Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy asked the council to consider requiring that the criteria for evaluating the work of the Police <br />Auditor, which would be developed by the CRB, come to the council for review and comment prior to <br />adoption. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the proposal and direct the crea- <br />tion of a draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that Ms. Beamud consider various supervisory mechanisms that could be discussed by <br />the council at its January 2007 process session. He asked Ms. Solomon if she would accept friendly <br />amendments to her motion. Ms. Solomon declined. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the language in draft Section 9(a) <br />with the language of sections 1 and 2 of Resolution 4889 approved by the City Council on <br />August 14, 2006. <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that the resolution language in Section 2 citing “amending this Resolution” should be <br />replaced with “amending Resolution 4889” as it was now an external rather than an internal reference. He <br />said the point of the amendment was that Section 9(a) in the draft described the supervision of the auditor’s <br />staff and following the council’s extensive discussion the resolution was adopted with a dissenting vote by <br />Mr. Papé. He felt that the ordinance language should be consistent with the resolution language. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he was still concerned about the legality of the matter and asked for the City Attorney’s <br />opinion. Mr. Lidz replied that there were several legal opinions, three from the City Attorney’s Office and <br />one from an outside source, which concluded that the City Manager had the authority to supervise the <br />auditor’s staff based on the terms of the charter amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if the outside attorney was paid for his opinion. Mr. Lidz replied that he was. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said that attorneys had been paid for their professional advice and those opinions contradicted Mr. <br />Kelly’s proposed amendment. He would not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt that adding the resolution language to the ordinance, which resolved the matter following <br />extensive discussion by the council, was a housekeeping matter. She hoped that the ordinance would move <br />forward without revisiting every single disagreement. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said she saw nothing new in the conversation that had not been in previous conversations. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she did not recall an extensive discussion and after the council adopted the resolution in <br />August 2006 she learned that she had personal liability as a result of adding the word “exclusive” to the <br />resolution language. She asked the City Attorney to clarify the nature of that liability. Mr. Lidz replied that <br />it was a complex issue with many subtleties. He said in light of the City Manager’s delegation order the <br />question would arise only if the auditor acted in a way that was within the authority granted by the council <br />under the resolution, but contrary to the more limited delegation granted to the auditor by the City Manager. <br />He said the issue seldom arose and he would provide further information to the council following research. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated it was simply housekeeping by including in the ordinance what the council had already <br />decided. She saw no need for further discussion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />