HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/07/2000 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2000, AMENDING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 8
DATE: March 7, 2000
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Harrison/Tempel S
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 2000, Amending Portions of the City Code Concerning the
Citizen Review Board Subcommittees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Citizen Review Board recommend adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current provisions of the City Code concerning the Citizen Review Board (CRB) require that
the CRB maintain the confidentiality of all internal investigation files and all information and
evidence received which are related to personnel matters(§2-140(h)). This provision is consistent
with the need to maintain the confidentiality of personnel files and internal investigation files,but
• is not consistent with other provisions of the City Code which allow police and community service
officers who may be the subject of the investigation to request that the review sessions of the CRB
subcommittees be open to the public. Ordinance No. 17,2000,which was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on February 15,2000,amends the City Code allowing the CRB review subcommittees
to maintain the confidentiality of those portions of the subcommittee review sessions that do not
directly relate to the officer's personnel interest.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: February 15, 2000
• FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Harrison/Tempel
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 2000, Amending Portions of the City Code Concerning the
Citizen Review Board Subcommittees.
RECOMMENDATION: w _.'u
*..
Staff and the Citizen Review�oard recdinmend CIO tion of 10, rdinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current provisions of the City Code concerning the Citizen Review Board (CRB) require that
the CRB maintain the confidentiality of all internal investigation files and all information and
evidence received which are reper�d�l m-WRsJ40 This provision is consistent
with the need to maintain the "nfidentlity ofA
fil A d internal investigation files, but
• is not consistent with other pr 'sions p , Citya which ow police and community service
officers who may be the subject a inves gadreque t the review sessions of the CRB
subcommittees be open to the public. The proposed changes set forth in this ordinance would allow
the CRB review subcommittees to maintain the confidentiality ofthose portions ofthe subcommittee
review sessions that do not directly relate to the officer's personnel interest.
BACKGROUND:
Sections 2-71(d)and 2-140(h)of the City Code currently provide that the review subcommittees of
the CRB shall meet in execurese, o or a se rec—mg and considering evidence
relating to internal investigati ed b e o ice Services unless the police or
community service officer ag t who a co 1 t is filed r uests that the matter be considered
in open session. While it has no pene i ossibl an officer's request to open the
matter to an open session would do more than just publicly expose that officer's personnel interests.
It could also subject the complainant to possibly embarrassing public attention and subject the
personnel matters of other officers to public scrutiny. This result would be inconsistent with the
CRB's obligation to maintain the confidentiality of other officers' personnel matters as set forth at
section 2-140(h).
To address this possible unintended result,the modifications in the attached ordinance provide that,
if an officer requests an open session,the CRB review subcommittee would not automatically open
up the entire process, but rather would make a determination as to how much of the review and
consideration process will occur in open session. The modification includes the following criteria
for the subcommittee to consider in making its decision:
DATE: February 15, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 15
1. the extent to which consideration and discussion will directly concern personnel
matters of the officers;
2. the need to maintain the confidentiality of information in circumstances where the
public dissemination of the information would do substantial injury to the public
interest; and
3. any other constraints upon public dissemination imposed by law.
While it is anticipated that the incidence of an officer requesting an open session would be rate,the
proposed modification would provide a fair method of protecting the privacy of the complainant
and/or other officers in those rare circumstances.
A'
COPY
P` n