Laserfiche WebLink
C ONTENTS <br />xx <br />Exhibit 2–1. Selected Features of the Nine Oversight Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 <br />Exhibit 2–2. Additional Features of the Nine Oversight Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 <br />Exhibit 2–3. Citizen Complaint Process in Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 <br />Exhibit 2–4. Berkeley Police Review Commission Budget, Fiscal Year 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 <br />Exhibit 2–5. Flint Office of the Ombudsman’s Investigation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 <br />Exhibit 2–6. Flint Ombudsman’s Office 1998–99 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 <br />Exhibit 2–7. Disposition of 159 Signed Complaints in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 <br />Exhibit 2–8. Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority Complaint Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 <br />Exhibit 2–9. Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority 1998 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 <br />Exhibit 2–10. The Orange County Citizen Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 <br />Exhibit 2–11. Steps in the Portland Audit Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 <br />Exhibit 2–12. Rochester Citizen Oversight Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 <br />Exhibit 2–13. Center for Dispute Settlement CRB and Conciliation Budget for <br />Fiscal Year 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 <br />Exhibit 2–14. St. Paul Citizen Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 <br />Exhibit 2–15. Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission 1995 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 <br />Exhibit 2–16. San Francisco’s Oversight Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 <br />Exhibit 2–17. Office of Citizen Complaints 1998–99 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 <br />Exhibit 2–18. Citizen Oversight Process in Tucson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 <br />Exhibit 2–19. Tucson Independent Police Auditor Budgets for Fiscal Years 1997–98 <br />and 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 <br />Exhibit 3–1. Portland Police Bureau Bulletin on Handcuffing Issued in Response <br />to Auditor’s Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 <br />Exhibit 3–2. Minneapolis Mediation Program Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 <br />Exhibit 3–3. Mediation Summary and Agreement Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 <br />Exhibit 3–4. Potential Benefits of Mediation to Citizens and Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 <br />Exhibit 5–1. Oversight Outreach Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 <br />Exhibit 5–2. OCC Incident Information Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 <br />Exhibit 5–3. Flier Included in Letter the Portland Police Bureau Sends to Complainants <br />Notifying Them of Their Cases/Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 <br />Exhibit 5–4. Number of Days Each of 10 Complaints Remained at 3 San Jose Police <br />Department Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 <br />Exhibit 6–1. Concerns Many Police and Sheriff’s Departments—and Union Leaders— <br />Express About Citizen Oversight—and Possible Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 <br />Exhibit 7–1. Minneapolis Consumer Satisfaction Post-Outcome Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 <br />Exhibit 7–2. Costs of Nine Oversight Systems in 1997 in Relation to Responsibilities <br />and Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 <br />Exhibit 8–1. Individuals With Experience in Citizen Oversight of Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141