CC Minutes - 02/16/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Laue said that his concerns were both budgetary and the work load that would result from the policy group. He did not think policy questions could be addressed by anyone but the council. Mr. Prozanski said that the issue of perception was very important, and the committee heard continually about citizens' concerns about what was occurring at City Hall. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she had hoped the committee would recommend a council level policy advisory committee. She said that the Public Safety Advisory Committee had served an important function, and suggested that the council merge the Council Committee on Public Safety and Police Forum into a single group. She endorsed the committee's recommendation. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed that research indicated that police were most severe with policy violation by other police. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked about the number of complaints related to police behavior that the City received each year. Mr. Siel estimated that 64 complaints were received in 1997 that generated an investigation; 21 complaints generating an investigation were received in the current year. Ms. Nathanson noted her previous concerns about review boards was that they were often highly politicized and divisive. She said, however, that the information produced by the committee appeared to argue for the recommendation the committee had reached. Ms. Nathanson noted her concerns about the cost of the proposal given the unfunded or underfunded status of other important City initiatives such as the housing program, the Eugene Celebration, the tree preservation ordinance, and nuisance code enforcement; programs that all had different constituents. She considered the cost of the program to be significant. Ms. Nathanson said that she wanted more discussion of the goals for the programs in light of their costs, and the failure and success rate other communities experienced. Ms. Nathanson thought the council was seeking a greater level of accountability, and said that the council should not assume there would be no problems as a result of the program. She believed the program benefits will need to greatly outweigh its costs. Ms. Nathanson asked about the proposed frequency of meetings. She was concerned about work load issues if the board chose to review every case, and was concerned about the process for determining which case to be reviewed. She asked what was included in the cost of external investigation, and what incentive the review board would have to stay within its budget. In response, Ms. Green said that the frequency of meetings would depend on the case load, following the establishment of processes and discussion of how to make the process legitimate. She said that the committee's deliberations were focused on limiting case review, given the nature of the complaints that are received. Ms. Green suggested the fact the board was composed of volunteers meant it would be a self-equalizing system. She reviewed the basis of current estimates. Mr. Miller added that the committee estimate was high to ensure there were adequate funds to establish the system and avoid the need for requesting additional funds from the council. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding program costs in light of other program needs. She commended the committee's report but was also concerned about the costs. She asked whether the council would hold a public hearing prior to the vote. She also asked about the possibility of merging the Police Forum and CCPS. Ms. Taylor asked if the position of auditor could be a volunteer position. Ms. Taylor asked how the police reacted to the plan, adding that she had very mixed feelings and reservations about the recommendation. She maintained that the quality of the police force was high and the police largely acted in an ethical manner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m.