Laserfiche WebLink
motion on the floor was just a wordier version of the manager's proposal. She termed it "auditing <br />under the influence of the supervisory chain," and pointed out that it was the supervisory chain of <br />which the council wanted independent evaluation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the focus of the discussion was on financial malfeasance but rather on <br />overcoming the personal and professional alliances that existed among staff that make it <br />impossible for staff to move beyond those alliances. An independent auditor could look objectively <br />at the organization and provide the manager with an outside recommendation. She said that the <br />City had "insider management for decades and decades" and she found the auditor a timely <br />initiative. She would not support an auditor that was not independent. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that Mr. Rayor's motion answered the issue of whether the position was focused on <br />financial or performance auditing. He agreed that the City could easily contract with independent <br />financial auditors and there was no reason to increase the City staff for that purpose. He found <br />the motion to be a workable compromise. If a performance auditor was established, Mr. Pap8 <br />wanted the council to see the auditor's reports, but he did not think he wanted the council to <br />manage the auditor. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner opposed the motion for the reasons he opposed the previous motion. He suggested <br />that the notion that an internal employee auditor would not form alliances was ludicrous. If the <br />council wanted an independent audit, he did not see how that could be accomplished internally. <br />Mr. Meisner believed that if the council was dissatisfied with the performance of the auditor and <br />wanted to dismiss that individual, it could encounter great difficulty. He also thought it ludicrous to <br />assume that the council would hire a single auditor who would have substantive knowledge of <br />every program in the city; that person would have to hire or contract outside the organization for <br />assistance. Mr. Meisner said if the council wanted independent audits, it should contract for them. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to Mr. Rayor for his motion, but said he could not support it. <br />Other than the confirmation by the council, the motion would add nothing to the charter that the <br />manager could not accomplish now. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. PapS's suggestion that the amendment to the motion clarified the nature of the <br />auditor, Mr. Kelly pointed out the text offered by Mr. Rayor was taken from the CCRC's proposal, <br />so it was as clear or as vague as that original text. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly said he wished he shared her optimism about the success <br />of contracted audits. He agreed they were valuable for specific purposes. He suggested that a <br />key difference between a council-directed auditor and manager-directed auditor was the <br />perception of independence. Mr. Kelly said that the council could direct the City Manager to <br />contract with an independent auditor, but then staff was responsible for writing and overseeing the <br />contract. <br /> <br />It was Ms. Taylor's perception that the focus of the discussion was on performance auditing rather <br />than financial auditing. She did not think the council had the ability to manage the organization <br />adequately now. She pointed out that performance auditors did not audit all the departments at <br />the same time, but rather one at a time. She believed that the issue was not one of fraud, but <br />having someone outside the organization telling the council if the City was run efficiently. The <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />