Laserfiche WebLink
To revise a prior amendment acted on by the City Council related to this process, Mr. Kelly put forth the <br />following motion: <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the position description for the Police Auditor <br />revise the sentence amended at the City Council’s last meeting so that it reads as follows: Can- <br />didates for this position may not have worked for the Eugene Police Department as an employee <br />within the past 20 years. In addition, candidates should have no other prior relationship with <br />the department that might create actual or perceived bias for or against the department or <br />Eugene police officers. Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts <br />and affiliations with the department. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that the motion was necessary, as the amendment approved by the City Council <br />prohibited both employment and contract with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) over the past 20 years. <br />However, he said it was pointed out there was no database or paper file that allows the City to ascertain if, <br />for example, an individual had a contract with the EPD 20 years ago. Additionally, Mr. Kelly said there <br />was no distinction in the amendment between a contract to “wash police cars” and a contract to “consult on <br />the operations of the department.” He said his motion retained the 20-year employment prohibition but <br />moved the contract issue to a full disclosure situation. Additionally, the motion resolved the issue of actual <br />or perceived bias. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz stated that staff pointed out to the Ad Hoc Committee that it had narrowed the scope to such a <br />degree that it was not looking at the “big picture” with regard to other possible applicants who would have a <br />relationship in some capacity with the EPD, whether for or against it. Therefore, she voiced support for the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that all those serving on the committee concurred that the motion was appropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape? moved? to amend the motion to read as follows: <br /> <br />Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts and affiliations with <br />the department. <br /> <br />The amendment died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed support for the amendment; however, due to her membership on the Ad Hoc <br />Committee she said she would vote in favor of the motion. She noted that the motion asked the applicant to <br />self-select and expressed dismay that qualified candidates would not be clear as to whether or not they were <br />qualified and therefore would not move forward with the application process. Mr. Solomon asked for an <br />explanation of “other prior relationships” with the department that might create actual or perceived bias. <br />Ms. Walston explained that actual or perceived bias could be an issue if an applicant has held an attorney or <br />a district attorney position with Lane County. She added that such an individual would most likely have had <br />an association with the department that could be conceived as biased one way or another. <br /> <br />The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Pape? in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Police Commission Work Plan <br />for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2006. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />