Laserfiche WebLink
acknowledge that a violation of the confidentiality agreement had occurred, but punitive action beyond a letter <br />acknowledging that fact was not required. He said additionally the council should put in place much clearer <br />guidelines for use of the IA database information and other aspects of the auditor’s office. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown remarked that based on his observations, Ms. Reynolds was doing a very good job and was aware of <br />how confidentiality could be compromised. He did not believe there was a willful violation of the agreement and <br />the council should work with the Police Auditor to develop better procedures. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that the council would take up the issue of police auditor supervision at its May 11 <br />meeting, and the complexity of the issues involved was why he supported requiring the police auditor to have a <br />law degree. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reinstate the Police Auditor, with the caveat that the council <br />believed she exercised poor judgment in getting into the circumstance and prohibited her from showing any <br />information to any unauthorized person outside the criminal justice system from the IA PRO system without the <br />approval of the City Attorney; requiring the Police Auditor to check in with the City Council officers before <br />making substantive decisions; directing her to meet with council officers, the City Attorney and Deputy Police <br />Auditor to discuss legal issues moving forward and elicit the help of a mediator to help the Police Auditor and <br />Deputy Police Auditor work during the interim until a new police auditor was hired. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the citizens of Eugene deserved to have a police auditor office that ran smoothly. He felt that the <br />complaint could be sustained, but would support moving forward because that was the will of most of the <br />council. He asked if the Police Auditor would have access to the IA database if the City Attorney concluded <br />there had been a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Mr. Klein said if the council passed a motion to <br />reinstate the Police Auditor he understood the council intended for her to have access to the IA database. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City would have additional liability if there was another violation of confidentiality. Mr. <br />Klein said he did not believe the City would have any additional liability, but suggested modifying the motion to <br />clarify that IA PRO information access would not be given by the auditor to anyone outside of the auditor’s <br />office, instead of using the phrase “unauthorized person.” Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark agreed with the <br />suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to separate reinstatement of the Police Auditor from the other <br />provisions in the motion. The motion failed 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor objected to placing conditions on the reinstatement of the Police Auditor and did not understand the <br />council’s unwillingness to separate the issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon recommended defining the word “substantive” in the motion to clarify the type of issue that should <br />be brought to the council’s attention. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka felt the threshold for what qualified as substantive had been dramatically lowered. He said there <br />would be a new police auditor within a short period of time and that limited the number of issues that might <br />arise. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that the council’s supervision of the Police Auditor would be improved when new <br />procedures were adopted. She thanked the councilors for the tenor of their discussion of a difficult subject and <br />their willingness to move forward. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />