Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment. Ms. Bettman withdrew her second. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Council Bill #4936 by deleting sec- <br />tions 2.454(4) and 2.246(9) and renumbering other sections according. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend Council Bill #4936 to delete the <br />word “exclusive” from Section 2.450(3). <br /> <br />Mr. Poling explained that during the discussions prior to the vote in August, the word ‘exclusive’ had been a <br />sticking point. He believed, given that the City Manager had delegated his authority to the Police Auditor to <br />hire staff, that the Charter restricted the City Manager from giving exclusive authority. He said as long as <br />the Police Auditor and the City Manager continued to cooperate as they had demonstrated thus far, he did <br />not see a problem with letting the word ‘exclusive’ remain. However, he wished to prevent the City from <br />setting itself up for legal contentions and other problems should that dynamic change with different <br />management personnel. He added that he fully supported the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought having the word ‘exclusive’ in the ordinance was the “crux” of the issue and asking to <br />have it removed took the council back to the same debate it had before adoption of the resolution. She felt <br />the issue had already been decided. She asked Ms. Beamud for her opinion on the removal of the word. <br /> <br />Ms. Beamud responded that her authority was either exclusive or it was shared. She said removal of <br />‘exclusive’ would take her back to the position of sharing the authority. She recalled that she had said a <br />number of times that it would not cause her to leave the position; however, it would no longer be exclusive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed the word ‘exclusive’ was the firewall between an independent auditor and the <br />inclusion of the City Manager. She underscored that support in the community was for independence in the <br />Auditor’s Office. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that it was a quandary that this had come down to one word. He reiterated his support <br />for the Auditor’s Office and his belief in what it stood for and what it sought to accomplish. He acknowl- <br />edged legal advice that indicated the current wording could conflict with the City charter. He was aware <br />that there was another opinion by another attorney but he had never seen it and it had never been provided to <br />him. He wanted to see the Auditor’s Office move forward in the best possible way and, in that light, he <br />asked for some final advice from the City Attorney in regard to whether the wording would create a conflict. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that legal counsel believed that the council did not have the authority <br />to delegate what the ordinance purports to delegate to the auditor. He said if the council adopted the <br />ordinance with the word ‘exclusive’ in it, it would still be lawful, that the mere adoption of the ordinance did <br />not create any liability for the City, the councilors or the Police Auditor. He stressed that liability would <br />only exist dependent upon what happened “down the road.” He stated that if the Police Auditor ever hired <br />someone that fell outside the parameters of the City Manager’s administrative order, which was broad, at <br />that point there could be personal liability. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor indicated that while he supported Mr. Poling’s position he would oppose the amendment based on <br />the legal information. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 13, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />