CC Minutes - 11/17/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

that time, Mr. Klein interpreted the language to include both administrative and criminal complaint investigations. Now it appeared he was saying there was no inconsistency. Mr. Klein said that at the time he shared that earlier conclusion, there was no legislative history from the City Council. His memorandum was part of the Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein and Mr. Zelenka had a lengthy discussion of the conclusion in that memorandum. Both Ms. Bettman and Mr. Zelenka disagreed with the conclusion and denied that was what the proposed charter amendment would require. The council then voted to refer it to the voters. There was nothing in the ballot title that spoke to the fact that the charter amendment would require a change to the ordinance, and nothing in legislative history or intent outside that discussion. Because of that legislative history created by Mr. Zelenka and Ms Bettman in that council discussion, Mr. Klein concluded that the voters had not understood that the charter amendment would require any changes to the ordinance, and based on that, he believed a judge would agree that the charter amendment required no change. Ms. Bettman recalled that she had said at the time that the charter amendment mandated the council to give the Police Auditor the authority to monitor all investigations, but it did not require the auditor to be involved in every police investigation. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that in lieu of the public hearing scheduled for December 8, 2008, the City Council create a committee to review the issues raised by Councilor Bettman’s November 10 motion as well as other issues that the committee mem- bers believed should be reviewed, and to report back to the City Council by March 11, 2009, with recommendations on amendments to the Police Auditor ordinance. The commit- tee shall be composed of two members of the Civilian Review Board, to be designated by the Civilian Review Board, two members of the Police Commission, to be designated by the Police Commission, two individuals designated by the Citizens United for Better Policing, two members of the Eugene Police Employees Association, the Police Auditor, the Police Chief, the Mayor, two councilors appointed by the Mayor, and two community members at- large also appointed by the Mayor. Ms. Ortiz said she received immediate and ample feedback the day after the council took action and those she spoke to felt that the council was moving very quickly. She was concerned about the ramifications of the council’s action, leading her to think the process should be slowed down somewhat. She anticipated the result of her motion would be an inclusion conversation focused on how to make the program work. She wanted to get the needed work done thoughtfully and carefully with as much community input as possible. Ms. Taylor asserted that the feedback she heard questioned the point of a delay. She saw no point to it and thought the public hearing could serve as the needed public input. If the council learned something that gave it pause or made it decide to change something, it could pause or make the change. The public hearing did not end the process. She thought there was nothing unusual or surprising in Ms. Bettman’s proposal and said she did not know where the comments were coming from. She suggested that some people were asked to get in touch with the council, by whom and for what reason she did not know, but she thought the process should go forward as originally proposed. Mr. Clark acknowledged the concerns that Ms. Bettman had about the Police Auditor but suggested that there were some in the community who disagreed about her characterization of the problems and wanted time to understand them better. He supported the motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute the motion with a motion direct- ing the City Manager and Police Auditor to work with the Civilian Review Board to review MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 2 Work Session