Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

She noted that the drafted ordinance amendments would allow the police auditor to still monitor the investigation performed by the city manager. [NAME REDACTED] was glad that the PAORC had addressed the distinctions between the police chief and regular sworn officers with respect to police oversight matters. They noted that the pertinent question now concerned who would be in charge of contracting any external oversight agencies. They expressed that the police auditor must be an autonomous entity with the ability to contract for an external investigation in whatever manner they saw fit. [NAME REDACTED] believed it was highly important to restore the morality of the community through an improved police oversight process, and that the police auditor should also have the power to make retroactive investigations in order to address any complaints that might still be unresolved. [NAME REDACTED] asked Mr. Lidz specifically how the PAORC had conducted discussions regarding the different legal interpretations of the City Charter that had arisen out of the police auditor ordinance amendment discussions. They noted that there seemed to be significant differences of opinion regarding the Charter and asked for clarification. Ms. Syrett stated her recollections were that a discussion of varying legal interpretations of the Charter had not been a part of the committee’s conversations. Mr. Lidz agreed that there were differences of opinion regarding what actually changed in the Charter last fall, but noted that those varying opinions had not impacted the PAORC discussions. [NAME REDACTED] noted that regardless of the different interpretations of certain sections of the Charter, it was explicit in that it granted the police auditor the power to contract out for external investigations. They noted that the old Charter language had been drafted in such a manner that the city manager’s authority would be unchallenged with respect to any police oversight procedures involving the police chief which was one of the reasons problems with police oversight matters had arisen in the first place. They further expressed concern that many of the audits of complaints conducted by the city manager’s office regarding the Magana rampage had been carefully constrained and kept confidential. [NAME REDACTED] felt that the previous Charter amendments were an attempt by the citizens of Eugene to tell the City that they wanted an independent police auditor, but that the City’s execution of the directives of the Charter had in essence resulted in a substitution of the police auditor with a city manager who operated without transparency or accountability. Ms. Reynolds maintained that the previous Charter amendments contradicted Section D of the ordinance which stated that “the auditor’s office conducts the preliminary investigation of all complaints lodged with the auditor’s office or internal affairs to appropriately classify and route the complaint.” Mr. Ahlen reiterated that the intent of Item 10 was to treat complaints involving the chief of police the same as regular police officers. He noted there were subtleties in the chain of command that needed to be addressed and refined. [NAME REDACTED] expressed that the citizens of Eugene wanted to see the police auditor’s powers expanded as part of a city-wide effort to monitor and audit the efforts of all City employees, including the city manager. Another community member responded that there were