Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment. He believed the bottom line for the success of the Auditor’s Office was <br />the public’s impression of it. He felt the striking the word ‘exclusive’ would give the perception that it was <br />a less independent office. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that the issue had not changed; it was the same issue and there were the same <br />disagreements. She wanted to support the Auditor’s Office and the CRB. She indicated she would oppose <br />the amendment if her vote was required to break a tie. She added that she was anxious for the council to <br />work with Ms. Beamud and to inaugurate the Civilian Review Board “that everyone has been waiting for.” <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein stated that the memorandum related to personal liability <br />was confidential and the memorandum related to the City Attorney’s interpretation of the Charter was not <br />confidential. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if the words in the ordinance were legally differentiated from the administrative order with <br />the word ‘exclusive’ in it. Mr. Klein replied that the administrative order assumed that the City Manager <br />had the authority to adopt the administrative order and the authority would come from the Charter. He <br />clarified that the ordinance assumed that the Charter gave exclusive authority to the council and, therefore, <br />the council had the power to give exclusive authority to the Police Auditor. He felt in this sense there was a <br />conflict, but he did not believe adoption of the ordinance would in any way invalidate the City Manager’s <br />administrative order. He said either the Charter gave exclusive authority to the manager or the Charter gave <br />exclusive power to the council. He believed the administrative order would either remain valid because the <br />council did not have the power to invalidate it or the administrative order was not valid to begin with. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé opposed “the compromise” and indicated he would vote accordingly. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor opposed the amendment. She believed the word ‘exclusive’ was essential. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling was not opposed to the ordinance. He merely wanted to clarify what authority it gave and to <br />whom. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling withdrew his motion to amend. Ms. Solomon withdrew her second. <br /> <br />The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously; 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wanted to bring up an issue. She said the council had scheduled a work session early in 2007 <br />regarding the role of the City Attorney. She wished to remark on the “fact” that the City Attorney wrote a <br />memorandum for the council “based on the opinion of the City Manager” after the City Council had adopted <br />a resolution that clarified the charter language so that interpretation of any ambiguity was solely the purview <br />of the council. She said the City Attorney had “adopted an opinion based on the opposite opinion.” She <br />asserted that if the City Attorney was representing the City, including City policy, the underlying assumption <br />of the memorandum should have been that the council had the authority to delegate the hiring and firing of <br />staff to the Police Auditor. She saw that as a “major breach.” It reinforced her opinion that the City <br />Attorney’s Office “represents the City Manager and not the City as a whole.” She intended to bring this up <br />at the process session. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said the attorneys had a different view. He stated that as part of the materials for the scheduled <br />work session, the City Attorney’s Office intended to provide comment about the issue Ms. Bettman raised. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 13, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />