My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
65A - POLICE OVERSIGHT DIRECTION
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
09/15/2020
>
65A - POLICE OVERSIGHT DIRECTION
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2020 5:28:47 PM
Creation date
9/10/2020 5:15:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
City Manager's Office
Item #
65A
Date
9/15/2020
Destruction Year
2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Round Table Discussion <br />A round table discussion was held to enhance our understanding of how civilian oversight works in major <br />cities. The discussion focused on reviewing the survey results and how the various models worked in actual <br />practice. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund hosted the round table discussion on June <br />15, 2017, at the PEW Conference Center in Washington, D.C. Representatives from 21 MCCA agencies in <br />the United States and Canada participated in the discussion. In addition, the president and vice president of <br />NACOLE attended and participated in the conversation. Also participating was the chairperson of the newly <br />created Fairfax County (Virginia) Civilian Review Panel (the full list of attendees can be found in appendix B <br />on page 35). <br />The first half of the conversation was devoted to participants describing their oversight bodies. The second <br />half focused on a series of questions about civilian oversight aimed at helping understand how it worked <br />in their communities: objectives, advantages and disadvantages, effectiveness measures, research gaps, <br />and key points participants thought should be emphasized in the paper (the full agenda can be found in <br />appendix C on page 37). <br />The oversight model discussion was framed around the NACOLE investigative, review, and auditor/monitor <br />models. As can be seen in table 1 on page 14, most of the agencies reported their civilian oversight <br />body followed the review -focused model. Nine agencies did not fall within the three models; they were <br />combinations of the models or something entirely different. The City of Los Angeles, for example, has a <br />police commission appointed by the mayor that serves as a corporate board with the chief of police in <br />the role of chief executive officer. The commission has a role in appointing the chief, policy and budget <br />approval, and oversight in the disciplinary process. It also appoints an inspector general, whose function <br />would fall under the auditor/monitor model. An additional 11 agencies did not have a type of civilian <br />oversight that fits within any of the NACOLE models and reported "none." Nevertheless there is civilian <br />oversight of these agencies through mayors, city councils, prosecutors, and the variety of boards and <br />commissions in cities that have some influence over police operations. <br />65A-28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.