Laserfiche WebLink
phrase ‘take into account’ would give a little more discretion and left a little more room in negotiations but <br />‘meet’ would also be appropriate. She felt this would provide a way for the council to give direction to its <br />employees, the auditor and the City Manager, on how the council wanted them to affect its policies in those <br />arenas. <br /> <br />Ms. Rudnick related that she had discussed this with Ms. Beamud. She felt Ms. Beamud was very clear on <br />what changes were needed in the collective bargaining agreement in order to accomplish the intent of the <br />ordinance, and so was the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA). She noted that the EPEA was <br />concerned about the confidentiality issue because it related to personnel matters. Nonetheless, she was <br />confident that an agreement would be reached on an amendment to the contract that would accomplish the <br />changes that were needed. She said the intent at this point was that the auditor would work with the EPEA <br />to resolve the sticking points in the contract. She believed that all sides were on the same page. <br /> <br />Additionally, Ms. Rudnick submitted copies of the policies that applied to confidentiality and the release of <br />information and the bargaining agreement for the councilors’ perusal. She highlighted the confidentiality <br />clauses. She explained that none of the policies limited what the auditor could choose to review, but given <br />that the CRB was not a supervisor or manager, a piece of information bound by confidentiality clauses <br />could not be disclosed to them. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated that if he could not legally amend the section in the way his motion intended, then he <br />would move to delete the sections. <br /> <br />Ms. Beamud agreed that deletion of the clauses was a good idea. She stressed that she understood she <br />would have to follow the law and also that the collective bargaining agreement had the force of law. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Rudnick for her clear explanation. He was willing to support deletion of the two <br />sections from the ordinance. He expressed his confidence in the ability of Ms. Beamud to come up with <br />something workable. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if provisions could be added to a future contract that would reduce the Police Auditor’s <br />access. Ms. Rudnick replied that in theory it could, but the City Manager would be violating the direction of <br />the City Council if he or she allowed it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that it was “just a motion.” She predicted that without Mr. Kelly to remind the <br />council that the motion had been passed in five or six years, it could change. She said that basically, <br />information was all the Police Auditor had, and access to the information was “really the only authority and <br />power of the office.” She ascertained from Ms. Rudnick that at present information could be brought to the <br />CRB if personal information was redacted. <br /> <br />Ms. Rudnick stated that in the circumstances of ongoing investigations of community impact cases, the CRB <br />could meet in executive session. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the suggestion to delete the sections from the ordinance. She preferred the word <br />‘meets’ to the phrase ‘take into account.’ Additionally, she did not believe the qualifying word “appropri- <br />ate” was necessary to the purpose of the language. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé thanked Ms. Rudnick for providing the legal input. He was amenable to deleting the sections Mr. <br />Kelly had moved to amend. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 13, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />