CC Minutes - 07/25/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion with a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council at its August 8, 2005, meeting a) a proposed Charter Amendment consistent with the Police Com- mission proposal, and b) a resolution or ordinance calling an election on the Charter Amendment for a November election. Mr. Kelly said the matter was one of fundamental governance of the police oversight and he felt the issues were clearly on the table and before the community. Ms. Bettman thought it was unfortunate that Mr. Poling placed a motion on the table that basically reflected the comments of one councilor regarding splitting the auditor and review board functions. She said the tremendous downside of splitting those two functions was that when the Police Commission deliberated, it assumed there was a vast universe of options available for the checks and balances of an oversight model and those assumptions were changed when the auditor governance was separated from the review board governance. She preferred to put nothing on the ballot rather than Mr. Poling’s motion and supported Mr. Kelly’s substitute motion because she believed that structural independence was the fundamental issue that needed to be taken to the community. Mr. Pryor said his first instinct was to support Mr. Poling’s recommendation, but the council needed to trust someone at this point. He said as much as he was reluctant to change the fundamental structure of Eugene’s government, taking everything into account he would support Mr. Kelly’s motion primarily because it was the recommendation of the Police Commission, which had done much work and study. He did not like being pushed to make decisions in 90 minutes but would support the commission’s recommendation. Mr. Papé did not feel the issue could be vetted in 90 minutes and preferred to have another work session. He said that the council lacked information on what other communities with a city manager form of government had the type of governance structure being proposed in Mr. Kelly’s motion. He said there were many questions that still needed to be answered. Responding to Ms. Bettman’s remark, Mr. Poling asserted that his motion was not based solely on one councilor’s comments; it reflected his general sense of the discussion up to that point. His intent was not to demean or slight the work of the commission as he understood how difficult its task was. He felt that placing the auditor under the City Manager was a more efficient and effective approach and spending $100,000 on an election for something the council already had the authority to do did not make sense. He said it was clear that all councilors were interested in implementing the auditor and civilian review board implemented quickly. He could not understand spending taxpayer money on an election which, if it failed, the council would implement anyway. Ms. Bettman stated she did not think the money was worth it without structural independence of the oversight entity because it would be redundant to existing management protocols. She pointed out that there was an external auditor report and recommendations for three years in a row and action was not taken until the Magana/Lara scandal. With respect to spending funds for an election, she said that the three times the City attempted to pass a bond levy to build a police station it had failed; it was now time to go back and make an investment in a “screen instead of a flyswatter.” She said that whether the auditor, support staff, and civilian review board were under the purview of the City Manager or the council, the cost would be the same; the only issue was the form of governance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 10 Work Session