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

Home Browse Search

mayor and when there was an elected body, the auditor reported to the city manager. City Manager Taylor commented that a common feature among the communities was that where the auditor was external to the police department the auditor reported to the chief executive officer, depending on whether it was a strong mayor or city manager form of government. Mr. Poling questioned why the council would take the issue to the ballot at a cost of $100,000 when the commission indicated either governance approach would work for the model and the council would implement the city manager governance approach if the ballot measure failed. He asked what message would be sent to the voters if the ballot measure failed and the council implemented the model anyway. In the interests of cost, speed and efficiency, he recommended that the council not wait until November or May to put the matter on the ballot when it had the authority to move forward and have the City Manager make the appointment now and begin to implement the model. Mr. Papé praised the commission’s work, the thoroughness of its report and Mr. Laue’s leadership. He asked about the purpose of the task force on the alternative resolution that was referenced in the commis- sion’s report. Mr. Laue replied that the commission was recommending that in concert with the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which had handled mediation for the past ten years, a task force be formed to involve community stakeholders in an examination of current practices and the role of mediation and advocacy in the complaint process. He said many people believed that alternative resolution was a “win- win” situation with respect to complaints. He said that the council would approve any task force that was established. Mr. Papé asked how the commission’s recommendations compared to those in the International City/County Management Association-Police Executive Research Forum (ICMA-PERF) report. Mr. Laue replied that the ICMA-PERF report recommended that the Police Commission become an external review board, which was anathema to the commission. Mr. Papé urged the council to remember during its deliberations the Eugene Police Employees Association comment that many of the issues that prompted a call for oversight were due to inadequate staffing and inadequate hiring and screening mechanisms, which would not be cured by an oversight process. He urged the council to continue to address the lack of resources in the Police Department. Mr. Laue commented that the police union and the commission had an underlying value that aside from the oversight model, both were looking for ways to improve services to the community. Ms. Solomon remarked that she had been on the commission for a year and was always amazed at the consistently high quality of its work and staffing. She questioned the process by which a decision on a November election was made during a single meeting and asked why that decision had to be made immediately. City Manager Taylor said that the steps and timeframe for placing something on the November ballot required that the council provide direction today. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with taking immediate action as this was the first discussion the council had had on the issue and there had been no public hearings. She acknowledged the extensive public outreach conducted by the commission but felt the commission’s credibility should also be supported by the council through formal public hearings on the recommendations. She stated that if the council decided to move forward with a November election, it would need to establish language for the charter amendment, which contradicted Mr. Laue’s earlier statements about the need to retain flexibility in the model. She was very reluctant to proceed with a charter amendment and preferred Mr. Poling’s suggestion that the council move MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 6 Work Session