Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

that the City Attorney had worked out the issues in the language and the Police Auditor was agreeable with the wording in the July 10 version. Councilor Bettman asserted that the July 10 language prohibited the authority by specifically limiting the oversight to administrative investigations. She disagreed with the City Attorney’s legal opinion that changing the language from ‘may’ to ‘shall’ would then require the council to give the auditor full authority to participate in investigations. She declared that it was up to the council to put operational parameters around the office. She asserted that the legal counsel had changed his mind before regarding language in this ordinance and she questioned his interpretation. She declared it was inconsistent between the two provisions. She likened Councilor Clark’s motion to “splitting the baby.” She alleged that the language in the July 10 version of the Resolution would make it so that the authority vested by the voters in the police auditor would be “optional according to who was in office at the moment.” She opined that this could mean the City would be paying a lot of taxpayer money for the Police Auditor and it would be a “completely illusory” form of oversight because there would be no authority behind it. She indicated she would oppose that version. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Bettman; he would support the original language because he believed the language regarding the auditor should be set in the charter and should not be subject to changes by the council. Councilor Solomon said she would put credence in the work that Police Auditor Cris Beamud and the City’s legal counsel had done together and that Ms. Beamud was amenable to it. She felt that because the auditor’s position was new it had been tough for Ms. Beamud. She was nervous about making a “whole lot of charter amendments.” Councilor Pryor understood and agreed with a lot of Councilor Bettman’s sentiment and what she was trying to do. He pointed out that whatever version was passed by the council would still go to the voters for approval. He averred that he would not lose sleep given that the public would ultimately decide on it. For him it came down to the employer/employee relationship and to what degree the employer wanted to maintain discretion with regard to what they wanted an employee to do. He said philosophically he did not want to “go down a road” that would add language that would direct the employee to make such decisions and not the employer. He indicated he would support the amended version, knowing that Ms. Beamud and Mr. Klein had worked on it. Councilor Clark appreciated Councilor Pryor’s point. He reiterated that either way this would be posed to the voters and the amended version was the version worked out by the Police Auditor and the City Attorney. He believed it would strengthen the piece that indicated Eugene would have a Police Auditor. He averred that the original version created another contentious political issue, in trying to pass something in contradic- tion to what the auditor and attorney had suggested. Mayor Piercy related that she had spoken with Ms. Beamud about the amendment and Ms. Beamud had indicated that she was amenable to the version presently before the council and she would not take issue if the council wished to change it as it was the council’s purview to do so. Councilor Bettman wanted to “preserve” the ordinance and make it mandatory instead of “optional.” She opined that the authority of the auditor was “minimal.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting