Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor agreed the PAORC did a good job with the 12 items that were straightforward with respect to <br />working within the current ordinance and Charter; it also discussed some of the issues that could be <br />considered policy matters and rightly said that should be considered in a larger arena. He said that could <br />present an opportunity to enhance PAORC membership if it was reconvened to address policy issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said her interest was in achieving a more balanced membership on the PAORC; she did not object <br />to reconvening the committee to move forward. She thought that some of the policy issues might need to go <br />to the voters. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon suggested consideration of the outstanding items be postponed until a new police auditor was <br />hired. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to accept the committee’s report and move forward with a <br />public hearing on the proposed revisions. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reconvene the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee <br />after hiring a new police auditor to review and make recommendations to the council on the remaining six <br />issues and before it was reconvened have the City Council reapprove the committee make up. The motion <br />passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to work with her and one other councilor (to be <br />appointed by the Mayor unless there is a volunteer) to (a) develop proposed protocols for how the council <br />should fulfill its role as the Police Auditor’s supervisor, including the possibility that the council delegates to <br />the council leadership of the day-to-day supervision of the Police Auditor, and (b) bring that proposal back <br />to a council work session in April or May. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said her goal was to conduct some of the research for the council to identify a process for <br />supervising the auditor’s office, including designating council leadership as the information conduit between <br />the auditor’s office and the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed that supervisory protocols needed to be clarified and volunteered to work with Ms. Ortiz. <br />He felt the lines of communication were very important and the auditor needed to have regular communica- <br />tion with council officers, who could then involve the full council if they felt it was warranted by a particular <br />situation or issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka volunteered to serve on the committee with Mr. Clark and Ms. Ortiz. He agreed that the issue <br />was one of effectively managing day-to-day communication with the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed it was not an issue of authority, which rested with the full council, but one of providing <br />appropriate supervision to a council employee. He supported the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the matter required more thought and she would not support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy determined that Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Solomon would develop and <br />propose supervisory protocols for the Police Auditor to the council. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />