Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Clark asked if the photographs were restricted data. Mr. Klein replied that his preliminary conclusion was <br />that the material was restricted data. If his answer was critical to the council, he would require two more days <br />to collect additional information and finalize his analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark was pleased that the discussion was occurring in a public meeting at Ms. Reynolds’ request as he was <br />not comfortable with a private conversation. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that the complaint process established by the council had been followed; it was Ms. <br />Reynolds’ decision to hire an attorney. He noted that in Ms. Reynolds’ response to the complaint she indicated <br />she had released physical evidence, not testimony, as the attorney would have obtained it anyway. He said that <br />decision was the purview of the judicial system, not the police auditor. He was also concerned with statements <br />in the response that he felt attempted to shift blame to the employee who complained, by questioning that <br />person’s motives. He said that while the response indicated the auditor’s office attempted to avoid becoming <br />involved in criminal or other legal proceedings, releasing the photographs did involve the auditor’s office. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said as an employer he used a model of progressive discipline, which was based on the concept that <br />issues had a progressive nature and included three standards. His criteria for determining the seriousness of an <br />incident related to whether people were hurt or equipment destroyed. His second standard related to whether the <br />situation was clear and unambiguous and the third related to whether the violation was intentional or just <br />demonstrated poor judgment. He noted that there was no deception regarding the incident and Ms. Reynolds <br />admitted that she released the information. He was not certain at this point, after reviewing Ms. Reynolds’ <br />response, whether the photographs were restricted data and would need more time and a final opinion by the <br />City Attorney to make that determination. He said it was difficult to determine whether an act was an <br />intentional violation or an exercise of poor judgment and that difference would have an impact on the nature of <br />progressive discipline. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asserted that the council’s action was hasty and ill-advised and there should have been an investiga- <br />tion of the complaint and a determination of whether it was a violation before placing Ms. Reynolds on <br />administrative leave. She urged the council to reinstate her as soon as possible. She said it would have been <br />preferable for the council to have a conversation with Ms. Reynolds about the situation instead of jumping to <br />judgment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka remarked that the council did not jump to judgment; it followed standard operating procedure when <br />dealing with personnel issues. He noted those were typically discussed in executive session but Ms. Reynolds <br />had requested that the council deliberate on the matter in a public meeting. He stated that Ms. Reynolds was <br />placed on administrative leave with pay, which did not equal suspension or imply guilt. He said the council <br />should treat any complaint it received seriously and deal with those involved in a thorough, fair and respectful <br />manner. He agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments about progressive discipline and determining how serious, <br />unambiguous and willful an incident was before taking action. He thought the council shared some responsibili- <br />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 /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />