Laserfiche WebLink
scored that this would require the council to change the existing ordinance. He stated that the language that <br />the auditor and the City’s counsel had come up with was not intended to narrow the council’s flexibility or <br />authorization; it was intended to retain the authorization and the power the council currently had without a <br />requirement to change the ordinance to allow the auditor to participate in such an investigation. <br /> <br />In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pryor, Mr. Klein stated that the change in Attachment A <br />directed the council to change the ordinance to authorize what it had presently prohibited the auditor from <br />doing, which was participating in criminal interviews. He averred that changing it this way would require, <br />post the voters’ approval, that the council revise the ordinance. He said adopting the July 10 version of the <br />Resolution would mean the council would not need to change the ordinance as it would preserve what <br />currently existed in the ordinance. He reiterated that the council had the authority to change the ordinance <br />but if the Resolution was passed as it was presented in Attachment A it would require the council to change <br />it. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor asked if the council have to also add all of the additional language if they did not change the <br />second part to ‘shall’ and just left it as ‘may.’ Mr. Klein replied that this would still require the council to <br />appoint an auditor, but it would continue to say that the council ‘may’ authorize the duties and powers of the <br />auditor. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor did not think anyone had a problem with the first ‘shall,’ it was the second ‘shall’ that <br />would make changes; if it went forward with the charter vote as such it would be a much simpler measure to <br />put forward. Mr. Klein affirmed that this was correct. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka did not believe that ‘shall monitor’ would mean the auditor would be required to be <br />involved in every criminal investigation. He asked if the language included the second ‘shall’ whether they <br />would also be required to include the subsection (b) of that section – that the City would also contract with <br />persons or entities to perform outside investigations of such complaints. Mr. Klein affirmed that it would <br />but pointed out that the ordinance already authorized the auditor to contract for outside investigations. He <br />said the council would not be requiring the auditor to be involved in criminal investigations, instead the <br />council would be required to allow the auditor to be involved in criminal investigations. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked why the principle of subsection (b) would not apply to subsection (c) which stated <br />that the auditor was allowed to participate in criminal investigations but the auditor did not have to. Mr. <br />Klein replied that this symmetry was in the charter amendment but it did not exist in the ordinance the <br />council passed. He reiterated that the ordinance currently in place required the auditor to be involved in <br />administrative investigations and prohibited the auditor from being involved in criminal investigations. He <br />stressed that the difference in this was that the language change would require the ordinance to change to <br />allow this and presently the ordinance prohibited it. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked whether approval of the July 10 version would prohibit the auditor from <br />participating in criminal investigations. Mr. Klein responded that it would allow the council to retain the <br />flexibility to decide what a review of a criminal investigation would include, whether it would be a review <br />after the fact or if it would be undertaken throughout the process. In response to a follow-up question from <br />Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Klein explained that ‘monitor’ was not absolutely defined in the language, the <br />council had the discretion to allow it or not. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark was in favor of the idea. He averred that the people had spoken clearly – the City needed a <br />strong police review process. He agreed that they should strengthen the language to state that the City <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />