that it
could carry out in support of procedure development and model implementation.
[1:pmediate Next Steps:
We believe the fi.rst priority is for the City Council to recruit and retain a police auditor to assist in the
development of the operating procedures for the auditor's offic.e. The commission can be a resource to
the Council in this process by conducting research from other cornrnunities \vith police auditors and
. -
based on a compilation of that data, presenting:
Il! elements to be considered in a job description for the police auditor position that are tailored.
to the responsibilities as proposed in the Police Commission's proposal; and
II 3. recommendation for a set of characteristics and qualiiications to be considered n.lr the
police auditor position.
V.,Jith City Council approval, the cormnission can research the police auditor job description elernents
and qualifications and present its findings and recommendations in January, The commission also
agreed that if the Council wished, the commission could provide input in the recruitrnent process design,
and \vould be available to partic.ipate in other capacities in this first phase of system implementation as
the Council deemed appropriate.
t:9.Dg~rTnEE
Per its interim work plan approved at the July 25th City Council work session.. the Police Comrnission
has proposed that it:
18 assist with the development of enabling ordinance language necessary to establish the
oversight system;
ll! work with city stall to craft new policies and modify existing policies to ensure consistent
operating practices for the oversight system and to reHee! changes in the internal affairs
process;
~Ve strive to create a chnu;te oj n:utua! respect (2nd parfytership beh4/eeYi. [he ci)rrunur:ily and {he
F'olice [Je:partment that helf.,},.... achieve sa./i:ty, justice andfr(.edonl f;~w a/i people ~'n Eugene.
II
develop recommendations regarding the role and organizational structure of the Police
Commission with regard to the new oversight components; and
pnYv'ide input to Council on the disposition of other outstanding issues,
1I
A task team has been formed to further develop these next steps and to provide a tentative timcline for
completion of these activities, Task team members are George Bennett, Bonny Bettman, John Brown,
Tim Laue, and Floyd Prozanski. The commission will incorporate these longer tenn activities in a
proposed \vork plan for the rernainder of the fiscal year. If desired, the cornrnission could meet with
City Council in a 'work session to present both its new \vork plan and recommendations for a job
description and qualifications in January.
The Police Commission looks forward to working collaboratively with the City Council and community
stakeholders to successfully implement Eugene's new police oversight system.
lYe sEri...:!? to create ;j chrnale oftJ';utual respect and partnership betv,/i.:'f?'t the cornmunity and th..;:'
PoliCe: l)epo,c-trtlenl theft he(Ds achieve safety; jn>tice and freedom J(;!' all people in Eugene.
ATTACHMENT C
Po!ice:.fgmplajf!!..?yste~..~.!1d Civili.~~ Oversig.~t Recof'r!!:!1endatj?~~
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 revie\.v and a consultant
report on civilian oversight models in operation nationally. Multiple community fomms wer(~ held to
seek public input on concerns \vith the current police complaint system and to compile suggestions for
improvements. Committees \Vcre formed to develop specific recommendations tor how comolaints are
received, classified, investigated and, once a conclusion is developed, reviewed. -nK~ committees
submitted a conceptual oversight model to the Police Commission that instills more robust civilian review
into the complaint process, The cOtlcephmJ model was revised following additional commission
discussion and community input. On July 25t\ the resulting recommendations will be presented to City
Council tor 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, impaJiial and responsive complaint intake system
o Assurance of high quality, thorough and unbiased investigations
o Accountability and fairness for all involved
o lncreased 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 A void pitfalls encountered in other conmmnities when implementing civilian review
How Proposal is Different than Curn~nt System
Co CorrmlUnity member complaints are lodged with independent auditor's offic(~
o lnvestigation,~ are removed from police supervisors and transferred to an expanded investigative
unit within IA
o Fun time ll.llditor, independent from the police department, monitors on-going JA investigations
for quality assurance
o Citizen review board oversees the work of the auditor to ensure that investigations are fair
Q Options for alternative resolution to complaints ure expanded and utilized more frequently
Proposed Oversight System Authority (Hybrid Model of Auditor and Civilian Revie",,- Board)
o Auditor's oftice receives complaints, conducts preliminary investigations and c:lassifies how
cases will be handled
o Auditor actively monitors internal investigations, including abilit'j to participate in interviews,
require additional investigation, contract V-lith outside entity to conduct certain investigations and
recommend case dispositions to the Chief of Police
o Auditor seeks improvements to police senices by identifying policy and traming issues
associated with complaints and revie\ving tOIt and risk claims
o Auditor identilies cases for revie''', board to oversee and pro-vides quarterly reports to board On
complaint proces,::;ing decisions, investigative findings and case outcomes
Q Civilian bOlml 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 reqlllre 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 communit'j values
1
_........__Police COf!l.p'!~.int System and 91yilian Oversig~_~..~ecomrnendati,?ns
II. Project Overview
At the March 11, 2004 Pollce 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 intemal atTairs cases
confimled some of these concerns, specifical1y 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 conunission was highly sensitive to the breach in public trust that
occurred when hvo former Eugene police officers were convicted for criminal misconduct that
occUlTed 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 ofthe current internal affairs procedures to tTeat 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 ofmode1s of civilian oversight, could help rebuild credibility in the department's
complaint system and improve police/community relations.
In June 2004, the cornmission developed a work plan for the upcoming year that was devoted
almost entirely to this project That same month, Chief Lehner presented a set ofintenm
improvements the depaltment's complaint process in response to the auditor's report, noting that
more suhstantive changes would be occur foHowing receipt ofthe commission's
recoffi111endations. 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 revie"w. The commission proposed a IS-month process v,,;1h the following
main components:
review current Eugene Police Department (EPD) policies and procedures for
filing complaints and conducting intemal 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 conunission's role as a policy review body.
The commission requested contingency funds in the arnount of $65,000 to assist in this effort.
The funds \vere primarily used for additional staff support to the project (0.5 FIE) and to
contract with the Police Assessment Resource Center for a report on national models of police
oversight On July 28th, 2004, the City COlmcil approved the commission's work plan and
contingency fund request.
'"
.:
__.m__~oHce COn:!plaint SystE:~.o~!1d Civillan.gyersight R~~ommen.9.~tions __.omm._
III Research and Community Values
Even before the work plan was approved, the commission began two efforts to jumpstan 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
ohvritten material on police oversight was compiled and provided to commissioners, including
the 1998 External Review Advisory Committee (ERAe) report. This information was also
posted on-line \vith 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 begimling in June 2004, a series of community fomms were conducted to solicit public
input on perceived barriers to lodging a complaint against the pollee, expectations for a model
complaint system, and suggestions for improvements to the process. Specifically, participants
were asked these questions;
· What, tf anything, would prevent you from filing a complaint r\lith the police
depart1:l1ellt?
II (lyou have Jitea' a complaint in the past, what was your experience like?
!fyou have not, w}mt would you expect from the process?
· rVhat ways can you think of that would improve the complaint process?
Community members were also encouraged to share comments by emaiJ or phone. AU
comments were captured, summarized and provided to the commission to help identify the key
issues and conummity values to be addressed. See Attachment B for the list of public input
sessions and conunentary.
In November, several conmllssioners attended police in-service training sessions to gather
(~mployees' perceptions about the current complaint system and ideas for improvements. These
sessions provided llseful suggestions and insights from officers and helped a..,>sure 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 intemal affairs procedures, complaint
investigations, and city disciplinary processes were delivered. Commissioners Dettman 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 ofthese 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 infonnation received was the report "Review of National
Police Oversight Models." A contract was sif-';l1ed with the Police Assess'ment Resource Center
(P ARC) to conduct a national review of civilian oversight models for jurisdictions that are
comparable to Eugene and to develop reconunendations on models that might be a good fit for
om conullunity. Two public presentations oithe PARe report were delivered in February 2005.
The report reviewed thirty different oversight systems, grouping t.hem into three broad
3
Police Comp!a!~~i~!.~!TI and Civllian Over~!~I~~_.~_ecommendatiol'!~____mmm_
categories: 1) review and appellate models; 2) investigati ve and qualit.y assurance models, and
3) evalua.tive and perfonnance based models, The report was especially useful for COmpaI1ng
individual element.s of the different models when the commission bega.n 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 illld protect community members' rights, civilians and officers alike, in all
atmosphere that is accessible, safe and fair;
o take complaints seriously and provide options f'Or advocate support and altemative
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 evaluat.ion ofthe complaint system aIld 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 conunittees were convened to develop preliminary recom."'1lendations
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 thorouE..)l analysis of these specific segments of the
complaint system as wen as expillld opportunities for including stakeholders and other
community members in the committees' deliberations.
Also in December, the commission met with members of Commtmities United BJr Better
Policing (eVBP) to discuss how the h'TOUPS would each proceed in developing recommendations
f'Or civilian review of the police depattment. The two gTOUpS agreed to work collaborative1y on
parallel but separate e1Torts and exchange progress reports and information when appropriate.
CU13P participated in maIlY of the committee meetings, providing insight and perspectives to the
commission as it worked to develop its own oversight model.
In January, a stakeholders em ail list was developed as a means of providing project information
with a large nenvork of interested parties. The stakeholder list, containing more thatl 300
addresses, was used to distribute information on the committee process, as \vel1 as to provide
notice of other commission-sponsored events related to the development of the oversight
proposal.
The commission also specifical1y encouraged the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA)
to participate in the process. EPEA representatives attended and provided input at both the
"
.;
Police ~_?mplaint SY~!~!:!1 and Civil~~0.__9versight R~9ommend~!!2ns
committee and commission level. The EPEA's formal positions on the oversight system are
included as Attachment C.
Complaint Il}tl.!k~__~ommittee
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 mist and confidence of aU involved and that promotes accountability."
The committee reviev,,ied 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 on systems \vhere an complaints regarding police personnel are funneled to
the police department for processing, although various access points may exist. W:'1ile
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 --- syste.ms 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 Duallntake--- those systems where complaints may be lodged either with the police
department or '.vith an independent entity that has responsibility for tracking and
reviewing the complaint. In some systems, the complainant ca.'1 choose either intake
entity to lodge a complaint. ill others, the police department retains responsibility for
intake of internally generated complaints and civilians can choose either venue. Another
variation is where the nature onhe complaint, rather than the complainant, detemlines
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 me a complaint with either the internal 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 t.l-;ey were most
comfortable with and increased intake staff capacity to ensure a timely response to complainlk'1ts.
The committee acknowledged that for a dual intake system to work well, data sharing ,md
coordination between intemal affairs and the auditor's office would be a prerequisite.
In slurring 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 Conunittee reconsidered its recommendation and revised the
dual model so that the auditor was responsible for complaint classification decisions. At the July
5
________~_~!Ice Complaint System ~_~~__~ivilian Oversight Recom~_~ndatjons
14th meeting, the intake model was revised again, this time directing all civilian comphtints to the
auditor's office for intake, classification, and follow up.
The Intake Committee aJso developed recommendations on several issues reiated 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
recolmnendations, along with the latest iteration of the intake model description, are described in
more detail later in this report.
Adiudication/Review CgIQmitl~~
The goals of the AdjudicationJReview 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, faimess, transparency and consistency. The committee began its task by reviewing the
1998 External Review Advisory Committee (BRAe) 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 aIid 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 communjty and police employees for a fair, transparent and
credible system;
o it provides tor 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 lega1/labor contract issues because the auditor, as
a dty 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.
B
__m......__m~_olice Complaint__~y~tem and Civilian O~~~~~ght Recomm.~ndations
In spite of these challenges, committee members agreed that community expectations for an
independent, credible complaint process that is accountable to the public \v{mld not be met with
just an auditor in place. Similarly, the committee did not believe that a review board alone
\vould help identify the procedural and training changes that \\fould 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 tmder consideration:
o The review board would be comprised of community volunteers appointed/selected
by the Mayor and City CounciL
o StatT 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 \vould nomlaJly 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 t\.lr 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 sun-ollnding 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 tha.t its preferred options were a:
o Bifurcated Investigation A.fodel, \vhere the board would oversee specific ca.ses as they
\\fere being investigated and \\'ith the auditor, would develop findings on those cases
prior to the Chief developing an adjudication; and
o Closed Complaint Reviel-ll, where a complainant can present concerns about the
outcome of tht:~ case to the review board, which will review the file and develop
findings on the case for delivery to the auditor and Chief ofPoiice, but \vould not
impact the outcome of the investigation.
7
Police Complain!_~y-~!.~_~._~_~~__CiviHan Oversight Recom~~ndations
Upon further discussion of the merits of these two models, the committee decided to combine
elements of both opt.ions into a new model. This oversight system was presented to the Police
Commission at its May meeting for preliminary discussion and conceptual approval oftile hybrid
oversight system. Also in May, committee chairs met with members of ClJBP 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 ofthe Citizen Review
Committee provided 3...'1 overview of Portland's system to the commission. In June, Richard
Rosenthal, formerly the Independent Auditor for the City of Portland 3...'1d recently hired as
Denver's police monitor, gave his assessment ofthe 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 (s.ee Attadmlent D), the City
Attomey, stakeholder groups, aJld input received at two public forums. At the June 9th meeting,
the CUBP gave its ~upport to t1~~ connnis~ion's draft prorosal iffre goveman.ce.ofthe model
,vas under the auspices oftne Crty CounCIl. On June 23f and 28 " the conml1SSlOU worked
through the intake system and auditor/review board roles to detern1ine where there was
consensus on the model and identify areas in need offurther refinements {see Attachment E fi)r
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 detemline how the ClTBP would proceed with sharing its proposal and/or comments
on the commission's oversight model with the Council. A memo from the CtJBP regarding the
civilian oversig.~t propos.al is included as Attachment F. Also attached is the Human Rights
Connnission's statement of suppon for the oversight proposal that was read into the record at the
July meeting (see Attachment G).
AHer 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 ofthe oversight model and spedfic 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
stmcturai and procedural variations that are unique to each community. The conunission agreed
early on that it favored a model that provides for an external review of complaints by
professional statIto 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 eon fined to the review of individual complaints, a
8
...........P.olice Compl~~nt ~ystem and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
_nn.. _. ~___*_
model that had strong evaluative capabilities to detenlline 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 pwfessionaUy-
stuffed 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
identitles poHcy, 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 seVCll conmlUnity members, will oversee the work of the
auditor's office. The role ofthe review board is to evaluate the case handling decisions and
investigative recommendations ofthe 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 complaim process.
The proposed model is broken down into three main components: 1) complaint intake,
classitication and routing decisions, 2) investigation monitoring and adjudication
recommendations, and 3) case review. TIle 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 a.<; 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 complaim handling and resolution decisions. In soliciting public input 011 this
system, people often expressed <L.'1Xiety that if they complained about a police officer, they would
be subject to some fonn of retaliation, their concerns wouldn't be taken seriously, and/or that
nothing v.:ould come of their complaint. In response to these concerns, the commission is
recommending that the auditor's oHice become the singular intake center for community
member complaints, <ind that police employees can choose to lodge complaints through either
internal atTair:., 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 aU
community member complaints will reqllire a sik,'Tlificant public education process. It
recommends that information on the redesigned complaint process with an accompanying
complaint fonn 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 wi11ing to participate as appropriate in developing a
revised complaint intake fornl 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 intormation
9
............................!:.olice Complaint System and Ci~!!.~!:!..Q.versight Recommendation~
about police services will need to be developed, The objective is to assist members ofthe 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 a:.,d processing.
The cmnmission recommends a policy statement be developed that directs an police employees
to route complaints from community members to the auditor's office for processing and tracking
purposes. The auditor's office will be responsible for documenting an contacts and referrals for
statistical reporting purposes.
Similar to the Police Connnission, 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 fornrard complaint information to the auditor's office
for processing. The review board can also provide a forum to gather community member
concems about an event where police actions generate considerable public concern, The board's
function is not to investigate the incident, but to collect public connnents, 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 '\Tere addressed
through the ensuing investigation.
I'here 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 ackno\vledges 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 handied 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 ofjudgment and flexibility to most appropriately address each concern. \-Vbile there is
discretion built into the system to enable stuff 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 wi11
periodically evaluate the complaint intake and classification system to ensure that the goals of an
accessible, neutral, and responsi ve intake process are being met. A review of the number and
types of contacts made to intake, case handling decisions, utilization of altemative resolution
options, and other outcome measures will be conducted, and any recommendations for
procedural improvements will be fonvarded to the appropriate policy body.
10
_.__~~.!!.~e Complaint System an~._~!y'!.~ian Oversight Recommen~ations
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 intbrnlation 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 atTects the level and ty-pe of
investigation conducted, disposition outcomes, timeline for completion, and record retention
requirements, In tem1S 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 a.n 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
fbund that to make the most efficient use of resources, facilitate a timely response to
complainants, and otTer multiple options for complaint resolution, a categorization system is
necessary. To ensure that the basis for classification decisions is independent, consistent and
transparent, tIle commission recommends that the authority for categorizing complaints rest with
the auditor's office. A hasic process description follows, but more formalized procedures should
be established to provide clear, standardized practices.
The auditor's office '""ill be responsible for conducting a preliminary investigation of all
complaints to deternline how the issue is best handled. Vesting the authority to classify
complaints with the auditor's office is intended to reassure the community tha.t these decisions
will be intl.)rmed, professional judgments that consider how to achieve the best resolution to an
issue, and are not fonned on the perceived credibility of the complainant. For consistency, the
auditor should classify hoth internally generated and community-hased 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 complilint will include concerns about police officer perfomlance or
demeanor, customer service and/or level of police service complaints, or complaints where the
person is dissatisfied Vv'ith current procedures or in disagreement with established police policies.
'rhe 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 wi.ll 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 wiB be further categorized by
type for statistical tracking purposes and to allow trends analysis on the nature ofthe complaints
received.
11
Police Complaint _~y.stem and Cjvilia!!..Q~_~rsight Recom~~_~datlons
Complaint Routing and Possible Outcomes
The Police Commission has found that issues involving employee performance are otten most
appropriately addressed by the supef\lisor. '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 supen'isors 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,
induding notification to the supervisor, alternative resolution options, or referral to supervisor
for foUow~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 u~e auditor as misconduct allegations will be routed to internal affairs
fix 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.
IUhe complainant alleges behavior that would be a criminal offense, the auditonviH 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 a.nd 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. If a case is dismissed, the auditor will inform the complainant for the ba<;is of
the dismissal, If the case will proceed to a fom1al 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 doctill1enting the receipt, status
a.'1d disposition of a11 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 reviewlinvestigation 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
time1ines will be one of the outcome measures tracked and reported by the auditor's officeo
Attachment I is a flmv chart that illustrates how a community complaint win move through the
proposed model.
12
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations
Other Intake-Related Recommendations
Staffing and PhY$Jcal Location onhe Auditor's Offic~
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 intemal 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.
I\nonymous and Third Party Complaints
Cu.rrent.ly, the Eugene Police Department has a practice of accepting anonymous and third party
cornplaints on a ca.."Ie-by-ca..<;e ba..<;is, but there are no formal, docmnented procedures in place. In
general, anon~t1nous and third party complaints can only be investigated if there is enough
credible and specific information provided to identify the incidentipersonnei 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 hisfher. In the latter case, the third party may be a parent or an advocate, for example.
Noting that anonymous and third-pa.:."ty 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:
o 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 th.at these
cases m~tY be closed after a preliminary investigation due to insufficient evidence or
infom1ation.
o In addition to accepting anonymous complaints, the department should allow
complainants to request that their personal infomwtion be kept confidential from named
employees if an investigation ensues.
o The policy should acknowledge the acceptance of two categories ofthird party
complaints:
" Those '''lith a reasonably direct relationship to the incident, such as a witness or
person with professional or organizational knowledge ofinddent (supervisor,
other employee).
· Advocates or others with a special relationship to complainant (e.g., parent
assisting a minor child who was directly aflected, advocates for persons with
disabilities, mental health issues, non-citizens or persons with language barriers).
13
Police COfT!.P..~~!~_! System and Civilian OVE:E.~ig~t Recommendati?~?
o Whenever possible, the department w11l encourage the complainant to contact the person
directly involved in the incident to participate in the investigation to verif)'/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 fonnal investigative process. The actual role of advocates should be
addressed as part of the redesign of the mediation program.
Requesting Sworn Statem~nJ!i
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 syst.em 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 revie\v ofthe complaint, it is detenuined 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 pmiicipation.
o All cases where s\vorn 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.
~omplaint Dismissal
A more fbrmatized process for when complaints can be dismissed may alleviate community
concerns that complaint.s are not being handled consistently or fairly and will help standardize
procedures. The following are guidelines to be refine,d at a later date for situations where complaints
could be dismissed so that procedures are dear 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 DOC1IDlent aU complaints received and if dismissed, why they were dismissed.
14
~mnmnm... Police CompL~.~~~.~.Y.~tem and Civm~.~.gyersight Rec~.~.~~.ndations
o Justification for dismissal
Acknowledging that timeliness of the complaint is important, a.<; memory diminishes
over time and witnesses and evidence may he more difficult to locate/uncover. a
timeline for complaint acceptance should be established. A six month time.fi'a~le is
recommended, as it would be consistent with the retention time for dispatch tapes and
any video recordings taken, The procedures allmv, but do not require, the intake
entity to dismiss complaints involving incidents more than six months old.
Exceptions to the time1ine 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 a..'1d 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 a..'1d 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"
.'Yy"~rrant/Records Checks
Some community members have expressed concern that the practice of running a records check
on complainants, which not only provides basic incident infom1ation but also indicates whether a
person ha.<; an outstanding warrant, could have a chilling eftect on the complaint process and
prevent people \vith old or active criminal histories from coming funvard with complaints.
Further, it was reared that reviewing a complainant's record would have a prejudicial impact on
the process, i.e" people with more police contacts \vould not be given ,lS rrnlch credihility as
others. It should be noted that a records check is a query ofthe 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 anleliorate some ofthe issues associated with law
enforcement databases queries which inextricably detem1ine 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 he 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
~9.!_~ge Comp!a~_~,!,,~ystem and ClyHian Oversigh~_Recommen~,?tions
personnel may need to run a records check to identify involved personnel and gather
other incident infonnation necessary fur the complaint categorization. If an outstanding
walTant is discovered during this process, intake personnel ..vi11 have the discretion to
notify the complainant of this fact so that the warrant can be resolved without risk of
arrest. In situations w'here 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. Hmvever, as only a subset of all
complaints will require a fo-rmal 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 iithe complaint proceeds to the investigation
phase, public infomlation on the complaint process should explain that as part of
investigating the complaint, any outstanding \van-ants will be identified. The language
should encourage people \vho are concerned about the possibility of an outstanding
warrant to access the auditor's office to me a complaint and/or to dear 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
accOlmtability.
