Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

veiled delay” and postponement of getting the Police Auditor’s Office “up and fully functioning.” Speaking to comments by the City Manager and Police Chief that they supported the Police Auditor, Ms. Bettman said “thank you,” but recalled that a past manager and chief had been unwilling to enter into an administrative investigation at her behest for a variety of reasons, including the civil cases filed against the City, and the ultimate decision not to pursue such an investigation. She asserted her provisions were “personality proof” and gave the Police Auditor and CRB access to information, documents, and complaint investigations needed to do the job without having to go through third parties or suffer delays or obfuscation. She maintained that to oppose her motion was to overturn the will of the voters. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman. She said the provisions Ms. Bettman suggested were “almost like housekeeping” except that they strengthened and clarified the role of the Police Auditor. She said the Police Commission was intended to advise the council, not make decisions, and if it wanted to give the council advice, it could. She did not support the makeup of the committee, saying it did not make sense. Mr. Clark observed that a local newspaper, The Eugene Weekly, had characterized him as being against police oversight because he would not proceed in the way Ms. Bettman preferred. That was being reinforced by accusations that the council was overturning the will of the voters by refusing to proceed in a very specific way. Mr. Clark said that he had always supported effective police oversight as well as what he believed was good governance. His challenge in regard to the provisions put forth by Ms. Bettman was not in regard to their content but to the process. He looked forward to a broader public process. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks that the Police Commission was heavily dominated by the police, Mr. Clark noted Ms. Taylor’s membership on that group and asked if she felt dominated by the police. Mr. Clark believed the motion put forth by Mr. Pryor represented a fairer and more open process and more importantly, an opportunity for more community education and buy-in to the Police Auditor. Ms. Bettman said “all of a sudden” everyone was in favor of police oversight and committed to the auditor, but not all police oversight was created the same. She said that everyone could reach consensus if the City lowered the threshold and the result was no effective police oversight. She said that was practically the case now. The model in place was very modest because of all the stakeholder input, including that of the police union, the Police Department, and the Police Commission. She maintained that it was a one-sided watered down model because of all the public input. The only authority the auditor and CRB had was “shining a light” She termed it the epitome of irony that Ms. Ortiz was canceling the public hearing. She regretted terribly that the council was about to overturn the will of the voters. Ms. Bettman could have a recommendation for more time and in the meantime there would be compromised investigations. The substitute motion failed 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Zelenka liked the time certain element of the proposal. He was not interested in having the committee ask for more time as he thought it would have plenty of time. He believed that many residents, including him, were in favor of Ms. Bettman’s recommendations. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark, that the proposed committee first review Ms. Bettman’s motion of November 10. Mr. Zelenka offered a second friendly amendment, which was also accepted by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark, stipulating that the committee must request council approval of any issues other than those referred to it by the council. Mr. Clark offered the caveat that any new or additional issues recommended by the council would be considered after its initial MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 4 Work Session