Civilian Review Board

City of Eugene CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD It is the mission of the Civilian Review Board to provide fair and impartial oversight and review of internal investigations conducted by the City of Eugene Police Department involving allegations of police misconduct, use of force and other matters. The Board will strive to build trust and confidence within the community and to ensure that complaints are handled fairly, thoroughly and adjudicated reasonably. The Board will encourage community involvement and transparency in order to promote the principles of community policing in the City of Eugene. Civilian Review Board Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 9, 2023 – 5:30pm Attend Via Webinar: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/82752806175 Passcode: CRB2023May Attend by Phone: 877-853-5257 (US Toll-free) 971-247-1195 Attend in Person: 101 East Broadway Suite 230 Eugene, OR 97401 Item Time (Starting) 1. Agenda and Materials Review 5 minutes (5:30pm) 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from March meeting) 5 minutes (5:35pm) 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons 5 minutes (5:40pm) 4. Public Comment 5 minutes (5:45pm) 5. Intake Review: Dismissed for Timeliness 20 minutes (5:50pm) 6. Break 5 minutes (6:10pm) 7. Case Review: Adherence to Laws, Conduct &Truthfulness 30 minutes (6:15pm) 8. Auditor Report 15 minutes (6:45pm) 9. Closing Comments 15 minutes (7:00pm) 101 E. Broadway Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor City of Eugene Civilian Review Board Page 2 of 2 10. Adjourn (7:15pm) Upcoming Meeting: June 13, 2023 101 E. Broadway Suite 230 • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016 • Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor NAME OF MEETING: Civilian Review Board DATE OF MEETING: April 11, 2023 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Diana Pamir Tisdale ===================================================================================== ROUTING INFORMATION (04/24/2023 DPT) (Date and initials) Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 0  MINUTES Civilian Review Board Zoom Webinar April 11, 2023 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Carolyn Williams, Chair; Jose Cortez, Vice Chair; Bernadette Conover; Monique Griffin; Alan Leiman; Rick Roseta; Clay Neal; Rob Eller; Lindsey Foltz; Leia Pitcher; Cindy Coleman; Sergeant Ryan Nelson; Deputy Chief Shawn Adams; Beatrice Otero-Hernandez; Vicki Cox. ABSENT: Chair Williams convened the Civilian Review Board (CRB) at 5:30 p.m. There was a quorum present. 1. Agenda and Materials Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Minutes Approval (Minutes from March 14, 2023, Meeting) Ms. Conover made an amendment to section 3.a. on the first page. She asked that the word "during" be removed, as it was a misplaced word that made the sentence grammatically incorrect. MOTION: Chair Williams moved, seconded by Ms. Conover, to approve the March 14, 2023, CRB meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously – 7:0. 3. Comments from Board Members and Commission Liaisons Mr. Leiman stated that the next Police Commission meeting would take place on Thursday, April 13, 2023, at 5:30 p.m., and noted that the Impact Weapon Policy would be a topic of discussion. 4. Public Comment Natalie Ostrove, a law school student at Lewis and Clark Law School, worked with youths in the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic – Youth Legal Clinic. During that time, she worked with a youth who had a negative experience with a Eugene Police Department (EPD) officer. Members of the Youth Legal Clinic attempted to help the youth report their case of misconduct through the EPD police auditor's complaint form. Though the complaint form did not include any information regarding a deadline to submit a complaint, the youth received a response from the Police Auditor's Office stating that the youth had missed the deadline to file. Complaints that fall under the category of serious misconduct were allowed a filing deadline of six months all other complaints had a 60-day deadline. These deadlines were found within the City of Eugene Code of Conduct, not on the complaint form, or within the response from the Police Auditor Office. Members of the Youth Legal Clinic thought that the youth's complaint did fall under the category of serious misconduct, and inquired about the exception that states that an extension to file the complaint could be requested for Good Cause. Ms. Ostrove requested the extension on behalf of the youth, and received a response stating that the extension request did not meet Good Cause. When asked what that the definition of Good Cause was, she was told Good Cause was based on extraordinary events. Ms. Ostrove noted that Good Cause means reasonable or substantial grounds rather than unusual or remarkable events. She added that she was speaking on behalf of the youth because the complaint process was not accessible to them, and, in her opinion, the complaint process was missing important deadline information. Ms. Conover clarified that the CRB does not respond to public comments directly after public comments are made. She noted that anyone who wanted to discuss Ms. Ostrove's comments could do so during Closing Comments – agenda item 10. Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 1 5. Case Review: Respectful Workplace Policy Violations Mr. Eller presented the allegations of deficiencies in conduct, supervision, performance, judgement, work environment professionalism, respectfulness, and adherence to laws and department policy. Summary of Facts • Officer B reported the improper conduct of his/her supervisor, Sergeant A, to EPD leadership. Based on the allegations against Sergeant A, a Respectful Workplace Environment (RWE) investigation was launched. • The RWE investigation resulted in a spin-off Internal Affairs (IA) investigation for Sergeant A's potential criminal conduct against Officer H, which involved Oregon State Police (OSP) and the Lane County District Attorney's (DA) Office. • The Lane County DA's Office reviewed the IA investigation and declined to pursue criminal charges against Sergeant A. • 20 witnesses were interviewed regarding their interactions with Sergeant A. During the interviews, employees discussed Sergeant A's behavior. The employees recounted instances of harassment, sexual harassment, deficient supervision, excessive micro-management, and unprofessional conduct; behavior below the established standards of an employee of the EPD. • During his/her IA interview, Sergeant A acknowledged that he/she had signed the City of Eugene Employee Handbook and Acknowledgement Form, which stated, "I understand that I am responsible for reading this handbook, familiarizing myself with its content, and adhering to all the policies and procedures of the City of Eugene, whether set forth in this handbook or elsewhere." Sergeant A was also questioned about the allegations of his/her behavior and actions. Sergeant A acknowledged some of the deficiencies, did not recall some of the events that witnesses reported, and minimized/denied some of the events and allegations. Mr. Eller stated that he would only read some of the allegations made against Sergeant A during the RWE investigation, which included the following: Conduct / Failure to Foster a Safe and Respectful Work Environment • Inappropriate inspection of Officer B's pants, • rubbed a burrito on the groin region of his/her pants before offering the burrito to a supporting employee, • inappropriate text message involving an image of a person wearing red leggings, • refusal to leave during a medical exam of supporting employee's genitals, • rubbed a cell phone against the groin area of his/her pants, • exhibited inappropriate conduct, like the previously listed instances, toward Officer H, • rubbed a cell phone against the groin area of his/her pants while the phone displayed an image of a supporting employee's spouse, • inquiry made to a subordinate employee regarding the last time they had sex with their spouse, • exhibited inappropriate conduct, like the previously listed instances, toward Officer R, • engaged in conduct that brought the EPD into disrepute, • made a sexually suggestive comment regarding a supporting employee's spouse when being introduced to the spouse, • asked Officer K their thoughts about a different gender of officer joining their team, • exhibited inappropriate conduct, like the previously listed instances, toward Officer K, • asked Officer N if he/she had taken pictures of injuries of an elderly rape victim, Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 2  • rubbed EPD paperwork on the groin of his/her pants, • requested naked photos of subordinate employee's spouse, • loaned a subordinate employee a pair of uniform pants, and commented that now their sexual organs were touching, • rubbed a subordinate employee's cell phone against the groin area of his/her pants in a separate instance than previously listed above, • slapped EPD paperwork out of a subordinate employee's hands, • sitting in a manner that displayed the groin area of his pants during meetings with employees, • and repeatedly made comments of a sexual nature to supporting employees. There were 34 allegations in total made against Sergeant A during the RWE investigation. Expectation of Supervisors • Sergeant A exercised his/her authority as a supervisor in a disparate manner toward Officer B, Officer H, Officer K, and Officer F regarding the instances previously listed above. Unsatisfactory Performance / Failure to Perform Required Tasks • Sergeant A asked Officer G to add charges when a K-9 had assisted in the apprehension of a suspect. • Sergeant A directed Officer F to arrest someone for a cooking fire. Judgement • Sergeant A exercised poor judgement and violated policy with his/her judgement as a supervisor. Professionalism • Sergeant A's conduct toward his/her supervised employees was unprofessional and in violation of policy. Respectful Work Environment • Multiple allegations of disrespectful and/or offensive statements and behavior were made against Sergeant A, that would be individually and, in their totality, violations of policy. EPD Employee Handbook / City of Eugene Code of Conduct • Multiple allegations of disrespectful and/or offensive statements and behavior were made against Sergeant A, that would be individually and, in their totality, violations of the City of Eugene Code of Conduct. Mr. Eller read the allegations made during the IA investigation of Sergeant A, which included the following: Judgement • Sergeant A demonstrated poor judgement and was in violation of policy for his/her conduct with Officer H in the locker room. Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 3 Conduct • Sergeant A failed to provide a respectful work environment because of his/her conduct with Officer H in the locker room. Expectation of Supervisors • Sergeant H failed to meet the expectations of a supervisor with Officer H in the locker room. Adherence to Laws • Sergeant A's conduct with officer H violated Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 166.065 of physical harassment. There were 4 allegations in total made against Sergeant A during the IA investigation, all of which were sustained. The Police Auditor's Office investigation resulted in the following: Police Auditor • 28 Sustained Allegations • 10 Allegations with Insufficient Evidence Chain of Command and City of Eugene Chief of Police Concurred • 26 Sustained Allegations • 12 Allegations with Insufficient Evidence Mr. Leiman encouraged board members to think about why Sergeant A was able to exhibit his/her behavior for so long and gain an understanding of failures within the system. Ms. Griffin stated that she appreciated the thorough investigation and meticulous classifications resulting from the RWE and IA investigations. She expressed concern about the DA's decision to not press charges. Ms. Conover said Sergeant A stated that his/her behavior was commonplace and noted that was probably because he was behaving inappropriately all the time. During the past 25 years working with officers, she had never seen or heard of behavior like Sergeant A's. She speculated that perhaps the reason this went on for so long was because Sergeant A may have behaved that way among his/her peers before becoming a Sergeant. She noted that he/she had not been a Sergeant for very long. Perhaps Sergeant A did not see themselves as being different from when they were a colleague. Regarding why the DA's Office did not take this case more seriously, she speculated that it could have been caused by officer's not wanting to press charges against Sergeant A. She acknowledged that the investigation was very thorough and that the intake, classification, and monitoring was done well. She gained a new perspective on how IA works with HR. Mr. Neal said that the when the Federal Department of Justice investigates law enforcement agencies, they look for patterns in behavior practices. When a pattern of poor behavior is identified, that often leads to significant changes within a system. The case against Sergeant A was obviously a pattern in practice considering the length of time that Sergeant A's behavior went on, the number of allegations made, and the number of sustained allegations. He hoped that a pattern in practice could be identified in a more Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 4 direct way with a higher level of seriousness in the future but acknowledged that the investigation was very thorough and that the intake, classification, and monitoring was done well. Mr. Roseta said he was concerned about where to draw the line between HR and the Police Auditor's Office. So many of these allegations fall under the purview of the HR Department, i.e., alleged poor conduct in the workplace. He asked if the Police Auditor's Office should be tasked with cases like this or if HR should handle these types of situations. He noted that the Eugene Police Employees' Association, who represent the EPD, and the chain of command within the EPD made how to handle this case somewhat unique. He expressed concern regarding two departments working on one case if it could be handled by one. Ms. Pitcher said the determining factor for if a case should be sent to HR is if the case is 100 percent based on employee complaints. If a case that is based on employee complaints has aspects that could lead to potential misconduct or has led to misconduct, then the two departments would work together. Mr. Rosetta asked who would made the ultimate decision regarding if Sergeant A would remain a EPD employee. Ms. Pitcher replied that the decision was made by the City of Eugene Chief of Police. Ms. Conover asked if HR had the same process for sustained insufficient work. Ms. Pitcher confirmed that the process was the same. Chair Williams confirmed that Sergeant A was not currently employed by the EPD. She stated that she thought the investigation was very thorough and good, and the classification was fine. She was thankful that this case went through the CRB process and was made public. She initially wondered if this case was a systemic problem within the EPD, but after the thorough investigation, she was hopeful that it was not. Vice Chair Cortez said that this case communicates important facts to the public, and he appreciates the EPD's work to communicate these difficult truths. Mr. Leiman asked if Sergeant A's disciplinary measures were disseminated among Sergeant A's former fellow officers. Deputy Chief Adams replied that there were good parts that came out of this situation, i.e., officers were willing to speak up and cooperate, which built a level of trust between them and EPD leadership. He noted that many of the instances involving Sergeant A occurred during the night shift and on the weekends, when other supervisors were not around. He stated that after he adjudicated this case, he spoke to every employee and shared as much as he could about what occurred and informed them about the ramifications in this case without crossing the boundary of what was allowed to be shared. Each conversation ended with an understanding of the importance of trust among EPD employees. Check-ins with employees were ongoing throughout the department, and he added that the fact that Sergeant A was no longer employed by the EPD spoke volumes to the EPD officers. Ms. Griffin asked if there were any trainings explicitly for sexual harassment within the EPD. Deputy Chief Adams replied that the groundwork for situations like this was taught from the first day a cadet walked through the doors of the police academy, and it was reiterated again when they walk through the doors of the EPD. He stated that there was no excuse for Sergeant A's behavior and added that Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 5 trainings have recently changed to include a two-week seminar on harassment, sexual harassment, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Ms. Conover said she was wondering why the CRB was reviewing this case, what the takeaway was for the board, and