Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Holmes stressed the importance of the Police Auditor being aware of the council’s expectations and what <br />she would be held accountable for. She said there were a number of job requirements in the ordinance and <br />those could also be included in the evaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to include in the evaluation any other <br />duties included in the ordinance that were not explicit in the evaluation form. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark explained that his intent was to assure the council was not limited in its ability to conduct a <br />complete and thorough review. He said the CRB recommendations were good, but not complete. He was not <br />interested in imposing any expectations that were not part of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she did not understand the amendment as this or any future council could do exactly what it <br />had a majority to do. She said the council could bring anything it wished forward in an evaluation. She felt <br />the recommended criteria covered every aspect of the auditor’s role and authority. Her concern was how to <br />evaluate the program and cooperation between it and other departments. She directed Mr. Clark’s attention to <br />the Police Commission report, which described the police auditor model. She saw consistency between the <br />methodologies used to evaluate the Police Auditor and municipal judges. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he could support the amendment, but it raised the larger issue of the difficulty of being a part- <br />time supervisor for a full-time employee and trying to develop a mechanism where casual supervision could be <br />translated into a meaningful evaluation. He said as council president, he probably had the most frequent <br />contact with Ms. Beamud, but did not feel he was able to provide the level of supervision she deserved. He <br />was not certain that adding more criteria would be helpful, given the minimum amount of supervision the <br />council provided. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. His intent was to include some missing items in the evaluation <br />form, such as customer feedback, accuracy of complaint classification, review of investigations and adjudica- <br />tion recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka remarked that an evaluation process should incorporate multiple inputs, one of which was the <br />evaluation form. He said the elements in the form were guidelines to trigger the council’s thinking on that <br />topic area and the form should be regarded as a tool in the evaluation process, but did not limit the scope of the <br />council’s review. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor felt the evaluation form was already complete and the amendment unnecessary. She said the <br />problem was obtaining the knowledge necessary to use the form effectively. She wanted frequent reports and <br />conversations with the Police Auditor as it was the responsibility of the entire council to provide supervision. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that the Police Auditor was not an employee meant to be micromanaged; the level of <br />supervision should be comparable to that of the council’s other employees. She said the position was granted <br />considerable autonomy in carrying out the provisions in the ordinance. She would not support the amendment <br />after hearing comments from Mr. Clark and Mr. Pryor that attempted to resurrect issues already settled by the <br />voters. She said the evaluation form was a tool and part of a larger evaluation predicated on the success of <br />processing complaints. She hoped that someone would offer a friendly amendment to seek feedback from the <br />Police Auditor’s employees. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that discussion of the role of the Police Auditor should be based on a job description, which <br />could be used as an evaluation tool. He did not see the need for the amendment. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />