CC Minutes - 11/17/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

and recommend next steps for the program of external oversight of complaints involving po- lice employees, including but not limited to, authority for the Police Auditor to determine fi- nal adjudication, authority for the Police Auditor to recommend discipline, subpoena power for the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor, the Police Auditor’s role in training of police employees, the Civilian Review Board’s role in evaluating and overseeing the Po- lice Auditor, and the authority for the Police Auditor to participate in hiring processes for Eugene Police Department employees, including the Chief of Police. Ms. Bettman said that the hearing would have provided the needed opportunity for public input. She understood that people wanted to be involved in the next steps and she supported that. However, the provisions she put forward were not the next steps; instead, they implemented the steps that the council had already adopted as policy and that the electorate had “weighed in on twice.” She believed the use of the phrase “including but not limited to” allowed for the examination of other issues. She asserted that the provisions she put forth had overwhelming voter support and reflected and strengthened current authorities as well as “stop the hemorrhaging” occurring in the oversight system. Ms. Bettman said that the changes she proposed could have been made before the recent mayoral election, but councilors put it off because there were people running for office who felt it might have a negative impact on their elections. Now the council was looking at implementing provisions that “basically, just do what the ordinance already tells the City to do,” which was different from next steps. She maintained that her original provisions were not changes but reinforcements to what the City was already doing, and there was a public process involved. She said the motion would merely extend the delay in implementing the oversight process and “was just another orchestrated delay.” Her motion was consistent with the charter, and separated next steps from implementing existing roles and authorities already approved by the voters. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was committed to the substance of Ms. Bettman’s 12-part motion of November 10. He felt that it represented resolution of long-standing issues that the council had been grappling with for some time, and he considered that it largely addressed administrative issues and clarification of the “way things were supposed to be in the first place.” However, he had many contacts since the last meeting and thought the motion offered by Ms. Ortiz was probably preferable at this time as it was more along the lines of good governance, and he understood residents’ desire for more time. Mr. Pryor opposed Ms. Bettman’s substitute motion but thought many of the provisions she put forward would be at the top of the list of items for the committee to discuss. He said if he was a member of the stakeholder groups he would want to be in a setting to discuss the issues involved rather than be forced into a three-minute speech at a podium at a public hearing. In regard to Ms. Bettman’s assertion that the process was orchestrated, he said that he was not involved in orchestrating anything; he was interested in good governance and a process that worked. He believed in the Police Auditor, voted for the Police Auditor, and supported the Police Auditor. He thought Ms. Ortiz’s motion the best way to achieve what was desired: a collaborative, consensus-driven, easily-agreed-to outcome. Ms. Bettman said the voters wanted an independent complaint process. She objected to the inclusion of members of the Police Commission, asserting it was dominated by the Police Department and therefore not an independent body. She noted that the Communities United for Better Policing had refused to participate in the discussions surrounding the charter amendment, which made her question the entire list. She maintained that to have people who were not independent and who were heavily biased on a committee developing ordinance language would undermine the Police Auditor system and was not good governance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 3 Work Session