Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

break. She said an exclusion zone was preposterous and would make a joke of Eugene. She regarded marijuana as a beneficial plant which should not be covered under the Controlled Substance Act. David Hinkley , Lawrence Street, Eugene, commented that passing an exclusionary zone ordinance without the resources to enforce it was a waste of time. He said the Police Chief’s actions related to withholding a file appeared to be a cover-up and the ordinance was clear that any complaints about police employees were referred to the auditor. He did not feel the current ordinance needed to be revised; the existing rules needed to be followed. Majeska Seese-Green , Eugene, thanked the Mayor and councilors and everyone who helped to protect the Amazon Headwaters. She hoped that the exclusion zone ordinance would not be passed without major revisions. She felt that the issue of a missing complaint was extremely important and wondered why the file could not have been provided to the auditor with sensitive information redacted. She said the Taser incident and withholding of a file had resulted in a setback in public trust and increase in skepticism about the police review system. She said there should be no exceptions to the ordinance and hoped it would never happen again. Councilor Ortiz said passage of the exclusionary zone ordinance was about a crisis of safety downtown. She did not think the exclusion zone would solve all of the problems and was willing to consider anything that might help. She invited community members and community organizations to come downtown, get involved and contribute their suggestions. Councilor Taylor said she was totally opposed to an exclusionary zone. She thanked John Brown for his continuing efforts to promote clean water. Councilor Clark said it was a compliment to the community that so many people spoke on the subject of how to make people safer. He said the council was not perfect and would likely make some mistakes, but he hoped by the end of the meeting, it would take action to make conditions downtown better. He said while the purpose of the Police Auditor was to re-establish trust, that was a two-way street and there should be a willingness to extend trust and respect for the Police Chief’s judgment. He asserted his trust in Chief Lehner and felt his decision would be validated when all information was available. Regarding the Police Auditor, Councilor Poling said that the misstep in communication cited by one of the speakers was the fault of the council, which rushed to get the position established without considering some of the unintended consequences. He said there was no policy or procedure in place to handle a complaint from a City employee against the City Manager, a municipal judge or the Police Auditor. He said there was nothing in place to address the exception circumstances the chief cited with respect to the withheld file. He stressed his support for the Police Auditor position and thanked Ms. Beamud for her work establishing the program. He was willing to withhold judgment regarding the withheld complaint until all information was available and commended Chief Lehner for his management of the department. Councilor Bettman said it was not the details of a complaint that put people in jeopardy; it was the publication of those details, and the Police Auditor was required by ordinance to maintain confidentiality. She said there was no reason the auditor should not have immediately received a redacted file or one specifying why it needed to remain confidential. She said the problem was continuing resistance from the City administration to oversight of complaints involving police employees. She said the ordinance was put in place as a result of the Police Commission’s survey of the community, which revealed that people were afraid to make complaints. She stressed that under the City’s ordinance the Police Chief adjudicates complaints and imposes discipline; the auditor only provides oversight. Mayor Piercy pointed out that on September 15 the council would consider the issue of complaints against council employees.