Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/18/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 18, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. B. WORK SESSION: Police Oversight System – Role and Expectations Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided an overview of the subject and drew the council’s attention to the Police Commission’s 2005 report and the 2008 police auditor recruitment brochure, both of which were included in the agenda packet. She said the documents contained information about a hybrid police oversight system, the auditor’s independence from the Police Department and procedures for handling complaints. She felt the Police Commission’s report was the best representation of what was intended with police oversight and the brochure summarized the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the oversight system. Ms. Piercy noted that City Manager Jon Ruiz was on leave. She said an announcement regarding a new police auditor was postponed while due diligence was conducted. She posed questions for the council to consider during its discussion: ? Did the council require any clarification on the oversight system to assure there were common expectations and understanding? ? Did the public require any clarification? ? Would the discussion of roles and expectations prepare the council for its consideration of recom- mendations from the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee and auditor supervision proto- cols? Mr. Zelenka felt that desirable outcomes for the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) would be to clarify their roles and the council’s expectations. He said those could be set forth in a bulleted list. He asked who was on the Police Commission when the report was written. Ms. Medary said she would provide that information. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council was responsible for supervising the Police Auditor, but that arrange- ment had not worked to date. She suggested that auditor supervision could be rotated among councilors on a monthly basis so one councilor did not have to shoulder the entire burden. Mr. Pryor said the concept of good supervision should provide appropriate guidance and direction that identified expected outcomes and allowed an employee a certain level of independence to perform the basic operational tasks of their job. He said the council needed to clearly define the outcome it wanted from the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 1 Work Session police oversight system. He said one outcome could be to identify and punish bad employees; another could be to improve the performance, function and credibility of the Police Department. He said those outcomes were not mutually exclusive, but each represented a different emphasis for an oversight system. Ms. Piercy cited the oversight system expectations and language related to the independent function of the Police Auditor as set forth in the ordinance and noted that was different from the supervision being discussed by the council. Mr. Clark commented that the ordinance prohibited an individual from influencing the actions of the auditor. He said one member of the council could not speak for the body, but the council as a whole was charged with the duty of oversight and supervision, which were two separate things. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he was writing an opinion on police auditor supervision for the council’s consideration. He pointed out that both the ordinance and the Charter charged the council with supervision of the Police Auditor, which was an independent office. He said the opinion would differentiate between the auditor’s role of investigating and making findings and the council’s supervision of the auditor as an employee. Ms. Taylor saw supervision as keeping in touch and identifying a contact person who could then report to the council. She used the example of a principal who supervised teachers but did not tell them how to teach. Mr. Zelenka clarified that the motion about police auditor supervision recently passed by the council was intended to provide supervision of the functioning of the police auditor’s office rather than interfere in outcomes of those functions. Ms. Ortiz said the new oversight system had brought many improvements regarding handling of complaints. She said the council did not know details of how the auditor’s office functioned and it would be helpful to have information about those processes. She felt that supervision of the auditor should be provided by council officers and intended to put forward a template for that supervision at the council’s work session on the subject. She thought the Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor should represent a quality control model. Mr. Pryor felt part of the council’s role as supervisor should be to support its employees and that required mutual trust. He said the question was how to foster sufficient trust between the council and the auditor to have a smooth and effective relationship. He hoped that was a question the council would explore. Ms. Piercy observed that oversight systems took time to become established and gain the confidence of the community. She liked Ms. Taylor’s proposal for shared supervision and asked the council to consider it. Mr. Brown remarked that councilors had been remiss by not meeting frequently with the Police Auditor as they did the City Manager. He wished the CRB meetings were on a different night so councilors could attend. He appreciated the auditor’s quarterly reports and felt that recent misunderstandings had resulted from procedural “gray” areas that could be resolved through regular meetings. He hoped when a new auditor was hired the entire staff of the auditor’s office would meet weekly with council and CRB representatives to discuss procedural matters. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s comments about a quality assurance model and did not see that any substantive changes to the system would be required to achieve that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka cited the purposes of an oversight system and functions of the police auditor as identified in the Police Commission’s report. He said it was the role of the City Council to provide supervision and that needed to be defined clearly. He felt the need to assess and address issues raised by the Police Auditor with respect to the functioning of the auditor’s office. He said the CRB’s role was defined in the report and did not include supervision of the auditor. Mr. Brown pointed out that one of the CRB’s delineated roles was to participate in the annual evaluation of the Police Auditor. Ms. Ortiz commended the CRB for its hard work, but questioned whether the intent was to have the board minutely examine each piece of evidence during case reviews, essentially conducting a re-examination. Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said that the CRB reviewed the entire case file—from in-car videos to investigation reports and medical records—looking for gaps in the process or indications of bias. She said the board could request a case, but typically cases were selected from a summary of closed cases provided by the auditor; an examination of the entire case file was the model used by most jurisdictions with an oversight system. She said in most cases there was agreement between the Police Department and the Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka said it would be difficult to determine whether there were gaps or biases without examining the entire record. He asked how many cases the CRB reviewed annually. Ms. Reynolds replied that the board usually looked at one case per month and on occasion two. She said it generally took members eight to nine hours to examine the complete record for a case. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the police auditor’s office existed to ensure the quality and nature of the investigation was thorough and appropriate and the role of the CRB was to monitor the work of the police auditor as well as identify trends or areas that warranted recommendations regarding policy changes or training. He said the CRB’s role with respect to policy was to identify issues and the Police Commission’s role was to make the policy recommendations to the Police Chief. Ms. Reynolds agreed, but said that if the CRB or police auditor identified an issue such as a lack of training on the Americans with Disabilities Act it might make that recommendation directly to the chief in the interests of expediting action. Ms. Ortiz asked how the community had responded to the new complaint and intake process through the Police Auditor’s office. Ms. Reynolds said her office had begun conducting follow-up surveys and phone calls to determine complainants’ levels of satisfaction with the process. She commented that mediation services were available and those who had gone through it were pleased with the results. Mr. Clark said the Police Commission’s role was to reflect community values in its police policy recommen- dations. He asked how the CRB ascertained community values in order to integrate them into case reviews and policy concerns and whether the CRB explored legislative intent behind the policies that existed. Ms. Reynolds said the CRB had a packet of materials detailing the work of the Police Commission to establish the oversight system and each CRB member was required to take eight credit hours of training on various policing issues. She said each case had a policy issue that provided further background information and she also provided the board with resource materials. She felt the CRB had a good grasp of police policies and the history of creating those policies and was always looking for ways to improve and clarify them so they worked better for everyone. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Clark questioned whether the CRB sometimes had concerns about policies because it lacked information about the background or intent of those policies. Ms. Reynolds said other jurisdictions had adjudication categories of “within policy, but the policy was flawed” and “training failure.” She said Eugene’s system did not have those outcomes, which could address some of the issues encountered by the CRB. Ms. Piercy asked if there was a process for determining whether training needs identified by the CRB or auditor were addressed. She had spoken to the City Manager, who indicated that the auditor could also contact him with respect to outstanding issues. Ms. Reynolds said it would be helpful to have information from the Police Department about what training was being provided and to whom. Ms. Piercy summarized that there appeared to be no significant disagreement among councilors regarding the CRB and the Police Auditor. She heard general agreement on the need for a bulleted list of expectations, a suggestion that many concerns could be addressed through better and more frequent communications with the council and consensus that there should be a certain level of independence for the auditor and trust was important in that relationship. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 4 Work Session