Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

Tucson’s Dual Oversight System: A Professional Auditor and a Citizen Review Board Collaborate Background In 1996, several Tucson police officers were sent to prison for assault, armed robbery, and child molestation. As a result, some citizen groups and complainants’attor- neys felt the existing police oversight board, established in 1980, was not adequately supervising police miscon- duct. In response, the mayor asked the city council’s pub- lic safety committee to present options to the city council for new forms of oversight. In March 1997, after intense debate, the mayor and city council replaced the old board with a new and more powerful Citizen Police Advisory Review Board. At the same time, they established a new position of independent police auditor. The council hired Liana Perez as the first auditor in July 1997. From September 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, 289 citizens contacted Perez. She or her staff answered questions from 155 of the individuals who called. The auditor’s office took 96 formal complaints, which Perez forwarded to the police department for investigation. The remaining contacts were requests by citizens for Perez to monitor or review complaints they had filed directly with the police department. During this 10-month period, she monitored 63 ongoing investigations. As explained in the following sections, the auditor and board have some overlapping responsibilities as well as different duties. The independent police auditor The city manager appoints the auditor to a 4-year renew- able term. He can dismiss her, however, only with the approval of six of the seven city council members. The city manager meets with Perez every 2 weeks, and every month she submits a performance report to him. The auditor’s office is located in city hall. The auditor’s principal responsibilities are to: 1. Serve as an alternative to the police department for accepting citizen complaints. 2. Monitor ongoing investigations as needed by sitting in on internal affairs interviews. 3. Proactively audit—that is, review—completed IA investigations of citizen complaints for fairness and thoroughness. 4. Review cases in which a citizen expresses dissatisfac- tion with the police department’s resolution of a complaint. C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 62 THUMBNAIL SKETCH:TUCSON Model: citizens review cases (type 2) and audit IA procedures (type 4) Jurisdiction:Tucson,Arizona Population: 449,002 Government: strong city manager, city council, weak mayor Appointment of chief: city manager Sworn officers: 865 Oversight funding: $144,150 for the auditor, none for the board Paid oversight staff: two full time Tucson has both a full-time professional police audi- tor and a volunteer citizen review board.Both the Independent Police Auditor,appointed by the city manager,and a seven-member Citizen Police Advisory Review Board,appointed by the mayor and the city council,independently review completed IA investiga- tions for thoroughness and fairness,and both make policy and procedure recommendations to the police department.The auditor also reviews cases when citi- zens appeal an IA finding,and she sits in on selected IA interviews to monitor the investigation process. The board acts as a pipeline for transmitting general community complaints to the police department. There has been no duplication of effort because the board typically asks the auditor to examine the cases it wants reviewed,and the auditor regularly attends and gives reports of her activities at board meetings.