Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that a motion was not necessary because this was not a land use proceeding and there was no official record. He clarified that the motion would have to be withdrawn or voted upon, but a vote on the motion would not affect the ability of members of the public to continue to contact the councilors to provide input on the issue. Councilor Papé asked for comments from the City Attorney with regard to pulling the language and other applicable City policies and collective bargaining agreements. He wanted to know specifically how the effect of the amendment to 2.456(3)(a) which would delete the language “the investigation or criminal proceedings have concluded.” Councilor Papé withdrew the motion. Councilor Taylor indicated her support for the amendments to the ordinance and the ordinance. She said she preferred on principle not to take action on the same night as a public hearing. Mr. Klein asked that the requested memorandum be allowed to be disseminated to the public. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there were no objections to making the City Attorney’s opinion on the amendments public. Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Kelly in spirit. He said he could support all of the amendments except the two that deal with the verbiage pertaining to collective bargaining agreements. He related that in his 15 years as a police union member and 15 years on the management side of the bargaining table, he had come to realize and understand the importance of the collective bargaining agreements. He pointed out that police officers were not allowed to go on strike for wages or benefits, unlike other unions with the exception of fire employees. He said the police contract went into binding arbitration instead. He believed that there were issues and questions that needed to be answered regarding the ramifications of what would happen to the City if the amendments were passed as they were currently worded. He stated that as the amendments stood, he could not support them. Councilor Kelly said his amendment would strike the terms “applicable City policies” and “collective bargaining agreements.” He said the reason for striking the former was because it was too broad and the reason for striking the latter was because he understood that regardless of whether the language was in the ordinance, the collective bargaining agreement that was currently in force was legally binding for both the City and the Police Auditor. He stated that the reason he wished to strike the language regarding the collective bargaining agreement had to do with thinking ahead to a future negotiation of a future collective bargaining agreement. He believed that leaving the words in would allow the City Manager, police management, and the EPEA to reach an agreement that would be binding on the Police Auditor and the council, though neither entity would be a party to the negotiations. Councilor Kelly related that he had spoken with the City Attorney and the City Attorney proposed that there could be some language that indicated the current bargaining agreement clearly applied but in a future collective bargaining agreement the confidentiality provisions would not be broadened without involving the Police Auditor or the council in some way. He anticipated that if the amendment passed at the work session, the City Attorney would work to clean up the language, given that there was not enough time at present. Councilor Bettman averred that the phrase “City policies” was broad, undefined, and “could mean anything and could easily go beyond the law.” Regarding language that pertained to collective bargaining, she felt the amendment was strictly in relation to confidentiality of records. She stated that there were federal, state, and MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting