Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (May 12, 2005)
The Eugene Police Commission appears to be heading toward giving the civilian board no power over the auditor. This could further weaken the already weak civilian review board, making them advisory to an advisory auditor. One commissioner, Maurie Denner, argued for getting rid of the citizen board altogether as too political and costly. But other commissioners said the citizen board component was important to respond to widespread calls for citizen oversight. “It’s a broad-based community expectation and desire,” said Police Commissioner Carla Newbre. • Who will be appointed? A good review model can be subverted by bad appointments, says Handelman. The Portland auditor has the power to launch an independent investigation of an allegation, but has never done so, he says. “The IPR [auditor] is really interested in protecting the city’s interests and shielding them from lawsuits rather than finding out the truth.” In San Francisco, police reform advo- cates have been repeatedly frustrated that review board appointments don’t include reform and human rights advocates. Handelman says training for citizen appointees can be important. Training regarding board and auditor activities should include sessions with human rights, remain unresolved. homeless and civil liberties advocates, and Chief Lehner has publicly said the not just police tours of the shooting range, department should release more documents he said. regarding complaints. But that talk hasn’t The Eugene Police Commission’s draft translated into reality, and the city has not recommendation calls for the mayor and significantly altered it’s policy of refus- council to appoint members of the citi- ing to release almost any document zen review board. The police com- related to complaints against missioners are appointed in the police. same way, but former Mayor The Oregon Public Records Jim Torrey stacked the group Law requires the city to with boosters for police fund- release complaint documents ing increases. in cases in which the city • How open will exter- decided not to discipline offi- nal review be? A key rea- cers. But the city has refused son for external review is to requests for such documents. increase public confidence in Ironically, the records law investigations of police com- allows a conditional exemption plaints. But if the review process from releasing documents for com- is largely secret meetings and doc- plaints where discipline was uments, it’s hard to see how that goal POLICE imposed. If the city’s interest in not will be accomplished. The Police CHIEF disclosing the documents outweighs Commission’s draft recommenda- ROBERT the public interest in disclosure, the tion says board members will have LEHNER city doesn’t have to release the doc- full access to all documents relevant uments. For these disciplinary documents, to a case “in a non-public setting.” the city has taken the position that it will not However the auditor will present its “find- release the documents unless a citizen goes ings on an investigation for the board’s to the large expense in time and cost to sue review in a public meeting.” Other details and a court orders the documents released. of what information can be made public City Attorney Sharon Rudnick told police commissioners that the city is “obliged to assert that exemption [for disci- plinary records] under the current union contract,” according to meeting minutes. The current contract states only, “Personnel files of all employees shall be considered confidential in accordance with Oregon’s Public Records law.” It’s unclear how Rudnick construes that to mean the contract requires the city to litigate against disclos- ing disciplinary records. It’s also unclear why the city would have wanted to secretly bargain away the public’s right to know. The union contract is now up for renew- al and it’s possible the public records provi- sion could be changed. • Will the union fight citizen review? So far the police union hasn’t come out against the current weak citizen review proposal. But the union opposed a similar review measure in 1998 that failed by less than 1 percent in a charter amend- ment vote. The current union contract sets detailed disciplinary rules and requires the city bar- gain for any changes. Disputes on the con- tract or individual disciplinary actions go to binding arbitration. Efforts to tighten discipline in the past EPD Balks at Reforms The Eugene Police and Human Resources Departments have balked at key reforms called for by a recent outside management review. After the convictions last year of officers Roger Magaña and Juan Lara for sexually abusing more than a dozen women, the city paid the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) $108,000 for a management review of the police department. A March PERF/ICMA report described an EPD in “crisis” and lacking public trust, adequate supervision, leadership, and internal affairs investigations. “Lack of Eugene Police Department leadership and supervision com- bined with flawed selection and IA processes created an environment where Magaña and Lara could thrive and go undetected,” the consultants reported, recommending dozens of changes in the department. But in a report to the city manger released this week, Police Chief Robert Lehner and Human Resources Dir. Lauren Chouinard largely balked at many of the most significant reforms, refusing to make them a budget priority. PERF/ICMA called for the police to: • Expand the EPD Internal Affairs office from one officer to four, including one captain. EPD said it would only add one new sergeant. • Contract an outside consultant to oversee EPD to make sure the PERF/ICMA recom- mendations are implemented. The EPD/HR balked, instead saying they would use the city volunteer citizen Police Commission to oversee reform. The Police Commission relies on city staff for information and has been criticized for it’s lack of apparent independence from the police department. • Increase supervision of officers by sergeants and lieutenants. EPD said it was “impos- sible” to increase supervision by busy lieutenants and said sergeants couldn’t spare time from their “not discretionary” administrative duties to supervise officers. • Hire an outside investigator to conduct a thorough internal investigation of how EPD failed with Magaña and Lara. EPD/HR refused, saying they would instead meet with city attorneys after victim lawsuits against the city for negligence are completed to see if the lit- igation revealed any additional information. A continuous theme of the EPD/HR response to the PERF/ICMA recommendations was that the police budget wasn’t big enough to allow for reform. EPD/HR even put in a plug for a new police station, claiming it can’t find space for a few more internal affairs staff. For a decade, EPD has argued that it needs to almost double its budget, claiming it is direly underfunded. But Eugene has about the same number of police officers and police spending per capita as Salem. The crime rate in Eugene has dramatically fallen over the past decade, despite the supposed lack of police. Trial testimony indicated Magaña had plenty of free time, running up cell phone bills of up to $700 a month, often in harassing phone calls to victims while on duty. PERF/ICMA reported that Eugene doesn’t appear to have too few supervisors. Eugene has one sergeant supervising six to ten patrol officers, whereas many departments around the country have ten to twelve officers per sergeant. The consultants faulted a key EPD study that the department has used to argue for huge budget increases, noting that the study failed to determine “what the actual need was in terms of personnel hours to handle the existing workload.” The consultants noted that they have never met a police department leader who didn’t BY ALAN PITTMAN claim his department was understaffed. They said the EPD should hire a skilled consultant to determine if staffing was adequate and “whether or not personnel are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.” This isn’t the first time the police have cried poor when pressed for reform. Fifteen years ago, the city council told the police to implement a more citizen-friendly community polic- ing plan, but the police union and department balked, claiming they couldn’t do it without a massive budget increase. There was little effort then to prioritize the department’s budget to match citizen priori- ties and there appears to be little effort now to prioritize EPD’s $30 million budget to sup- port reform. EPD had enough money to add five new staffers last year, reprioritized money to add another manager for detectives, has two full-time PR people, and has squirreled away $30 million from the city budget for a new police station. But the department still claims it lacks enough money to adequately fund Internal Affairs investigations. At the same time, EPD admits it’s “extremely important” to add staff to its “severely understaffed” IA unit. EPD/HR claim that the police are already implementing many of the consultant recom- mendations informally. Many other changes were left for a “strategic plan” the chief is working on. The department’s last such document, the community policing plan, has gath- ered dust unimplemented for more than a decade. Most major changes are left to the city council to provide big budget increases to implement. The departments claim full imple- mentation of the recommended reforms will take “considerable” time and money. The department’s response to the consultants report doesn’t shed much more light on what’s wrong with EPD, but there are a few glimpses. The memo notes, “Some personnel have worked for the police department for over five years and never received a performance evaluation. Merit increases are sometimes processed with nothing more than a note from the involved supervisor that the subject employee minimally meets all standards for the posi- tion and is eligible for an increase.” In another section discussing faulty sergeant supervision, the memo notes “EPD’s best personnel are not consistently interested in promotional opportunities” because of the “benefits and representation rights versus those of line personnel.” Over the years, EPD’s powerful police union has exacted compensation and working condition benefits that have made it more attractive to be a line worker than a management supervisor. In the early 1990s, the city defeated a union effort to have EPD sergeants and lieutenants join the union to share the benefits. The city argued that the sergeants and lieutenants could- n’t be in the union because they were management involved in the supervision and disci- pline of union members. There’s little indication that Chief Lehner, himself a former police union president, is doing much to shake up the department after the Magaña-Lara scandals. His memo notes the amenable and cooperative relationship he has with the EPD police union, a frequent opponent of strict officer discipline. The EPD/HR memo responds to the heavy criticism of the management review with an apparent shrug. “Even outstanding police departments face occasional criminal mis- conduct on the part of employees,” Lehner and Chouinard write. As for reform, “Change is not easy.” MAY 12, 2005 13
