Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Council()[ Solomon i;uPpol'kd an exkmal ;:iUditor and a police rev1cW hoard but not at the expense of the City'~ form oJ governrnent. She felt it would mHk~rmine th~ rebtionship the cm:mdl had with the City T'danager. She also did not believe that thi~ s.hould be a charter ulutndment as it would take another charter mnendment to l;:hange it ,-md, without it., the re~ollition could be "t'.vcaked" as. I!jX(k>t1. She rdteu!ted that the audito.r and ;.;:ltiZl;:~ns' hoard con.1d be f~,nned immediately at the din.:dion of the City CounciL Councilor Po.ling asked how such action would h(: interpreted if the charter :unen.dment lost at. the haUot. City Mmiager Dennis 'frrylol: caUed it a eonu.ndrum, .He observed that eVl~tyone was in support of this type of revk'N and the only opposition was how to go about bringing it to fruition. .He :t\:cotmul?:ndd that the City go forward within the charter and implement the police auditor as '\veH a~ determine how to provide civilian r~cview to increase police acc~)untahility, transp~tn;::ncy, and complaint-handling. In responi;e tD a que::;tioH from. Counei1or PoUng~ City Manager '1'ayl()f affinu\xl that the ~mditor and rcview hoard coutd be bnmght into play '.vit.h a simpk vote oftrw City Council to authorize the City Manager to do so, Councilor Poling asked hi,)wmany other external auditors .and/or CitiZ'eH review boards report directly to tln l;:~kckd body~ City Manager Taylor said he was. a\va:re of no local govemn:wn.ts that had thii; <;ap;;!dty, .He ~;tak>tl that many local governments had an auditor 'who reported. to the ~idministratjve head of the govcnuuent - either the City Manager or thel\layo:r. Regarding the civilian review, he noted that there were rnany inKtances wl:K~rc botlrds that aS$i(.;t in some pbm;e of the comphint-hf:H1dhng prO<X~i;S existed in both the s..ttongMayor and City Munager form;,; of government. In reBponse tD a q~B?-stkn fmm Councilor Pding, City Attornq' Kl.ein tlHIrmed tlmt H coundk1pPO'inted body wenild meet the definition of a gov(~ming hody acmnling to' the language O'f d:w Public-Meetings Jaw. Councilor Poling a:;;ked how this would .aftixt arbitration in cases where a PO'llce employee was subject to an inv;;::stigatioH and reviev! and then decided to' appeal t.he d~~ision.Mr. Klein $~!id thos.e i~.,sue$ had been addre~.;s.ed by City Attnrne.y Sharon Rudnick and in;;:lmkd in the ;\.gend.a Item Summ.ary. He unde:a:tood that mechanisms. to significantly reduce that {)Ve of problem had oc;:m. idcntitlcd that could be iw;;orporated inw an ordin;:mc~: resulting from paS$age ()f the charter amendmen.t CmmdlGr Killy di1'>puted the <1~sf~rtiOll that the charkr amendment \vould be a change to the City's form of govenunent. He averred that council/manager governments around the eou:ntry \.~ame "in a variety of Havors.'" .He cited the City of Spri:ngtkld ;;\s an example ~md Pi)inted out that the Springfidd City Council approved an department h<;-.ad hires, Cnundlo.r K;::My <werred that allowing the City Manager by a :;;impk motioll of the C:ity ('ouncii to contract the services of an ~xtlo'ffial auditor and fom1 a dviH::m review board wuuld only work ifitwm, credibk in the eOtn,nnmity, He believed, given the current enVimlln1tmt in the community,m.aking such a move WOUldllOf be perceivcd as credible. He .added thtlt he could 1)(}t i;UPfX}rt Councilor Papes $uggei;tkm to split the motion. Council.or Pryor supporti..>d the Police Commission '8 report but had heen tn.mh1ed by the vote. Ultimatdy he i;uppmied the recomrnendation because the e.normity nfth.) pol.ice review' i~.;sue w<.!.rra.uted a significant response. He bdiev-ed there to be a ;;:.ri~.,i::; of c-Glxfldence the extent of w'hkh ;;::ould only he determined hy .MrNtrrEs.....Eugem~ City Council Augu$J 8, 2005 Page 11 Regular Ses::;ion ...................----.....----.....--.---