Laserfiche WebLink
M I N U T E S <br /> <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br />McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall <br />777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon <br /> <br /> November 17, 2008 <br /> 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea <br />Ortiz (via telephone), Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. <br /> <br />Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. <br /> <br />A. WORK SESSION: Proposed Ordinance Modifying the Powers and Duties of the Police Auditor <br /> <br />City Manager Jon Ruiz invited questions from the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein referred the council <br />to the ordinance prepared by staff at the direction of the City Council, included in the meeting packet. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy reported that since Ms. Bettman put forth her proposed ordinance amendments, the council <br />had heard from members of the Civilian Review Board and Police Commission expressing support for <br />amending the ordinance but asking the council to slow down and institute an inclusive process. Mayor <br />Piercy thought that the council could take the time to be inclusive and thoughtful. She supported the <br />recently passed charter amendment, the Police Auditor’s Office, and the CRB and wanted to do all she could <br />to ensure their success. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted the provisions she presented to the council were strictly limited to implementing the <br />charter revisions recently passed by the voters and addressed the authority and roles already provided via the <br />charter, the council, and the voters to the Police Auditor’s Office. The council set a work session date and <br />public hearing to allow for input on the provisions. She reiterated she had presented no new provisions. <br />When the item was moved forward to a hearing, she had asked legal counsel to identify any legal issues, but <br />the council did not “have that memo.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman continued to support moving her proposals forward to a public hearing because they were <br />limited to implementing the charter, were consistent with past processes, and there were “huge problems” <br />with the motion she anticipated would be put before the body. She asserted that the motion had been <br />“heavily lobbied for over the weekend,” precluding a public response. She assumed the motion had the votes <br />to pass so the meeting was “pretty much just a staging.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein to state if in his opinion there were provisions in the existing <br />ordinance inconsistent with the new charter language just approved by the voters. City Attorney Klein said <br />the existing ordinance was not inconsistent with the charter. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that Mr. Klein prepared a memorandum after she put forth her original motion that <br />indicated there would be unintended consequences to the mandatory nature of what she wanted to see. <br />Those consequences were that the auditor would be required to participate in criminal investigations. At <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />