Laserfiche WebLink
In conclusion, Ms. Beamud said an issue had been raised about the “statute of limitations” that should be <br />applied to the auditor’s work. She did not feel that was a decision that the auditor should make unilaterally. <br />She indicated that based on her research, she would recommend language that would allow complaints to be <br />accepted up to 60 days following the date of a minor misconduct incident and up to six months following the <br />date of a serious misconduct incident, with exceptions for good cause delay. She would transmit her specific <br />language recommendations to the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated that he was generally comfortable with the direction of the ordinance and deferred to Ms. <br />Beamud’s professional judgment on the recommended changes to language to be forwarded for a public <br />hearing. He said he had suggested at a council process session that the auditor check in with the council <br />officers in person or via memorandum if there was an issue that needed to be addressed by the full council. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked that the ordinance language specify that five members was the minimum size for the CRB. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was pleased with the ambitious timeline for providing services through the Police Auditor’s <br />Office. She suggested that the auditor’s office could share space with the council when its new offices were <br />established if that would be a benefit to the public. She agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to clarify the <br />minimum number of CRB members. She also agreed with those changes that arose from the Police <br />Commission’s review of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly’s remarks regarding the auditor reporting to the council instead of the <br />mayor, as he was not certain the Mayor was technically a part of the council. Mr. Lidz replied that it was <br />up to the council to determine the supervisory structure and reporting protocols for the Police Auditor. He <br />would research the issue of whether the council included the Mayor but that should not preclude the council <br />moving forward with a discussion of supervisory options. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé expressed concern about language relating to qualifications of CRB members that required <br />consideration of whether the candidate had any real or perceived bias or conflict of interest. He said <br />everyone had a bias and suggested that the term be removed. Mr. Lidz responded that in the context of the <br />ordinance the word “bias” meant grounds for disqualification because of having “pre-decided” a matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé argued that the term should be more clearly defined. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor suggested substituting the word “prejudice” for the word “bias.” He agreed with Mr. Kelly’s <br />suggestion that the auditor report to the council officers on more routine matters and come to the full council <br />on policy issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon referred to language in Section 14(c) that prohibited CRB appointments from being made on <br />the basis of a constituency or representation of a particular group. She said she preferred to see CRB <br />members represent a broad range of community groups to assure balance on the board. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated she preferred that CRB members did not represent constituencies. She suggested that <br />daily supervision of the auditor could be done by the Mayor and the council involved in matters of <br />substance. She was in agreement with Ms. Beamud making the recommended changes to the ordinance in <br />order to take it to a public hearing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />