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

Home Browse Search

placing this resolution on the ballot. He said if the voters did not feel there was a crisis, they would not vote to support the measure. Councilor Pryor observed that the language indicated the new body would be prepared to report on complaints and trends and police practices in general. The latter made him wonder if this was the beginning of a move toward a general city auditor, which he did not support. He sensed that the Police Commission sought to adjudicate complaints about the EPD and not general police practices. While he supported this, he indicated he would watch closely to see where this was going. Councilor Taylor supported the motion. Regarding the idea of splitting the two issues, she said the council could establish a civilian review board without a vote. She thought there were very good reasons that both the auditor and the civilian review board would report to the council. Councilor Ortiz maintained that this resolution was not “personal,” but rather was about a change in process that sought to reestablish community trust. She commended the people who were “doing the job so well for us” at this point in time. Mayor Piercy supported the resolution. She thought it was necessary for the community and for EPD. She wanted assurance that the City was not shortchanging its efforts to mount a winnable campaign by placing the charter amendment on the November ballot. Councilor Papé expressed similar concern about of the timing of the proposed ballot measure. He asked Police Commissioner Tim Laue to speak to the commission’s recommendation. Mr. Laue reiterated that the highest recommendation of the Police Commission was to have both the external auditor and the civilian review board report to the City Council. He said the commission’s intention was that it could work either way, though there was no discussion about splitting the two and making one under the auspices of the City Manager. He averred that placing them separately on the ballot could result in only the auditor passing, which would not be a workable scenario. Regarding Councilor Pryor’s concern about the language referring to general police practices, he stated that this was intended for the service improvement component for police services. He said it had always been the commission’s intention that the auditor was not just there to ferret out complaints and identify things that were not working well. He stated that the commission was in no way advocating for a general auditor for the entire City organization. Mr. Laue shared concerns expressed regarding the possibility of failure on the ballot and the short time frame prior to the vote, but was confident that it would work either way. Councilor Bettman asserted that a civilian review board without an auditor would not have any power. She felt this would be a breach of trust with the citizens of the community. Regarding the date of the election, she pointed out that the community had been promised action more than a year ago. She opposed moving the election to May 2006. Councilor Papé voiced his support for the motion. However, he indicated that that he was not in favor of having the auditor report to the City Council. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session