Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
council had no way of knowing that now. She did not believe that the council had a way to <br />manage the manager. <br /> <br />With regard to her remarks that the council was not allowed to manage, Ms. Taylor pointed out <br />that the council had been asked not to contact the executive managers directly. She thought the <br />council was a long way from being able to ask the managers the reasons for what they did and <br />suggest alternative actions. <br />Ms. Taylor termed the amendment to the motion "useless" and suggested that the council was <br />setting itself up for a charter amendment proposal for an independent auditor from the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly solicited another round of comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she was "astounded" at the resistance to trying the trial performance auditor <br />approved by the Budget Committee. She noted that she had recommended in the past that the <br />Budget Committee form a subcommittee to do performance audits on a serial basis using the <br />service profile process. She suggested that the issue was not "why," it was "how." She <br />reiterated she had sought an increased level of oversight by the committee and council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson pointed out that in May 2001 the CCRC received a report from staff regarding 16 <br />internal audit projects undertaken over the past two years that resulted in cost savings, service <br />delivery improvement, increased accountability, additional efficiencies, or additional revenues. <br />She believed that the manager would be receptive to direction from the council for similar audits <br />for specific programs in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly called for further comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would prefer to hire more police officers or parks staff as opposed to a city auditor <br />and the required staff. He believed that audits could be tailored to a particular activity. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the CCRC did not recommend that an auditor and staff be hired, just a full- <br />time auditor. She thought the discussion the council was having was confusing to the audience, <br />as councilors were confusing auditors and functions. She did not think that the trial auditor <br />mentioned by Ms. Nathanson was the same as what was being proposed though the charter <br />amendment. What was being proposed was an internal independent auditor, and that <br />independence was predicated on that position's being appointed and supervised by the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that the council owed it to the community to put a measure on the ballot. He <br />supported the motion as a reasonable proposal that addressed his concerns regarding efficiency. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2, Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion failed, 5:3, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting <br /> yes. <br /> <br />B.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Special Events Parking and Amending <br /> Section 5.285 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />