One model which the Police Oversight Focus Group has yet to seriously consider is a formal administrative hearing resulting in a recommendation to the Police Chief. This model could be combined with the Auditor/Review Board model to create a system where CRB board members are chosen and perform their tasks in a non-politicized environment.

Here's a proposal for an Administrative Hearing model combining the best of these various methods from other cities.

For serious cases only -- I'd suggest as a standard those alleging unauthorized violence or criminal activity -- a formal administrative hearing would be convened. Hearings would be held in public, and investigative files held by the auditor become public immediately following the hearing.

The Auditor would review and present to the hearing all evidence collected by the Internal Affairs or Officer Involved Crimes Units which might sustain allegations of misconduct. The Auditor's office thus would need sufficient attorneys and support staff to prepare and present the predicted number of serious cases, possibly two attorneys and three or four support staff.

Accused officers should always have access to union defense attorneys throughout this process. The officer's attorney could provide rebutting evidence and would be afforded limited cross-examination of witnesses.

A presiding officer would be necessary to conduct the administrative hearing and to rule on any disagreements. Perhaps the chief municipal judge or some other officer of the court could be drafted for this role. Alternatively, if the caseload is too large, this position might need a part- or full-time person to run these hearings, and even an assistant to deal with and manage the CRB members.

Finally, the Civilian Review Board itself would be chosen six at a time, on a case by case basis, from the same pool as jurors for municipal court. Civilian Review Board members would hear the auditor present the case that an officer violated APD policies, and the defense attorney's rebuttal. They would be charged solely with recommending whether or not the officer violated departmental policies. 

I'd recommend that, in addition to the Auditor/Review Board scenario, any reform of the disciplinary process should include a move to a Uniform Disciplinary Matrix, so that officers who commit the same violations will be punished equally. The certainty of equal punishment would considerably de-politicize APD's disciplinary process, and would take the onus off both the Chief and the Auditor/CRB system you're proposing to decide punishments on a case-by-case basis.

Unlike CRBs appointed by the City Council or community groups, choosing CRBs from the municipal jury pool guarantees objectivity and a more de-politicized process. Having two sides present a case to the CRB allows them to make a maximally informed recommendation, with both the department's allegations and the officer's position given fair hearing. Ongoing expertise concerning police rules and procedures would lie not with the CRB (as with an appointed body) but with the Auditor's staff whose job description is to present the evidence.

This model could ultimately be more expensive than the Council-appointed or 'grand jury' models, since it requires more paid Auditor's staff to operate than if the Auditor's duties were more limited; possibly six to eight full time staff persons, would be required. Also, municipal jury members are normally paid a small sum, so if that infrastructure were used some amount would need to be budgeted to pay CRB members. Finally, city councilmembers or the city manager may disapprove of the Administrative Hearing model because it limits their political control over the CRB.