My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 4: Res/November Election
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 08/08/05 Mtg
>
Item 4: Res/November Election
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:46:37 PM
Creation date
8/3/2005 3:44:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/8/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Tim Laue <br />May 18, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />In addition to using resources the City already has in place, the proposed investigation and <br />review process should include the creation of two new resources: an internal auditor and an <br />External Review Board. <br /> <br />The internal auditor, who would be located within the City Manager's Office, should be <br />appointed by, and report to, the City Manager. Appointment of the auditor by the City Manager <br />(and not the City Council) means this new process can be commenced more quickly and less <br />expensively, since no vote will be required to amend the Charter. The internal auditor should <br />play an integral role throughout the investigation and review process. <br /> <br />An External Review Board should be established within the confines of the existing City <br />Charter. The board should be comprised of three to five community members appointed by the <br />City Manager. By having the City Manager appoint the review board members, issues regarding <br />the City Charter, as well as issues relating to the confidentiality of certain documents can be <br />avoided because the review board will essentially be acting as agents of the City as opposed to as <br />a public board. <br /> <br />The review board members should serve staggered terms of perhaps three years. The City <br />Council could review and approve criteria (proposed by the City Manager) that would govern the <br />appointment of the review board members. The criteria should be cra~ed to ensure that the <br />members represent a diverse cross-section of the community and that they are knowledgeable <br />about, or have expertise regarding, law enforcement, employment, and community issues. <br /> <br />The City Council's role with respect to the board shbuld include review and adoption of the <br />appointment criteria. In the event the council wishes to have a larger role in the appointment of <br />review board members, the council could interview and nominate candidates for the City <br />Manager's consideration. The City Manager could then select from among the council's <br />nominees (or reject them and request the council to nominate additional individuals). <br /> <br /> The following is an overview of the proposed complaint investigation and reView process I am <br /> recommending: <br /> <br /> Complaint Intake/Internal Auditor <br /> Individual complaints regarding the EPD should be received by the internal auditor. <br /> <br /> Investigation of Complaint <br /> The internal auditor should forward a complaint to the EPD for the actual investigation of the <br /> complaint. The decision on who should conduct the investigation would depend upon the nature <br /> and severity of the complaint. For example, complaints that involve performance or cUStomer <br /> service-related issues, such as discourtesy to citizens, could be investigated by the employee's <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.