CC Minutes - 07/10/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Fart indicated opposition to the amended motion, saying the audit process currently in place was sufficient and met the needs of the citizens. He said that if something was to be placed on the ballot, it should be simple. Ms. Nathanson also opposed the motion on the table. She said that there were performance audits and financial audits, and they had different purposes. The committee's focus was on performance auditing. However, she believed the mechanisms forwarded by the committee, such as an audit committee, were more appropriate for a financial audit. She noted that the Budget Committee approved motions to fund an audit of City services, and she did not think there was an pressing need to include the auditor position in the charter. Mr. Rayor also preferred language that paralleled the text adopted for the City Attorney position. He was concerned about the impact of the motion on the council/manager form of government. He questioned getting into the level of education and the qualifications the auditor must have in the charter, as there was no precedent for that elsewhere in the charter. He also questioned establishing a committee through the charter. He indicated that he had developed an alternative motion he would offer when appropriate. Ms. Bettman said a city auditor was a means to get the City more respect. The council currently had no way to evaluate how the City Manager was implementing City policy. There was no independent oversight of the manager. She wanted to give voters an opportunity to vote for an independent auditor supervised by the City Council. There would be value to the position only if the auditor were independent. She believed an independent auditor would build credibility for the council because the council now lacked the needed information to adequately supervise the manager. She believed that voters would reject a watered-down version of a city auditor and then the vote could be considered by some as justification for not having one. Mr. Meisner said he would not support the motion or the approach suggested by the manager. He did not recall that the committee was charged to examine the issue by the council. Mr. Meisner said he did not find a great deal of public interest in the concept. He was very concerned about creating an unfunded mandate for the council to fund at a time when it had no money. Mr. Meisner said there was anecdotal information but no guarantee the City would save money from having such a position. He was not impressed with the performance of such positions in the jurisdictions of which he had knowledge. Mr. Meisner wanted independent performance audits but believed that they could be secured without creating a city auditor position. He added that the background materials the council received clouded rather than clarified the issue as half of the materials did not address the position of a performance auditor. Regarding the issue of respect for City government, Mr. Meisner agreed that it was an issue, adding it was an issue at the council table as it was clear that there were councilors that did not respect or trust Eugene's city government. He did not think the position would enhance trust in the City. He also referred to and commended the work being done by some City departments, in particular the Department of Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services, as it attempted to do more work with less resources. Ms. Taylor did not think that the council knew what kind of job the executive staff did except through secondhand reports. She said that Portland had a very successful performance auditor MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 3 Work Session