My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 07/14/08 Regular Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2008
>
CC Minutes - 07/14/08 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:29:54 AM
Creation date
10/20/2008 5:20:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/14/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
‘shall’ have a police auditor. He was not interested in adding Councilor Bettman’s language because he <br />believed it would bind future City Councils. He did not want to add prescriptive language, adding his <br />feeling that the language proposed by his colleague would change the nature of what the auditor was doing. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling concurred. He thanked the Mayor for being able to see the possible unintended conse- <br />quences and making the request that the legal staff work to determine those potential consequences. He felt <br />that the City Attorney had worked out the issues in the language and the Police Auditor was agreeable with <br />the wording in the July 10 version. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asserted that the July 10 language prohibited the authority by specifically limiting the <br />oversight to administrative investigations. She disagreed with the City Attorney’s legal opinion that <br />changing the language from ‘may’ to ‘shall’ would then require the council to give the auditor full authority <br />to participate in investigations. She declared that it was up to the council to put operational parameters <br />around the office. She asserted that the legal counsel had changed his mind before regarding language in <br />this ordinance and she questioned his interpretation. She declared it was inconsistent between the two <br />provisions. She likened Councilor Clark’s motion to “splitting the baby.” She alleged that the language in <br />the July 10 version of the Resolution would make it so that the authority vested by the voters in the police <br />auditor would be “optional according to who was in office at the moment.” She opined that this could mean <br />the City would be paying a lot of taxpayer money for the Police Auditor and it would be a “completely <br />illusory” form of oversight because there would be no authority behind it. She indicated she would oppose <br />that version. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Bettman; he would support the original language because he <br />believed the language regarding the auditor should be set in the charter and should not be subject to changes <br />by the council. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon said she would put credence in the work that Police Auditor Cris Beamud and the City’s <br />legal counsel had done together and that Ms. Beamud was amenable to it. She felt that because the auditor’s <br />position was new it had been tough for Ms. Beamud. She was nervous about making a “whole lot of charter <br />amendments.” <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor understood and agreed with a lot of Councilor Bettman’s sentiment and what she was trying <br />to do. He pointed out that whatever version was passed by the council would still go to the voters for <br />approval. He averred that he would not lose sleep given that the public would ultimately decide on it. For <br />him it came down to the employer/employee relationship and to what degree the employer wanted to <br />maintain discretion with regard to what they wanted an employee to do. He said philosophically he did not <br />want to “go down a road” that would add language that would direct the employee to make such decisions <br />and not the employer. He indicated he would support the amended version, knowing that Ms. Beamud and <br />Mr. Klein had worked on it. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark appreciated Councilor Pryor’s point. He reiterated that either way this would be posed to <br />the voters and the amended version was the version worked out by the Police Auditor and the City Attorney. <br />He believed it would strengthen the piece that indicated Eugene would have a Police Auditor. He averred <br />that the original version created another contentious political issue, in trying to pass something in contradic- <br />tion to what the auditor and attorney had suggested. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.