Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor suggested that the motion include language that indicated that the committee should come back to <br />the council with a total review and approval as soon as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested that the language indicate that it should be brought to the council before the first <br />quarter ended. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to indicate that they would form a subcommittee <br />that included councilors, the Civilian Review Board, and the Police Auditor. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said this was not what he had in mind. He explained that he believed the subcommittee would be <br />working with the CRB and Police Auditor but would not include them. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said he did not think that the motion sought to involve <br />oversight and evaluation of the auditor, but rather to work with the CRB and to bring back a recommenda- <br />tion to the council. He did not see this as being in violation of the charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked whether the council would want to have input from police leadership involved in the <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka averred that the motion was just about supervision of the Police Auditor and the establishment <br />of parameters on council communication and securities. He wanted to see the motion be a little stronger in <br />terms of the role of the auditor and the CRB. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor did not see the process being successful without intimate involvement of the CRB. He had been <br />trying to establish a line of authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested making the CRB members akin to ex officio members of the committee. Mr. Pryor <br />was amenable to that. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She averred that the language in the charter was clear; the CRB had <br />oversight over the Police Auditor. She thought to function and work in good faith with the CRB the <br />committee should include the councilors appointed by the council, the CRB and the auditor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to read that it establish <br />a council subcommittee of four councilors, appointed by the council, and including the Ci- <br />vilian Review Board and the Police Auditor, to develop a recommendation on the supervi- <br />sion and support of the Police Auditor and to establish parameters for communicating with <br />the Civilian Review Board; the recommendations would be brought back to the City Coun- <br />cil for review and approval. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy observed that the whole purpose of the motion was for a group of councilors to sit down with <br />the CRB and the auditor and to come back with recommendations for the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor affirmed that this was the greater sense of the motions. He said the difference between the two <br />motions had to do specifically with the issue of authority. He stressed that who the auditor worked for did <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />