CC Minutes - 11/10/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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 public input. She said these were issues they would have to grapple with anyway and the council was the body to do so. Mayor Piercy commented that she would have a lot of trouble moving forward with the motion if there was not another work session. She was also concerned that these were issues that had been brought up and the City Manager was taking administrative steps to address some of them. She expressed concern about whether there were any legal issues. Mr. Lidz stated that the City Attorneys had only seen the motion for the first time earlier in the day. He said there was at least one component of the motion that would be subject to bargaining and there were others that would need clarification. He thought there were components of the motion that had implications for the criminal justice system, and in particular prosecutions. Ms. Solomon said she was stunned at the lack of transparency. She averred that Ms. Bettman was trying to advance all of the components of this motion “on a day’s notice” and with very little public involvement in order to meet “somebody’s personal timeline.” She had concerns about the management of confidential information coming out of the auditor’s office and wanted to discuss this. She also wanted to see more promotion of the unsubstantiated complaints that came out of that office. She agreed with Mr. Pryor, that this could be a meaningful discussion point for the auditor, the CRB, and the council committee. She supported Mr. Clark’s motion. Ms. Ortiz understood that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be “a lot to digest” for her peers who had not “been on this journey.” She said though she did not support several components of the motion she was willing to continue to work on them. She acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s work on the ordinance but wished to point out that the Police Commission had also put in many hours of work on it. Mr. Clark said his intention was to form a different committee than the one they had just formed in the earlier agenda item. He hoped to get wider community input on this. He observed that this issue and other issues had been pretty heated in the community and he wanted to find ways to work together. He stated that he wanted to have a better buy-in from the EPD and the opportunity to get a better legal opinion on several of the points of the motion. He underscored that this was not an issue of competence to deal with a number of difficult questions so much as it was an issue of doing the business of the City in a better way. He hoped they would be more deliberative and would involve more voices in the process rather than “ramming them through quickly.” He opined that this was moving too fast. He noted that the City Attorney had informed him that his motion lacked specificity with regard to the number of councilors the committee would include. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 10 Work Session