Laserfiche WebLink
circumstances in which a Police Department employee must be removed from active duty, <br />pending an investigation by the board and/or the Police Department. The board can also help <br />ensure the availability of adequate support for officers in parallel and independent from discipline. <br />d. Evidence of criminal activity must also be referred for potential prosecution. <br />e. The board must possess the power to remove the Police Chief for cause (such as failure to <br />cooperate with the board) and be involved in appointing the Police Chief, <br />5. Power to audit, issue recommendations, and set policy. <br />a. The board must also have authority to audit practices, policies, and procedures of the Police <br />Department. <br />b. On the basis of such audits, the board must be empowered to set and change Police Department <br />policies as well as consult in hiring, training, and collective bargaining. <br />c. The board must have the power to review and make recommendations regarding the Police <br />Department budget and budgeting process. <br />6. Secure funding. <br />a. The board's funding must be protected to ensure its independence, for example, by setting the <br />board's budget at a fixed percentage of the Police Department's budget or in proportion to the size <br />of the force. <br />b. The board budget must support appropriate board staffing and training on the requirements of <br />constitutional policing and Police Department policies. <br />7. Due process protections for police officers. <br />a. Officers who are accused of misconduct must have the full range of due process protections in the <br />investigatory and disciplinary process, including Skelly rights and the rights to access to counsel, <br />to a hearing, and to an appeal. Officers must be permitted to view the evidence presented against <br />them, to testify, and to offer statements to defend against misconduct allegations. <br />b. The board must employ a preponderance of the evidence standard. <br />8. Community engagement and public access and reporting. <br />a. The board itself must publicize regular written reports and publicly produce data regarding police <br />practices, such as crime data and data on the use of force, stops, and arrests, as well as details <br />regarding complaints and settlements. <br />b. The board must also hold regular public meetings, which must be webeast and recorded, to <br />summarize findings and engage with community members. <br />c. The board itself should be accountable to the public. <br />These goals are drawn from good practices and oversight mechanisms in place in other cities — for example in <br />Chicago, Newark, and Oakland. <br />The establishment for a police oversight commission has been long overdue. The first demand <br />for police oversight was presented by the Orange County Congress of Racial Equity (CORE) <br />during a Santa Ana City Council meeting in September 1965. Chairman Oree Dyes described the <br />police oversight commission as "some type of mechanism, controlled by civilians, to investigate <br />