why was it was helpful for the public to know about this case. She was not sure there was any training suggestions the board could make because training was already covered. Mr. Neal agreed with Ms. Conover's line of thinking regarding why the CRB was reviewing this case. He stated that as a University of Oregon (UO) faculty member, he went through scenario-based training. The trainings seemed ridiculous at the time, and he wondered who would need that type of training. Yet, as determined in this case, there are those who need this type of training. He asked Chief Deputy Adams if he thought this was a one-off case. Chief Deputy Adams stated that in his opinion, this was a one-off case because the department was not seeing these types of cases in high frequency. If there were other cases like this going on, he would know about them. The EPD had worked hard to restore trust among management, and the goal was to increase communication throughout the ranks of the department. He added that the EPD was in the process of promoting four lieutenants and nine sergeants. Once they were promoted, a meeting would take place and discussions would involve culture, leadership, and the future of the agency. Sergeant Nelson said when he first started his job at the EPD, he worked hard and wanted people to know him by his work ethic. The team that Sergeant A had was all new officers, and they were trying to make a name for themselves. It could have been hard for those younger officers to rock the boat and say something about Sergeant A's behavior. He felt strongly that if this same situation occurred with tenured officers that it would not have gone on for so long. He's been with the EPD for 21 years, and truly believed this was a one-off situation. Mr. Rosetta said that the way this situation was handled points out to the rest of the officers that the EPD leadership wanted to improve the culture at work. Chair Williams asked if trainings taught victims how to speak up for themselves and report problems when they occurred, especially for new employees. Chief Deputy Adams replied that every employee was taught how to initiate a complaint. Regarding Ms. Conover's speculation about Sergeant A possibly behaving inappropriately before he/she was promoted, Chair Williams asked if that were true, why would they get promoted. Sergeant Nelson said based on the investigative reports of this case, that behavior was not witnessed prior to Sergeant A's promotion. Chief Deputy Adams added that employees go through a 360-degree performance review prior to being promoted, which is reviewed by the Chief. Ms. Conover asked if officers are asked to rate their supervisor's performance. Chief Deputy Adams replied that there was a probation period of six months to one year for newly promoted employees, and a recommendation must be approved to end the probation. Chair Williams said as stated in the investigative reports, many officers did not want to come to work due to the situation with Sergeant A, thus using their vacation time. She asked Chief Deputy Adams if those people got reimbursed for their vacation time. Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 6 Chief Deputy Adams confirmed that those employees were reimbursed for their vacation time. Vice Chair Cortez said that whether Sergeant A's behavior was the example or the exception, the magnitude of what took place was overwhelming when he analyzed the list of instances and officers involved. Ms. Pitcher stated that the reason she suggested this case for CRB review was because it involved so many people. Vice Chair Cortez said he would like to think CRB cases were selected with some intent. He added implicit bias was difficult to name and identify, and civic institutions were slow to change. He referenced the pay discrepancies based on gender within the City of Eugene. Mr. Leiman stated that when he reviewed this case, it made him nervous because it was a hidden situation that became discovered. He said that was the reason why this was a good case for the CRB to review and a good case to bring in front of the public so the department would be reminded to not let this happen again. Do not put new employees and a new Sergeant on the same team. That's a step the department could take to possibly prevent something like this from happening again. He suggested training the officers specifically on this case, which in his opinion was explicitly sexual workplace harassment. Chair Williams called for board members to make closing comments on the adjudication. Ms. Conover said it was important to keep the lines of communication open for new officers, and frequent reminders about who they could talk to if a problem arises. She noted that new Sergeant's and officers would most likely be put on the night shifts. Mr. Neal responded that organizational change may be required so new Sergeant's and new officers were no longer assigned to the night shifts. He said there was so much involved with power dynamics and the age of young people entering a profession. Sometimes, it could be gender, or other factors in someone's background that could make them vulnerable in a way that would not encourage telling on someone. In addition to knowing who to tell, officers should also know about the protections they have explicitly from the department, not just from their union. Officers should also be made aware that there would be consequences if this behavior happens and that it would be normal and important for them to report it. Ms. Coleman stated that every time a recruit is onboarded, or a recruit or Sergeant academy is held, the department has an IA training. The importance of honesty is stressed during those trainings. She added that information about this case could be incorporated into trainings for new recruits. The goal of the trainings was to set new recruits up for success. Mr. Neil said that the work of the police force is challenging, and if the employees do not feel comfortable and supported it makes it harder to deal with the stress of the job. He noted the importance of employees knowing that IA and the Police Auditor's Office were there to provide protection for EPD employees. Vice Chair Cortex stated that EPD leaderships' willingness to protect its employees ultimately enhances the safety of the community. Mr. Leiman stated that he was impressed that the EPD reimbursed the vacation time for the victims in this case. He reiterated his disposition regarding not putting an all- rookie team on the night shift. Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 7 Ms. Griffin stated that she agrees with Mr. Leiman in that more experienced employees should work at night. She asked Deputy Chief Adams if executives worked at night. Deputy Chief Adams replied that executives did not work at night but watch commanders did. Ms. Pitcher stated that the annual report for 2021 included a graph that displayed allegations made in that year. While there were fewer allegations made overall, it was determined that allegations were more specific in nature. She felt it was important to bring this case before the CRB for review to highlight the level work that went into it by the Police Auditor's Office. She hoped that this case would pave the way for future discussions about inappropriate behavior in the workplace and make it easier for people to report inappropriate behaviors that may occur. Chair Williams stated that because an in-depth review of this case already occurred, she proposed skipping agenda item 7. The board agreed. There were no other comments or questions. 6. Break The CRB took a break from 7:00 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. 7. Case Review: Police Operations Manual (POM) Violations This agenda item was skipped. 8. Election of Liaison to Human Rights Commissions Chair Williams asked if there were any board members who wanted to serve as the Human Rights Commission Liaison. Mr. Neal said he would be happy to take that role but clarified that he would not be available to attend the July, August, and September meetings. Ms. Pitcher replied that the commission meets one Tuesday out of each month and that meetings would not take place during the month of August. Chair Williams asked if anybody else was interested in the role of Human Rights Commission Liaison. MOTION: Chair Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Leiman, to nominate Clay Neal as the Liaison to Human Rights Commissions. The motion passed unanimously – 7:0. 9. Auditor Report Ms. Pitcher stated that all the CRB applications were received, and she was finishing up the memo that contained the selections. Ms. Otero-Hernandez would be speaking at the Public Safety Forum held on May 2, 2023, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Ms. Otero-Hernandez stated that the May 2023 Public Safety Forum would be the first Latinx / Spanish– speaking community, and would be held at Willamette High School. The Police Auditor's Office will have a table set up and she welcomed CRB board members to attend. She noted the event would be primarily in Spanish, but that there would be some capacity of English-speaking people at the table to help board members connect with people. It would be a two and a half-hour event. Tabling would take place among various organizations during the first hour, followed by a question-and-answer session with panelists in the second hour. EPD Chief Chris Skinner would be among the panelists, in addition to a bi- Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 8 lingual EPD officer, an integration attorney, and representatives from the Rental Housing Navigator program and the Eugene 4J school district. Ms. Pitcher continued the Auditor Report and stated that there were 94 complaints so far for 2023. There were 53 shows of force and 30 uses of force, all of which were reviewed. There were seven pursuits, which were reviewed by the Police Auditor's Office and the Emergency Vehicle Operation Supervisor to ensure they were inline with the Pursuit Policy. Regarding the public comments made earlier by Ms. Ostrove, it was a closed case involving a sworn employee and would have been included in the January closed case reports. It was available for CRB review if they chose to review it. She noted that the complaint was dismissed after the Police Auditor's Office reviewed the police reports and video of the incident. Chair Williams asked Ms. Pitcher to tell the board about Good Cause. Ms. Pitcher said that historically, Good Cause had been narrowly interpreted. In her opinion, if there were a broader interpretation of Good Cause, it would address the issue of limits on timeliness. She added that based on legal advice, Good Cause is strictly interpreted. There were no other comments or questions. 10. Closing Comments Mr. Neal asked for a high-level clarification on Human Rights Commission procedures. Ms. Pitcher said that an email would be sent to other members of the commission informing them that Mr. Neal was recently added, and meetings would take place on the third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Otero-Hernandez clarified that Human Rights Commission meetings were not held during July, August, or December. Vice Chair Cortex acknowledged his appreciation for the work that the Police Auditor's Office does. Chair Williams stated that Vice Chair Cortez and herself would welcome input regarding the types of cases the board would like to review. She suggested that board members review the closed case list and identify any cases they were interested in. Ms. Conover reminded the board that all cases involving egregious or criminal activity fall under the purview of the CRB. Unrelated, she acknowledged the quick turnaround times listed in the March closed case report and said that was an indicator that the Police Auditor's Office was back on track after the COVID pandemic. Lastly, she mentioned the bank shooting in Louisville, Kentucky that took place on April 10, 2023. She noted the fast response made by Louisville police and felt that the EPD would respond to an active shooter in same manner. Ms. Pitcher stated that the limits for timeliness do not limit the police from doing an investigation. Regarding the incident that Ms. Ostrove mentioned in her public comments, the Police Auditor's Office reviewed the files from that case and determined that there was no misconduct. Ms. Foltz stated that regarding that incident, officers and witnesses were not interviewed, but the materials that were available from the case were analyzed. Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 9 Mr. Neal clarified that the complaint had to meet a criterion for time that was very strictly defined in the ordinance that created the whole system, and that Good Cause was not clearly defined. He asked if the Police Auditor's Office was looking at the possibility to re-think the definition in the future, not related to this case. Ms. Pitcher said that was correct. If the Police Auditor's Office, the EPD, the Union, and the City of Eugene could all agree that Good Cause could be a bit more expansive, we would not need to change the ordinance language, which would be very complex to do. Mr. Neal clarified to Ms. Ostrove that there was a process that the Police Auditor's Office was looking at that would not change the outcome of the case they referenced in their comments but could potentially improve the limits on timeliness for future complaints. He noted that the CRB would review what took place in this case and provide comments during their next meeting on May 9, 2023. There were no other comments or questions. 11. Adjourn Chair Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. (Minutes recorded by Diana Pamir Tisdale) Civilian Review Board April 11, 2023 10  Office of the Police Auditor April 2023 Open Case Report Inquiries Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained that officers mishandled an investigation. Dismiss - No alleged policy violations. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 10, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained he/she was not taken seriously by a communications specialist. Dismiss - No policy violations. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers engaged in retaliatory behavior. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Inquiry Disposition: RP complained officers mishandled a public assembly. Service Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 27, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Use of Force Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP claimed officers used unnecessary force during his/her arrest. Dismiss – Review of incident revealed RP’s allegations did not occur. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 7, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP alleged an officer drove in an unsafe manner. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 13, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: RP complained officers did not have the proper authority to ask a 3rd party for identification. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 17, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Disputed Facts Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained an officer drove his/her marked unit improperly. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 18, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an officer's behavior was unacceptable. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 21, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Service level Disposition: Dismissed-Other RP complained an officer was discourteous. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 24, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Performance Disposition: Dismissed-Timeliness RP complained officers failed to conduct an adequate investigation. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Service Complaint / Courtesy Disposition: RP complained that a community services officer acted unprofessionally. Policy Complaints Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Completed Received date: Apr 20, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: Supervisor Review-Closed RP complained a Eugene PD policy was deficient and improper. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP requested a change to policy regarding trespassing. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 26, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained personal information from a report created a safety risk and complained an officer acted inappropriately. Incident type: Supervisor Action Status: Active Received date: Apr 28, 2023 Class/sub-class: Policy Complaint Disposition: RP complained the EPD fee to receive a copy of a report was excessive. Incident Reviews Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Apr 7, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: RP alleged that an officer sent inappropriate, personal texts to an individual the officer arrested. Incident type: Incident Review Status: Active Received date: Apr 12, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Conduct Disposition: RP complained that an officer engaged in unwanted and inappropriate conduct. Incident type: Supervisor Intake Status: Initial Received date: Apr 17, 2023 Class/sub-class: Incident Review / Performance Disposition: RP complained his/her property was improperly disposed of.  Auditor’s Report April 2023 As of March 31, we have opened 94 Complaints Received January -March, complaints, reviewed 32 uses of force, and 2022-2023 reviewed 61 reportable shows of force from EPD this year. Complaints are slightly higher 40 40 37 36 than this time last year, but on track with our average. Uses of force and shows of force are 35 in line with the beginning of 2022. Of note, 30 24 25 we are working through review of seven 25 21 2022 vehicle pursuits thus far in 2023, which is a 20 distinct increase (in 2022, EPD conducted 10 15 2023 pursuits, and only three in 2021). This 10 increase coincides with EPD’s changes to its 5 Vehicle Pursuit Policy. We are working 0 through analyses of the 2022 and 2023 January February March pursuits and will update as those are completed. We are excited to announce the return of our Public Safety Forum on Tuesday, May 2, from 6:00- 8:30pm, at Willamette High School. We began these forums as an opportunity for primarily Spanish- speakers to meet with community groups and service providers and be able to ask questions related to public services and public safety. Beatriz has been working hard with our partners in the City’s Office of Equity and Community Engagement, with support from EPD’s Community Service Team. The event is conducted in Spanish, and childcare and food are available. The event has always been well-attended in the past, and we are all looking forward to it. Applications for City Boards and Commissions just closed March 31, and City Code requires that the Mayor and Police Auditor convene a CRB Selection Committee to make recommendations to Council on appointments to the CRB. We had an incredibly deep and talented applicant pool, and the Selection Subcommittee met last week. I am finishing my memo summarizing their recommendations, and will be forwarding that to the Mayor, Council, and City Staff. I have been appointed to the Annual Conference Committee for the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, and we met in late March to review over 90 submissions for presentations at the NACOLE November 2023 conference. There were some incredibly interesting submissions, and I am excited to be a part of organizing this informative and educational conference. Our Public Portal is up and running, and we are working on updates to the information included on the Auditor and Civilian Review Board websites – look for those improvements in May 2023. I am always happy to answer any questions you all may have about any of our ongoing work. Please feel free to contact us with ideas for training topics and/or cases to review. ______________________________________________________________________________ 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230  Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016  Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor  Auditor’s Report May 2023 As of April 30, we have opened 113 those cases and will report back with our complaints in 2023 – exactly on track with results. this time last year. We have also reviewed 36 uses of force and 78 reportable shows of The return of our Public Safety Forum was a force. resounding success! The Forum was held May 2 at Willamette High School and was very well- Reviews of complaints and uses/shows of attended. Mayor Vinis gave a welcoming force are an enormous portion of our address, and Chief Skinner was among the workload. Rob Eller and Lindsey Foltz, the panelists. Beatriz Otero-Hernandez did an Associate Auditors, review video and police amazing job pulling the event together, along reports for nearly every complaint and use of with our partners from the Equity and force to ensure appropriate classification. Community Engagement Office and the Rick Weber and Cindy Coleman at EPD Eugene Police Department. Internal Affairs are incredibly helpful and responsive with our requests for information. We will be presenting the Annual Reports of I’m incredibly grateful for this team and all the our office and the Civilian Review Board to the work that they do to keep our office running Eugene City Council on May 17 at their noon smoothly. work session. In addition, I am slated to return to Council June 14 to discuss potential In November 2022, I initiated the process to updates to the civilian oversight protocols. direct appoint Rob and Lindsey from limited duration positions to permanent Associate Auditors. The Employee Resource Center notified me last week that they are still COMPLAINTS JANUARY - APRIL processing that paperwork; I am hoping that process will finish up soon. 2023 2022 45 In addition to our normal caseload; Rob and 40 Lindsey are working through reviewing nine 35 vehicle pursuits that EPD has been involved in 30 so far this year. In comparison, EPD 25 conducted three pursuits in 2021 and eight in 20 all of 2022. 15 10 One trend we are working on analyzing is an 5 increase in search and seizure cases over the 0 past few years. Anecdotally, inappropriate JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL entries and seizures have occurred in more of our investigations; we are looking at trends in ______________________________________________________________________________ 101 E. Broadway, Suite 230  Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone (541) 682-5016  Fax (541) 682-5599 www.eugene-or.gov/policeauditor  Police Commendations The Eugene Police Department Commendations from citizens for April 2023 maybe found at the link below. https://www.eugene-or.gov/2763/Commendations