Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Torrey indicated there would be a public hearing before the voters considered a ballot <br />measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee also shared other councilors' concerns about the cost of the program but pointed out a <br />referral to the public would make the decision a public decision. He said that the council should <br />make it clear to the public that the proposal would cost money. He was impressed with <br />consensus he heard expressed by committee members and said he hoped it reflected the <br />consensus of the community. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Young said that he hoped the council would place a <br />charter amendment on the November 1998 ballot and make the review system a permanent <br />function of the City. He said that as priorities change, the inclusion of the proposal in the charter <br />would ensure its continuation as a priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said he had not previously supported external review, but understood the perception of <br />its importance and did not know how to overcome that without establishing a system such as that <br />proposed by the committee. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Mr. Miller said that the <br />committee could report on complaints by general categories. Mr. Siel said that a board would <br />have greater credibility among citizens than a telephone response from the police stating the <br />individual's complaint was or was not sustained. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey asked what would occur if the confidentiality of the board was breached. Mr. Klein <br />responded that the individual involved, if he or she willfully breached confidential information, <br />would be liable to lawsuit. The City's position would be that, given the willful nature of the act, <br />there was no City indemnity for that action. The council could remove that individual for not <br />complying with State and local requirements related to confidentiality. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue asked about leaks. Mr. Klein said that in the absence of sure knowledge of the identity <br />of the offender, there was little that could be done. Mr. Laue asked if such leaks could place the <br />City in more liability. Mr. Klein said yes. Ms. Green said that the ERAC believed there was <br />incentive for such individuals to comply with the law. <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer recommended that the council refer the committee's recommendation to the Council <br />Committee on Public Safety. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thanked the committee for its unanimous recommendation. He said that he had doubted <br />the committee would reach unanimity. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to accept the report of the <br />External Review Advisory Committee and refer the report and its <br />recommendations to the CCPS for further refinement. <br />Ms. Nathanson referred to the work of the Council Committee on Organizational Change and <br />said that the committee continued to hear the theme that people do not hear what happened <br />after they provided comment. She asked if that represented a communication problem or <br />reflected inappropriate input. She said that the council should consider having some discussion <br />about citizen involvement and committees in general before establishing another group to <br />eliminate community confusion about the structure of advisory committees. Ms. Nathanson said <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 4 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />