Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Manager Taylor said in a situation where councilors found themselves getting numerous requests on a <br />certain topic, it was suggested that these requests be passed along to Ms. Mortensen or him. He related that <br />staff’s goal was to resolve the inquiry, track it, and then provide the C-TRAC system data to the councilors <br />in order to better inform them. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked what the system was for anonymous complaints. Ms. Walston responded that staff did <br />track those complaints. She recommended the councilors forward them to staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that some people may have a reason for anonymity. She expressed concern about <br />the comments that people “were getting a record” for their complaints. City Manager Taylor replied that <br />multiple callers were not labeled “unwelcome.” Ms. Taylor said she would find it disturbing if such labeling <br />occurred. She commented that the police keep a record of all calls, adding that a person could have a record <br />without doing anything wrong. <br /> <br />Chief Lehner stated that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did log all calls but this did not constitute a <br />police record. Rather, a police record had to do with being arrested. He stressed that the call record helped <br />track neighborhood issues and was never used for “intelligence” purposes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that he rarely received a serious letter from an anonymous source. He understood that <br />frequent callers did not get “demerit points” for calling, but they sometimes had issues that the council could <br />not handle. He commended Ms. Mortensen for doing a “stunningly good job” and said she was very good <br />about providing feedback. <br /> <br />Regarding the C-TRAC system, Mr. Kelly recalled that the councilors had at one time received a one-page <br />summary but he had not liked it. More recently councilors had received a four- to five-page report with a <br />paragraph summary of each call and he had found this to be very informative. Now, he said, they had <br />returned to the one-page summary. He conveyed his preference for the more elaborate report. <br /> <br />Additionally, Mr. Kelly felt that some of the emails that went to the City Manager and other department <br />heads seemed to remain unaddressed for too long. City Manager Taylor responded that staff was trying to <br />get those to council assignments. He said most people who send an email expect a quick turnaround, but a <br />council assignment had a two-week turnaround and the two-hour rule. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not <br />expect a one-day turnaround, but he hoped it would be tracked better. <br /> <br />Chief Lehner stated that anonymous messages were taken seriously if they were threatening. He encouraged <br />councilors to pass along any messages that seem semi-threatening or have implications even though they <br />would not warrant an investigation. He said what the councilors may not know would be whether their peers <br />were receiving those messages also and whether those messages were escalating over time. He asked that <br />councilors specify when forwarding things whether an item was being sent for information purposes alone, <br />whether a response from the EPD was desired, or whether the councilor wished for a response from the <br />EPD. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said it was very helpful to be clear about what was desired, that a councilor wanted a staff <br />response in a packet because he or she wanted the public piece of information. He stated that staff always <br />tried to go to Ms. Mortensen regarding constituent issues because she was the “best tracking mechanism” in <br />the organization. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br />