Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

charge was complete. Mr. Zelenka offered a third friendly amendment that Ms. Bettman’s motion of November 17 would also be considered by the proposed amendment. He suggested that the committee provide for public input before they make a final recommendation. Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark had no objection to the proposed friendly amendments. Mr. Zelenka asked for more information about the organization “Citizens United for Better Policing.” He suggested alternatively, that two more citizen members be appointed in lieu of that organization’s represen- tatives. Ms. Ortiz expressed the hope the Mayor would select a wide range of representatives with an interest and some history around police issues. She believed there were many people the mayor could call on. She said the Citizens United for Better Policing had a long history of involvement in police issues and its members were willing to serve on the committee. Mr. Clark was willing to let the Mayor balance the committee appointments. Mr. Klein reviewed the revised motion for the benefit of Ms. Ortiz (italicized text added, struck text deleted). Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that in lieu of the public hearing scheduled for December 8, 2008, the City Council create a committee to first review the issues raised by Councilor Bett- man’s November 10 and November 17 motions as well as, then other issues if time permits that the committee members believed should be reviewed, obtain public input, and to then report back to the City Council by March 11, 2009. . .” Ms. Bettman called the motion an extreme example of bad governance. She had witnessed many things she found extremely objectionable but “this really takes the cake.” She said Ms. Ortiz’s “exclusive stakeholder group” was a committee to “second-guess” what the voters overwhelming supported, and replaced what was a standard procedure for amending the code with a “hodge-podge” of a process just so “you can delay the implementation of the oversight system.” She called it a “tragic outcome of what been a long hard process with immense amounts of stakeholder input.” She pointed out that the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) and the Interfaith Community were not included on the list of stakeholders, but had been involved “all along.” She said the Police Commission had spent months researching the complex topic of police oversight, and now the council proposed to “toss the subject” to a group of people handpicked by Ms. Ortiz and Mayor Piercy. She termed the proposed committee “an insider operation” and maintained that it “was a very sad day.” She asserted that the council was “thwarting the will of the voters.” Mr. Pryor indicated his disagreement with Ms. Bettman’s remarks. Ms. Taylor said she had no idea what was behind the motion on the table and asked what specific objections there were to Ms. Bettman’s November 10 motion. She could not imagine there was anything there to object to. She saw no purpose to another committee and called the motion on the table a delaying tactic and big waste of time. Ms. Taylor maintained that the motion represented an obstacle to the work of the Police Auditor. She did not understand the origins of the motion, now it had been constituted, or the objections to the motion passed the previous week. She questioned why a public hearing was not acceptable when it was what the council usually did. Mayor Piercy regretted the characterizations of intention directed at the motion. She believed that those who supported the approach proposed in the motion were concerned about the process and not about undermining MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 5 Work Session