CC Minutes - 08/08/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Solomon supported an external auditor and a police review board but not at the expense of the City’s form of government. She felt it would undermine the relationship the council had with the City Manager. She also did not believe that this should be a charter amendment as it would take another charter amendment to change it and, without it, the resolution could be “tweaked” as needed. She reiterated that the auditor and citizens’ board could be formed immediately at the direction of the City Council. Councilor Poling asked how such action would be interpreted if the charter amendment lost at the ballot. City Manager Dennis Taylor called it a conundrum. He observed that everyone was in support of this type of review and the only opposition was how to go about bringing it to fruition. He recommended that the City go forward within the charter and implement the police auditor as well as determine how to provide civilian review to increase police accountability, transparency, and complaint-handling. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the auditor and review board could be brought into play with a simple vote of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to do so. Councilor Poling asked how many other external auditors and/or citizen review boards report directly to an elected body. City Manager Taylor said he was aware of no local governments that had this capacity. He stated that many local governments had an auditor who reported to the administrative head of the government - either the City Manager or the Mayor. Regarding the civilian review, he noted that there were many instances where boards that assist in some phase of the complaint-handling process existed in both the strong Mayor and City Manager forms of government. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, City Attorney Klein affirmed that a council-appointed body would meet the definition of a governing body according to the language of the Public Meetings law. Councilor Poling asked how this would affect arbitration in cases where a police employee was subject to an investigation and review and then decided to appeal the decision. Mr. Klein said those issues had been addressed by City Attorney Sharon Rudnick and included in the Agenda Item Summary. He understood that mechanisms to significantly reduce that type of problem had been identified that could be incorporated into an ordinance resulting from passage of the charter amendment. Councilor Kelly disputed the assertion that the charter amendment would be a change to the City’s form of government. He averred that council/manager governments around the country came “in a variety of flavors.” He cited the City of Springfield as an example and pointed out that the Springfield City Council approved all department head hires. Councilor Kelly averred that allowing the City Manager by a simple motion of the City Council to contract the services of an external auditor and form a civilian review board would only work if it was credible in the community. He believed, given the current environment in the community, making such a move would not be perceived as credible. He added that he could not support Councilor Papé’s suggestion to split the motion. Councilor Pryor supported the Police Commission’s report but had been troubled by the vote. Ultimately he supported the recommendation because the enormity of the police review issue warranted a significant response. He believed there to be a crisis of confidence the extent of which could only be determined by MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session