Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor thought that overall the ordinance looked good. Referring to the reference that the CAO would <br />attempt to contact someone by telephone, she wanted something more to ensure confirmation the complai- <br />nant received the information. Mr. Clark suggested the phrase ‘shall make contact.’ Mr. Klein indicated the <br />ordinance could be amended but someone might be unreachable in spite of all attempts to contact them. Ms. <br />Taylor asked that the ordinance be amended so that the complainant was asked to confirm receipt of the call. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked how and when the CAO would forward the complaint to the council. Mr. Klein said that <br />would occur when the complaint was filed. The intent was to get the council the information as soon as the <br />CAO received it. Ms. Taylor asked why the ordinance called for referral to an attorney outside Lane <br />County. Ms. Bettman said that the council officers were seeking an independent review given the high <br />profile of the employees involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor pointed out the council could amend the ordinance but he thought it could work with the <br />ordinance now. He said the council might want to consider amending the ordinance later to include the <br />ability for the council to initiate “no-motion” complaints if the charge was of particularly egregious nature. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the ordinance was not perfect but it was transparent. She said it was difficult to <br />anticipate every circumstance. She noted that the Police Auditor could accept anonymous complaints and <br />the council might want to consider that in the future as well as whistle blower protections. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark commended the draft ordinance. He said the whistle-blower aspect was an important component <br />of the discussion. He did not want to treat one type of employee one way and another type another way. He <br />believed there was a good reason that the council accepted anonymous complaints as a part of the Police <br />Auditor process and welcomed education about why the council would want anonymous complaints against <br />police officers but not in this case. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the reference to “next steps” following investigation, Mr. <br />Klein said that the reference was to the human resource aspects of the case, not any criminal investigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out the employees involved were at-will employees and the council officers were not <br />seeking equal treatment with other employees given the availability of union representation and complaint <br />processes. The equal treatment must be between the three council at-will employees; they lacked the same <br />protections and processes as other employees. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka determined from City Manager Ruiz that he was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. <br />City Manager Ruiz said the equity was to be found in due process. He noted that the Police Auditor and <br />Municipal Judge had both reviewed the ordinance and had no objections. <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Jon Ruiz <br />City Manager <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />