Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

reconvene to continue to work on those issues. He said additionally PAORC recommended that the council make explicit its expectation that the police auditor and the council would work together to establish policies and procedures to carry out the underlying intent of the ordinance and the Charter and to consider identifying a smaller subset of the council to provide day-to-day supervision of the office of the auditor, and after two years review the council’s experience with that supervision. Ms. Piercy thanked those who participated in the committee for their efforts and responsiveness to the council’s direction. Ms. Taylor stated that her preference was to adopt the original 12 revisions and schedule a work session to discuss the other issues. She suggested voting on each of the PAORC recommendations separately. Mr. Zelenka commented that the committee had fulfilled his expectations and he appreciated the work of those involved. He regretted that representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) were unable to participate, but felt there was a broad spectrum of people across the community that produced the recommendations, most of which were unanimous. In those cases where support was not unanimous, Police Chief Pete Kerns had dissented and a memorandum explaining his positions was included in the agenda packet. He felt the intent of the original 12 items had been incorporated in the ordinance and many existing practices codified and clarified. He was prepared to move the PAORC recommendations forward to a public hearing, followed by a work session to discuss public input and amendment of the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Piercy said EPEA representatives were unable to participate in PAORC deliberations because some of the issues were considered bargainable and that would present a conflict for them. Mr. Clark asked why the District Attorney did not participate as an active member of PAORC. Mr. Laue replied that the council appointed the committee and did not include the District Attorney in those appoint- ments. Mr. Clark noted that the District Attorney had raised several issues related to the auditor’s office and hoped to hear about those at the public hearing. He suggested that Item 11, regarding a sufficient budget for the police auditor, should specify that expenses should be reasonable. Ms. Piercy said the District Attorney provided written information at the PAORC’s request. Mr. Poling was agreeable to asking the committee to work through the outstanding items on the list. Regarding Section 2.454(5), he felt that allegations against the Police Chief should go directly to the City Manager, who was responsible for hiring and supervising that position. He disagreed that the chief should be considered a police employee under those circumstances. He thought that conducting an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation was a bad idea; typically in other agencies the administrative investigation was suspended until the criminal investigation was completed to avoid putting officers involved in those cases in a position of making statements that could jeopardize the criminal case. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Zelenka’s sentiments about the committee. He said there was a great deal of discussion on several of the items and the recommendations reflected those issues that had been resolved; the outstanding issues were too complex to be thoughtfully considered during the time allowed. He commended the committee for the amount of work it completed and was comfortable with the PAORC recommendations. He agreed it was unfortunate that EPEA representatives had recused themselves, but they had provided comments. He said deciding how to deal with outstanding issues could be the next step following disposition of the current recommendations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 4 Work Session