Office of Municipal Investigations
The Office of Municipal Investigations (OMI) is responsible primarily for investigating complaints against City of Pittsburgh employees. OMI is responsible for directing the receipt, analysis and investigation of citizen complaints of civil or criminal misconduct alleged against any non-elected City of Pittsburgh employee. Elected officials are held accountable through a myriad of other processes. Work rules, union contracts, civil service regulations, city code and state laws are referenced by OMI to define illegal and inappropriate conduct accordingly. In this function, OMI acts solely as a fact finder and does not issue disciplinary recommendations. OMI also completes detailed background checks of candidates for public safety jobs, abbreviated background checks on other city employment candidates and maintains residency verifications of active and prospective employees.
Download the full report
More about the Office of Municipal Investigations
Below is a list of content in Office of Municipal Investigations' Transition Brief (prepared by Thomas Consulting Group for The Pittsburgh Foundation).
|
KEY FINDINGS
- Interviewing. The use of tape recordings as an initial method of conducting intake seems aggressive and may cause complainants to retreat.
- Continued public awareness. OMI administration should continue to educate the public as to what kind of complaint OMI can investigate and that all city employees are answerable to a code of conduct. OMI should continue to work with neighborhood and community groups by informing them of their mission and processes.
- Closing categories. OMI administration should reinstitute the classification of “pending” within its database recordings. This would give a clearer picture of the progress of investigations for each complaint. Adding a variable such as “pending: criminal court ruling,” “pending: medical records retrieval” or “pending: witness statement collection” would allow OMI management to be able to create reports and more closely monitor the progress of each investigation. Adding a variable such as “pending” would be more efficient to query the database, rather than relying on investigator memory and the narrative maintained within each complaint.
- Evidence standard. Each party investigated is seen as equally credible, which leads to cases being dismissed because there is not an ounce more of evidence from one side over another.
|
|
MORE ABOUT THE OFFICE
- Enabling legislation.
- Mission.
- Organizational chart.
- Services to the community.
- Joint specialty response teams.
- Agency goals and performance metrics.
- Budget.
- Programs and projects.
- Opportunities and risks.
|
Download the full report
