Laserfiche WebLink
ty for the problem because of its lack of supervision of the Police Auditor; however, a process had been initiated <br />to remedy that. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said it was not clear to him whether Ms. Reynolds knowingly violated the confidentiality <br />agreement, but she had at least demonstrated poor judgment. He said the council should move forward to <br />reinstate Ms. Reynolds with clear guidelines to be followed until a new police auditor was hired. Those <br />guidelines included not releasing any information from the IA database without the approval of the City <br />Attorney, frequent check-ins with the council or council officers as necessary before making those types of <br />decisions, and meetings with the council officers, the City Attorney and the Deputy Police Auditor to discuss <br />legal issues related to moving forward and mediation. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown stated that based on the materials he had read he felt there was sufficient information for the council <br />to make a decision. He did not feel the complaint was sustained and no discipline was merited; the incident <br />arose from a misunderstanding. He said the City Manager and Municipal Judge both operated under long- <br />standing and clear guidelines, while the police oversight system was new. He said anyone could make a mistake <br />in judgment and Ms. Reynolds did nothing wrong, although it would have been better had Ms. Reynolds made <br />copies instead of allowing the attorney to sit in her office and view the IA database. He cautioned against <br />micro-managing the Police Auditor. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asserted that the council’s decision to hold an executive session and place Ms. Reynolds on <br />administrative leave was not personal; it was based on the City Attorney’s advice and concerned the integrity of <br />the police auditor’s office. She said it would have been inappropriate for the council to ignore or minimize the <br />complaint. She remarked that all police oversight systems experiences “glitches” during their initial years of <br />operation. She appreciated the City Attorney’s advice, but said it was the responsibility of the council as <br />employer to make a decision about Ms. Reynolds’ status. She said the council also needed to be more <br />responsible about providing adequate supervision for the Police Auditor, without micro-managing the office. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark believed there was enough information to sustain the complaint as the agreement was clear in its <br />prohibition against releasing any information for any reason. He said in order to decide against sustaining the <br />complaint, a person would have to decide that Ms. Reynolds had the authority to decide which pieces of <br />information were or were not covered by the agreement. He had previously expressed concerns to Ms. Reynolds <br />on the issue of confidentiality. He agreed the council did not fulfill its duty to provide supervision and clear <br />direction to the Police Auditor. He was disappointed in Ms. Reynolds’ judgment, but would not vote to dismiss <br />her even though there was a clear violation of the agreement. He liked the guidelines suggested by Mr. Zelenka. <br />He asked if there was information other than the photographs contained in the IA file that might have been <br />revealed. Mr. Klein replied that the council should confine its discussion and decision to the specific complaint. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City had any liability or financial exposure in a future case related to divulging IA <br />information. Mr. Klein said it would depend on the nature of the information being divulged and gave several <br />examples that could put the City at risk. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if in Mr. Klein’s opinion the council needed any additional information to make a decision. Mr. <br />Klein said it would depend on what the council decided was critical, such as a final determination on whether the <br />confidentiality agreement was violated. He did not hear a majority of the council express an interest in that or <br />other information. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy summarized the council’s discussion: all complaints should be treated equally and fairly; additional <br />information was not required to make a decision; the council needed to be accountable; information from the IA <br />database should not be shared, and there was some question about Ms. Reynolds’ judgment. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />