Laserfiche WebLink
not mean the auditor did not have a relationship with the CRB or that the council did not have a relationship <br />with the CRB or that the CRB should not be involved. He asked the City Attorney to clarify this. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz stated that the Police Auditor provided staff support for the CRB. He said the performance <br />evaluation of the Police Auditor was within the purview of the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor felt that the person who was in charge of the performance evaluation of the employee needed to be <br />the person who had the final authority to approve the ultimate recommendation. He stressed that the only <br />difference between the two motions was that he wanted to leave the “path clear.” He did not want to leave <br />the CRB out he just wanted to be clear about what the charter states in terms of supervision. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to get vetting on all issues. He felt the amendment would mean the council would be <br />asking the advice of the CRB and auditor in a more formal way. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz hoped she would be appointed to the committee. She said she was inclusive in her deliberations <br />and whether or not someone was able to vote, she would still take their thoughts forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Reynolds reiterated that the CRB wanted communication and there needed to be a formalized <br />arrangement for it. She thought a good team would include a discreet number of councilors, herself and the <br />CRB. She supposed the amendment made it a little more clear, but she believed the intent had always been <br />that they would work together to come up with a plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thought the difference between the motion and the amendment was “infinitesimal” in terms of how <br />it would work on the ground. He said everyone would be involved and everyone would be contributing <br />regardless. He had wanted to draw a clear line between the authority of the council and the authority of the <br />CRB; this was not an attempt to be exclusive. He averred that either way “the job would get done and done <br />in a good way.” <br /> <br />The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. <br />Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in <br />opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and it passed. <br /> <br />The vote on the motion, as amended, passed 5:3: Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling <br />voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a reporting schedule by the Police <br />Auditor to the council which would require a comprehensive annual written report, quar- <br />terly updates presented to the full council at a council session; the annual report would be <br />one of the quarterly updates written and presented to the council and a monthly written <br />memorandum via the packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would like to see the report be specific to purpose, tools, and accomplishments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that there was standardized protocol in the reports in “the industry.” She assumed that <br />this would be what the reports would contain. <br /> <br />Ms. Reynolds thought the committee could provide a template for what the council wanted to see in reports. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />