CC Minutes - 03/09/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the committee’s work and looked forward to input from the community at the public hearing. She hoped that if a committee was established to consider the remaining items it would include some new faces from the community. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the outstanding issues represented a different level of discussion and would change the oversight system somewhat instead of clarifying intent and codifying practices. He hoped the PAORC would be reconvened for that task in order to take advantage of their experience. He said the Police Chief was not defined as a police employee, which was why the committee was recommending the addition of Section 2.454(5) to the ordinance. He said it would treat the chief in a different way while maintaining the oversight system by distinguishing the chief’s administrative role and the responsibility of the City Manager to provide supervision from times when the chief performed the function of a police officer. He said the committee, with the exception of the chief, strongly believed the Police Auditor should have the ability to conduct an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation to prevent unreasonable delays. Ms. Solomon asked if the language would allow the Police Chief to request that the Police Auditor not pursue an administrative investigation concurrently if circumstances warranted that and in the case of a disagreement, allow that decision to be made by a municipal judge. Mr. Laue said the Police Chief could request suspension of a concurrent administrative investigation, but a dispute would not be resolved by a municipal judge. He said it was clear during the committee’s discussions with others involved in police oversight systems that in 99 percent of cases, concurrent investigations were not an issue; he cited the language recommended by PAORC, which required consultation with the Police Chief and appropriate prosecutor, but left the decision regarding concurrent investigations with the auditor’s office. He said other systems throughout the country were silent on the issue because it was seldom a problem, and it was reasonable to expect the auditor, chief and prosecutor to behave professionally, and do what was in the best interest of the public. Ms. Medary said the City Manager’s recommendation substituted language that would refer resolution of disputes about concurrent investigations to a municipal judge, but that was not the language the committee was recommending. Mr. Clark was intrigued by the recommendation to involve a municipal judge and was interested in more information. He asked if concurrent investigations violated any labor agreements the City currently had in place. Mr. Lidz said he did not believe they would. Mr. Clark said he did not want to leave any issues unresolved that would result in a continuing community argument. He hoped the public hearing process would explore all aspects of issues and recommendations from others. He said the original 12 revisions were put forward as simple implementation of the Charter, but the remaining six items could be perceived as an expansion of the auditor’s authority beyond what the people had voted on. He was not certain the PAORC was the right body to consider expansion of the role of the auditor’s office and a different committee should move forward with the other six items. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 5 Work Session