Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said one of the things that had been compromised when formulating the ordinance language was subpoena power because the council felt the model gave the auditor access to all of the information and the investigations and the ability to ensure an investigation was thorough. She averred that the issues that had cropped up over the past nine months had shown that there were lots of ways this could be frustrated. She asserted that the provisions in her motion would address those issues and give the Police Auditor and the CRB the “tools they need to do their job.” She felt the motion was “well within the threshold” of the authority granted by the Charter. Mr. Clark supported the idea of effective police oversight and he had maintained this position from the start. He observed that there had been challenges and “rough spots” in the last year. He wanted to see the City move forward on this, but he wanted to do so in a deliberative and thorough way. He felt there were a number of substantive issues contained in the motion and many raised valid points. He said he was under- prepared to make a decision on all of the proposed motion at the current meeting. He declared that if the council was willing to create committees to revisit issues that seemed to him to be much smaller than the compilation of issues in the motion, it would make sense not to rush something far-reaching through in a hurry. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the council constitute a committee to go through all of the components of the motion; a committee that would not be made up of only councilors, but would include many members of the community with many points of view, that would be directed to come back to the council with considered opinions on all of the motion. Ms. Taylor supported Ms. Bettman’s motion as proposed. She thought it was comprehensive and needed. Mr. Zelenka thought that the recent “65 percent yes vote” on amending the charter language indicated that there was support for strengthening the system, per Ms. Bettman’s motion. He felt it sent a “clear signal” to the City, to EPD, and to the auditor that the system needed to work. He averred that the changes would “get us there.” He said the changes should be vetted by the council, adding that the timing of this was important because Ms. Bettman’s history and knowledge on this issue could be used before she left the office of councilor at the end of the year. He believed that if the council passed the ordinance language at the present meeting, it could have a work session on it on November 17, schedule a public hearing for December 8, and then finalize it at the December 10 meeting. Mr. Pryor did not think they should make policy based on when someone was leaving office. He felt the work that Ms. Bettman had done on the ordinance had been “incredible” but he did not want to be rushed into making changes as comprehensive as the ones set forth in her motion. He averred that a motion containing 12 items warranted a lot of discussion. He declared that to move straight to an ordinance and then have a public hearing was faster than his comfort level would allow. He said there was a lot in the ordinance that would likely be desirable; with the right conversation it would be appropriate to incorporate it. He underscored that it was not a matter of doing or not doing it, it was a matter of how they could do it well. He noted that they had just appointed a process using the auditor and the CRB to develop recommen- dations on procedures, protocols, and smooth functioning. He did not know to what degree this motion would jumpstart that process. He likened Ms. Bettman’s motion to “beating [the committee] to the punch.” Ms. Bettman averred that her motion had nothing to do with the council’s supervision of the auditor or the CRB; it had to do with access to information. She opined that they had to reinforce the policy issues like the voters had to reinforce the charter with the language change. She asserted that the issues had been raised before. She felt the proposed timeline provided an adequate opportunity to consider her motion and take MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 9 Work Session