A1tema~iy',~,Resolution to C<?[nplaints
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 arld advocacy program that has had a number of successes and is not significantly
ditTerent in its function than the model programs examined nationally. However, there is a sense
that the existing prq,>ranl has not reached its potential and after several years in effect, may
benefit from an evaluation.
The commission supports the CUlTent practices of otTering fonnal mediations, facilitated
conversations, and/or advocacy support for certain complaints to promote understanding of
interactions and promote respectful communication arld 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 conununity 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 detennine \vhich entity should manage the
mediation program and coordinate actual mediations, whether mediators should be hired on
contract, whether mediation should preclude the use ofthe regular complaint process, and how
community advocates may best be utilized in the process. The ta..<;k team will include interested
commission members, .tIRC staff and volunteers, and other key stakeholders, such as
Community Mediation Services.
16
.u..u~.~!~~.e Complaint Syste~..~.'].~___~!yilian Oversight ~~.~~mmendatjons
In the interim, the commission recommends the following improvements:
o Reconsider and develop more specific definitions of "mediation" and "facilitated
conversation"
o Fonnalize procedures forw'hich 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 ofintemal investigations that, due to the nature of the complaint, are of high
public interest and require the utmost scmtiny to ensure a fair and credible outcome. The auditor
w11l identify these complaints as "connmmity impact cases," which will include, at a minimum,
excessive force, violation of constitutional rights, and bia..<;/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 ari 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
,my 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 aU relevant investigative materials, an authority which the commission believes should
17
Po!!~.gomplaint Syst~.~..~nd Civilian Ov~~~jght Recom~~E~9ations
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, intemally-
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 andior 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 ofthat process.
L'1 hisiher 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 ofthe 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.
Adiudication R~_~Qn!lnendations
Once the investigative portion of the complaint review is complete, an case materials win 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 infomlation 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, induding possible involvement of the review board once the case is closed. Also, if
new infonnation is provided during this contact, the auditor can then direct further investigation.
Ifthe auditor is satistled that the investigation is complete at this point, sihe will meet with the
involved employee's supervisor to develop a case adjudication recommendation that will then be
fOiWarded up the chain of command to the Chief of Police. Any disat,lteements 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 irnportant to note that these temlS 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 ofEPD's
policies, rules, and/or procedures and, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, the employee(s)
involved committed the violation a,<; alleged.
2) Insufficient Evidence1; The chain of command was unable to detemline, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether or not a violation ofEPD's policies, niles, an(Llor
procedures occurred.
1 Replaces "Not Sustained"
18
Police Comp!a!~_!_System and Civilia_~_.9versjght Rec~_~!11endations
3) Unfounded: The claim is unsubstantiated. It was detennined by a preponderance of the
evidence that the employee(s) involved did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the
complainant.
...
4) Within POlicyN: It was detennined, 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 succ,essfully 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 infonnation. The
investigation may be reactivated upon the discovery of new, substantive information or
evidence.
7) Administratively Closed: The investigation is dosed prior to reaching a conclusion. For
instance, the complainant does not provide the infomlation 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 fhrtherance of this objecti ve, the
commission recommends that th\:: auditor:
o be summoned to the scene of critical incidents to ~llable first-hand kno\'lledge of high
profile events should a complaint ensue;
o participate in deadly force reviev., boards (contingent on the resuJtofSB3(1)
o review risk/tort claims and develop risk/liability reduction plans
The City Manager's contracted annual audit of closed internal atTairs 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. \\lllile this authority may be vested in either the
auditor's oft'ice 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
bodya.."1d that the auditor is charged with reporting any policy issues to the commission.
The auditor's oft1ce "",'ill 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 specif1c
violations. The mmual report should highlight any situations ,>vhere 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 a.<;sess
the perfonnance of the auditor's office to ensure that it is fUnctioning as intended.
2 Replaces <<Exonerated"
19
Police Complaint ?1stem and Civilian OV~~~9..~t Recomme~~.~_~.~~!:!s
Civilian Review Board Role
JDfUyidllal 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 ftmction can occur in t\.vo ways. First,
the auditor's oft-lce wiiI 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 &11d other involved parties, ca.<;e handling audits.,
and investigation trends analysis, etc.
Secondly, the board ca.'1 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 proceJures? The closed Cll..<;e 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 wHl be provided to the auditor and Chief of Police.
If the board agrees to a dosed case review> it will be provided access to the full investigative file
so that it C,ill 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 fonnal
procedures for closed C~lse reviews in a public setting will need to be developed (i.e" auditor/lead
investigator reporting requirements, questions and conunent period, public input, etc,).
The board, in turn, will develop and pre.sent 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 oUice.
Community Jmpac!.(;'?'~Q~
The commission had a thorough discussion on the function ofthe 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 recof:,lllized several
significant risks with the proposal:
20
M..!:olice Complaint S~t~~~!!l and CiviHal}_.9versight Reco~.~.~ndations _...
o Board members would have access to c.ase infomlation that, if purposely or inadvertently
released to others, can breach the integrity of the investigation; .
o For the board to have a meaningful discussion 011 an open case while protecting
confidential information, it would need to meet in executive session, which compromises
the transparency ofthe board's deliberations and actions;
() 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 Chiefs
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 ab'Teed that the alternative proposal
mitigated some of the most serious issues i"lithout 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 win be
provided to the board upon adjudication ofthe complaint, but prior to a discipline decision if the
case is sustained, The board would receive both sustained and un-sustained commtL'1ity impact
ca..<;e 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 meeting}. TIle board will then
convene to discuss the quality ofthe investigation and the outcome of the case with the
auditor/lead investigator, and based on its discussions, could:
Concur with the adjudication; ancl!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 pha..<;e. If the board requires further investigation, the auditor
'Nould report back to the board on the outcome of any additional investigation and \vhether the
adjudication was rnodified. The board \vould have access to that portion ofthe 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
J Cases where the complaint is sustained could not be reviewed Ul a public meeting under the current EPEA
contractual agreement
21
__.mm_.m..!:,olice Complaint System an~Lg~vman Oversight Recof!.!.~endations
other types of closed cases. It 'vvill 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 reCOlIh'11ended to maintain a highly
effective and qualiiled membership. The existing enabling ordinance for the Police
Commission already provides that one member of the revie\v board is appointed to serve as a
member of the commission to facilitate information exchange,
o Members should serve 4~year staggered temls, with a two-ternl limit (some members
preferred 3-year temls).
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 ~md training requirements
will be developed once the flmction 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 ror 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 it)r board members.
22
__nm~.?!!.~e Compiain.!..?ystem an~. Civilian Oy.~E~ight Re~?~mendatio~s
VI. Oversight Model Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is a hybrid police oversigllt system and why was it selected?
A hybrid system combines two distinct components into one system. ill this ca.<;e, the tvlO
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 ,md identities systemic changes needed to improve the
overall performance of the organization. The civilian review board creates opportunities for
community members to review and conunent 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 com..rnission recommends tbat
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 o:ffice will provide the
staff support to the review board. So while the auditor and his/her staff are city employees,
they \vill 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 detennines how a complaint is handled,
'Nill 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 tiling a complaint may choose to lodge their concerns anonymously.
Anonymous complaintswiH be taken seriously and will be classified. However, the auditor
will not be able to conduct fonow-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 temlination, 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 perceived bias,
the commission is also recommending that the involved employee's supervisor no longer
conduct internal investigations. Instead, the intemal afl'airs unit should be restructured so
that it has the capacity to conduct investigations of employee misconduct.
23
~9.!_~9.~_ Complaint System o:~~__<2!'yman Oversight R~_~ommendations
5, Who decides the outcome of my case and what if! disagree?
In an effort to achieve the best possible outcome, the proposed oversight system offers
rnultipk resolution options. Tn reviewing your complaint, the auditor will determine ifyoUT
case should be handled at the line supervisor level, is appropriate for alternative resolution, or
requires a misconduct investigation. If an intcmal investigation is required, the auditor will
monitor the case and develop an adjudication recommendation. Ultimately, the Chief of
Police \vill 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 tbat 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 v.:ith the facts of the
case.
6. Isn't subpoena power necessary to compel police officers to provide infom1stion needed by
the board to review my case?
The review board wili have access to the full investigative file, which "vin include taped
interviews with the involved officers. Therefore, the commission determined that compelling
testimony ,'vas unnecessary to access tbe informatlon 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 he 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 s vote to implement?
An amendment to the existing city charter will be required to enable the City COlUlcil to hire
the auditor and appoint review board members. City charter amendments require an
affinnative 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
responsibUities.
9. How much will this system cost?
Once the oversight model is finalized, a budget will be developed that includes staffing fbr
the auditor's office (approximately 3 FTE). Other costs associate-d with the model's
implementation include additional investigative capacity in the internal affairs unit, and
training and other requisite support tor the board to operate effectively.
10. Will the police union oppose a civifian 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 oHicers. The
EPEA has a responsibility to ensure that the due process rights of its membership are
24
Police C?9._~p'lajnt Sys~~!:!:1 and Civm~n Oversight Recomme~9ations
protected in any new system that is implemented. In the commission's proposed model,
there are several elements that \\fill 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 wlll ultimately
make the review board member selection decisions.
12. How wiff 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 ofO~fr?ighLMode1
One oft11e overarching, but unresolved, issues sUlTounding the oversight proposal is a
detemlination 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 autht)rity police officers have, which in tum
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 ofticers 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
organiz.ation. 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 \"Iho 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
__m______.Police Complaint Sx~tem and Civilian Qy.~E~ight Recommt?~9..~tJons
o Creating a system that is not overly confusing to the puhlic 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 Jlme 23rd meeting and considered five options for
detemlining which employees the oversight system had jurisdiction over. It narrowed the
options to the following two categories for City Council consideration.
L.---.....--- C~te.g-;;ries of EmPl.~y~.~~__~(;~~~~d--
i 1) All EPD employees
I
I~__m_
I '.n. -----'Considerations .m.._______.__.~
I Simplicity and consistency in pr. ocedures
within the department; however, it wouid
create inconsistency among AFSCtv1E 1
represented employees and non-sworn, non- i
represented employees City-wide; requires i
negotiation wit!!.~y'~__bargaining units. --......J
Maintains consistent, simple process for intake 1
and allows the auditor to be aware of and !
identify issues regarding investigation of all j
employees; targets oversight resources on
complaints that nonnally have highest liability
and community interest.
2) Auditor's role would include complaint
intake for aU EPD employees, access to all
EPD records and ability to monitor all
investigations; review board's authOlity is
swom employees. Board would be kept
apprised of all complaints through auditor's
__g..uarterly n..'Ports. ...__.,._.
Govemanf.~Jsstles
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 ifso, 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 ofthe election results may delay model implementation
o Structural independence for the auditor may be necessary to make decisions that may
not be othenvise 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 otIicials
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 stTIlctural
independence and voted unmlimously to recommend that the City Council hire the auditor and
appoint the citizen review board.
26
_.__..____m~olice Complaint System ar:'.~m9_~vilian Oversight Rec~~~endations
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 wiiI 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 atTain, unit to
Hag persO!mel, 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 CUlTent needs and expectations and meets established outcornes for
effectiveness. Complaint records retention procedures should be reconsidered as part of the
system design.
The commission also recommends that the data collection and reponing 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 ofticers 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 eomplaint process. This is a topic that merits a thoughtful and
coliaborative process that involves police department managers, hmnan resources staff and the
EPEA, and could be included as a project in a future police commission work plan.
'fhe Police Commission's proposed oversight model mitigates many of the major legal and
contractual obstacles that ,,:vould have required resolution prior to impiementation. Nonetheless,
if the Council moves forward with the model as proposed, there are issues that will require
negotiation \vith 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
re.quested, 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 ,my significant svay?
() 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 tlnalizing 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
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL PROVIDED PRIOR TO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON 1/18/06
Attachment A
Police Auditor Job Description Recommendations
January 12, 2006
DEFINITION
The police auditor is a newly created position that is hired by and reports to the City Council as
established by the Eugene electorate through a revision to the City Charter on November 8, 2005.
Option #1: Simplified Charter
(Commission Preferred Option)
The police auditor provides independent, external oversight of investigations of complaints involving
police employees. The auditor’s responsibilities include to: receive, classify and route complaints
about police employees; monitor internal investigations by reviewing investigatory materials,
participating in interviews, and when appropriate, requiring the city to undertake additional
investigation; make recommendations following the investigation to ensure objective, thorough and
high quality investigations; prepare reports on complaint trends and police practices in general; and
provide staff support for the civilian review board.
Option #2: Commission Report
The police auditor position is a full-time, professional position that is part of a hybrid police oversight
system independent from the city organization. The role of the auditor office is to: receive and
classify complaints about police employees; monitor and participate in on-going internal affairs
investigations to promote quality assurance and the fair and timely resolution of complaints; and
identify policy, practice and training changes to facilitate systemic changes and improve police
services to the community. The auditor will provide staff support to a 5-7 member civilian review
board.
Option #3: Charter Language Verbatim (Attached)
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This high-visibility position is characterized by the auditor’s ability to provide fair and objective
o
oversight of the police complaint process, build credibility among diverse audiences, and instill
public confidence in the complaint system.
The responsibilities of the police auditor are broad in scope and require the highest degree of
o
independent judgment, personal integrity, and accountability.
The auditor performs work that is cross-disciplinary, highly complex, and often involves issues
o
that are sensitive and confidential.
GENERAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
(The position may not include all the duties listed, nor
do the examples cover all the duties which may be performed.)
Plans, implements and oversees the operations of the Auditor’s Office, which receives
o
complaints about police employee conduct; establishes program priorities and procedures;
manages the implementation and evaluation of work programs to achieve program objectives.
Classifies and routes complaints based on established criteria, including identification of cases
o
suitable for mediation, and provides liaison to complainants on case status and resolution.
Identifies “community impact cases” and assists the civilian review board in its review of these
o
cases and other cases as selected by the auditor.
Actively monitors internal affairs investigations for thoroughness and fairness; reviews
o
evidence and attends witness and employee interviews; recommends additional investigation
and/or contacts for outside investigations as warranted.
Identifies, researches and analyzes problems, including review of risk and tort claims, and
o
makes recommendations regarding training, policies, procedures and best practices to prevent
future complaints and allegations of misconduct and improve performance.
Is summoned to the scene of critical/major incidents as a first-hand observer and participates
o
in use of force review boards;
Supervises the development and implementation of a robust management information system
o
to track complaints in coordination with internal affairs, report case statistics and trends, and
provide performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the Auditor’s Office.
Conducts public outreach in tandem with the Civilian Review Board to educate the community
o
on the role of the Auditor’s Office and the process for complaint investigation and adjudication.
Prepares and produces reports for the Civilian Review Board, City Council, Police Commission
o
and the public on the status and resolution of complaints, trends and patterns analysis,
recommendations for system improvements, and other performance indicators.
Develops procedures for the operation of, and provides staff support to, the civilian review
o
board, including establishing standards of professional conduct, ensuring confidentiality, and
implementing a comprehensive training program for board members.
Provides on-going supervision of staff in the Auditor’s office and plans and evaluates staff
o
1
performance.
QUALIFICATIONS
Education
A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited school in a related field is required.
o
A Master’s degree or Juris Doctorate from an accredited school is desirable.
o
1
The Police Commission recognizes that the auditor’s role in hiring and supervising staff will need to be clarified at the City Council
level; however, the commission recommends that at a minimum, the auditor should participate in the hiring of his/her staff.
Attachment A
Experience
A minimum of five years progressively responsible experience performing investigative
o
functions and/or managing complex investigations is required.
Additionally, it is preferred that candidates have:
Experience researching and analyzing criminal, employment, constitutional and/or
o
administrative law;
Knowledge of police operations, policies and procedures;
o
Experience investigating personnel-related matters in a pubic agency.
o
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Candidates are subject to a background investigation.
o
Regarding screening out candidates who may have a real or perceived bias:
Option 1: Candidates cannot have formerly been a sworn officer in a Lane County law
-
enforcement agency;
Option 2: Candidates cannot have formerly been a sworn officer in a State of Oregon law
-
enforcement agency;
Option 3: Candidates cannot formerly have been a sworn law enforcement officer; and/or
-
Option 4: Candidates may not have any recent background or affiliations with the City of
-
Eugene police department that would hamper their ability to be neutral and objective in
performing their duties as police auditor.
