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

Home Browse Search

to immediately implement the model under the City Manager’s supervision. She said this would retain flexibility and allow the system to be revised as necessary. Mr. Laue replied that the commission had recommended a charter amendment election on narrow terms that would give the council the authority to hire and auditor and appoint a review board. He did not expect that the council would include any of the other details in the report. Ms. Solomon was not certain she could support a council-appointed auditor who would report directly to the council. She felt that the City Manager’s job was to be the conduit from the City organization to the council and for the council to have an employee report directly to it would undermine the City Manager’s authority and that form of government. She was reluctant to see that in the form of a charter amendment and would prefer an ordinance. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission and its officers and subcommittee chairs. She said the City of Seattle’s oversight entity was called the Office of Professional Accountability and she liked the name because lack of accountability or perceived absence of accountability unfairly prejudiced the community’s appreciation of the Police Department’s dedicated employees. She felt the commission’s recommendations represented a form of oversight that was independent of the Police Department and responsive to the public through the normal channels of democratic government. She quoted from the author of Problem-Oriented Policing that “To the degree that we expend resources on strategies that don’t solve problems we will always have inadequate resources. We must move to smarter budgets and surgical strategies; rather than swat flies, we should install screens.” She said she viewed the proposal as installing a screen. She said the only issue that would go on the ballot would be the form of governance and the question of who the police auditor was accountable to. Ms. Ortiz echoed the thanks and praise from other councilors and also thanked the HRC, Whiteaker Community Council and the Police Department for their participation in and support of the process. She said she was not comfortable with the auditor reporting to the council but the community had asked for an external review board that was outside the purview of the City. She said it was owed to the community to have the complaint process be as transparent as possible and if the commission’s recommendation was to way to get there she would support it. Referring to Mr. Poling’s question about why go to the ballot if the council would then implement the system under the City Manager, Mr. Kelly said that the governance was not a foregone conclusion; while the commission’s report did indicate the City Manager approach was another option, he could not support it because of the fundamental issue of structural independence. He said there was a credibility problem that needed to be addressed and going with a system that was seen by the public as not fully independent would not solve it. He agreed with Ms. Solomon’s point that this was the first meeting at which the council had considered the commission’s report and recommendations, but noted the thoroughness of the commission’s work over the past year, including extensive public outreach. He said the charter amendment would be very brief and basically ask if the council should be allowed to appoint an auditor and a civilian review board. He characterized the amendment as a very minor change to the structure of government that did not undermine the city manager governance structure. Mr. Papé disagreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks. He said that having an auditor reporting to the council was a huge change in the governance model. He agreed with the need for an oversight board and the need for a charter amendment to establish one. He appreciated the commission’s perspective, but the council should take a broader view and ask whether it was willing to change the strong city manager form of government. He asked if the oversight board, in reviewing the auditor’s work, established the public credibility and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 7 Work Session