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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said that changes to the structure of government as represented by the proposed model would take the agreement of the voters of the entire city, not just a decision by the council. With respect to thoughtful- ness, he said members of the Communities United for Better Policing organization had been working on the issue “for decades.” He agreed that there was the potential for politicizing the process but reported that putting oversight under the City Manager could be just as political as putting oversight under the City Council. He also noted that the council, as a multi-person body, provided checks and balances that a single individual could not. Mr. Papé clarified that he was in support of a ballot measure for the civilian review board, but his concern was with where the auditor should report. He said he was not yet convinced that the auditor should report to the council and more thought should be given to that matter. He noted that at least one of the cities listed by Ms. Bettman did not have a city manager form of government. He reminded the council that in 2001, the Charter Review Commission examined the current city manager form of government and affirmed that it was the appropriate governance structure for the community. He said the commission’s proposal would change the basic structure of the way the City operated and a 90-minute discussion was inadequate for that decision. Ms. Bettman said the council would not be making the decision about structural change; the voters would decide if they wanted a new way of overseeing police functions. She said that having the legislative branch oversee the auditor and civilian review board would provide the key piece of structural independence that was missing. She asserted that an auditor and a police chief who were in the same chain of command were unlikely to disagree. Mayor Piercy spoke of her great respect for the City Manager and his role. She said she had given considerable thought to both approaches and, while it would be simpler and less expensive to move forward with the city manager approach, she listened to the people whose advice was solicited and would support the structural independence of the auditor and review board in order to rebuild trust in the community. She would support an independent auditor and review board. Referring to Ms. Bettman’s remarks about three city managers failing to implement a model when problems were occurring, Mr. Poling noted that the council had not acted to direct the City Manager to bring forward a proposal either. He said there was an opportunity to vote to direct the City Manager to begin the process and address the concerns of people with complaints. He was concerned about the legal issues surrounding the council’s hiring of an auditor and subjecting an auditor to nine supervisors. He felt it would be a cleaner and quicker process to direct the City Manager to begin the process now. He asked if there had been any polling to determine whether a ballot measure was likely to pass. Mr. Laue said he was not aware of any poll. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a) a proposed Charter Amendment to authorize a review board consistent with the Police Commission proposal but not include in the proposed Charter Amendment the appointment of the auditor by the council, and b) a resolu- tion or ordinance calling an election on the Charter Amendment for a November 2005 election. Mr. Poling noted that if the motion passed it did not mean there would not be an auditor; it meant that the City Manager would move forward with hiring an auditor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 9 Work Session