(Commission Preferred Option)
It is highly desirable for the successful candidate to establish and maintain residency within the
o
City of Eugene; in any event, s/he is required to be able to respond from his/her residence to
2
City Hall in fifteen minutes.
2
City executive directors are required by Charter to reside within the city, a value that is supported by the Police Commission.
Additionally, a residency requirement is consistent with the expectation that the auditor promptly respond to the scene of critical
incidents. There is, however, the possibility that including a residency requirement may discourage qualified candidates seeking a
more rural living environment from applying for the auditor position. This language attempts to balance these issues and is presented
as an optional consideration.
Eugene City CharterSection 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 involving police employees. Notwithstanding section 16
of this charter, the city council may authorize the auditor to: (a) receive, classify and route 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, including but not
limited to access to all evidence developed as part of the investigation and participation in investigative
interviews related to such complaints, and require the city to undertake additional investigation; (d) make
recommendations to the city manager or designee following the investigation; (e) prepare reports on
complaint trends and police practices in general; and (f) act as a liaison to and provide staff support for the
civilian review board.
(2) The city council is authorized to appoint a civilian review board of not more than seven members to
review investigations of complaints involving sworn police officers. Notwithstanding section 16 of this charter,
the city council may authorize the civilian review board to: (a) review the completed investigation and
adjudication of complaints filed against sworn police officers; (b) require that the city re-open an investigation;
(c) provide comments on an investigation, including recommendations to the independent police auditor,
city manager or designee about the investigation; (d) review trends and statistics of complaints against sworn
police officers and civilian employees, and provide reports and recommendations to the city council; and (e)
oversee and evaluate the work of the independent police auditor.
Attachment B
The Police Commission recommends the following elements for possible inclusion in a
Candidate Profile to be used in advertising for the auditor position.
Desired Competencies and Characteristics for Police Auditor
The Police Auditor will be expected to function independently, model the highest
standards of honesty and integrity, use sound professional judgment and reasoning to
arrive at conclusions, and distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information while
overseeing and directing investigations involving sensitive and confidential matters.
The Police Auditor must be thorough and meticulously organized, make sound and well-
informed decisions affecting multiple stakeholders, and commit to action when dealing
with the pressure and ambiguity of complex, controversial issues and situations.
Additionally, the ideal candidate will possess the following characteristics and abilities:
Exceptional verbal and written communication skills, is an impressive listener,
o
and capable of communicating effectively with diverse audiences;
Outcome-oriented, creative problem-solver with superior analytical skills;
o
Responds in an objective, professional and credible manner in highly-charged
o
situations;
Applies impartiality and demonstrates fairness and diplomacy even under the
o
most difficult of circumstances;
Establishes and maintains highly effective working relationships with diverse
o
groups and individuals;
1
Is willing to make a long-term commitment to Eugene.
o
1
The commission recommends that the city reinforce this value by writing incentive or disincentive
clauses into the employment contract (e.g., return of paid moving expenses paid if person resigns within
first two years).
Attachment C
Police Auditor Recruitment Process Options
The police auditor is a highly specialized position in a relatively new and emerging professional field. There is
a limited number of interested persons who possess the right combination of skills, experience and personal
characteristics to be successful in the role. The pool of people who currently serve as police auditors/monitors
is small and easily identifiable, which can result in a highly competitive process among communities seeking
experienced candidates and those attempting to retain their existing auditor. In researching how other
communities have recruited for and selected qualified candidates for the position of police auditor/monitor, the
ARRT found that three different processes were utilized. These are described briefly below for City Council’s
consideration in developing an effective recruiting and selection process.
A.Standard/Internal Recruitment
With direction from elected officials and/or the city manager, Human Resources takes the lead in
developing recruiting materials, advertising the position, screening applicants and developing the interview
process for finalists. Policy makers and community members may have varying roles in the process
depending on the governance structure and past recruiting/hiring practices of that community. Boise,
Portland and Seattle used internal processes when hiring their first monitors/ombudsman. In the most recent
Portland recruitment, the city relied heavily on the experience and professional contacts of the existing
police auditor to assist with recruitment. Regarding the selection process, Human Resources conducted the
initial application screening. Qualified candidates (8-9 people) went through a pre-interview process that
included the city auditor, the police auditor and two community members, narrowing the applicants to three
finalists. The elected auditor then involved members of the civilian review board, the public at large, police
managers and other staff in the interview process for finalists by convening three separate interview panels.
The final hiring decision was made by the city auditor.
1
B.Outside Consultant
A consulting firm is hired to manage the recruitment process, including creation of recruiting materials,
developing a strategy to advertise for the position, screening applications to identify qualified applicants,
and working with local stakeholders to develop a fair and inclusive selection process. San Jose and
Sacramento both used CPS Human Resource Services to administer their recent police auditor recruitments
from beginning to end (candidate profile development through contract negotiations). The extent of duties
performed by the consultant can vary considerably depending on the client’s needs. The level and type of
involvement in the recruiting and/or selection process would need to be determined and delineated in the
service contract.
2
C.Expert Assistance
The City of Denver utilized its Human Resources department to provide staff support for the recruitment
process, but also enlisted the expertise of two police auditors from other communities to develop the job
description and design other elements of the recruiting process. For the selection phase of the process, an
expert (Seattle OPA Director) helped screen and interview qualified candidates. Use of an outside expert as
a participant in the application screening committee is specified in Denver’s enabling ordinance (as are a
judge, a city council member, and the chairperson of the citizen oversight board).
1
Consultant fees for managing a national recruitment effort are approximately $25k; additional fees would typically apply
if the consultant is asked to participate in the selection and hiring process.
2
Costs to City would include the expert’s travel and lodging expenses.