Laserfiche WebLink
police oversight system. He said one outcome could be to identify and punish bad employees; another could <br />be to improve the performance, function and credibility of the Police Department. He said those outcomes <br />were not mutually exclusive, but each represented a different emphasis for an oversight system. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy cited the oversight system expectations and language related to the independent function of the <br />Police Auditor as set forth in the ordinance and noted that was different from the supervision being <br />discussed by the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark commented that the ordinance prohibited an individual from influencing the actions of the auditor. <br />He said one member of the council could not speak for the body, but the council as a whole was charged <br />with the duty of oversight and supervision, which were two separate things. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein said he was writing an opinion on police auditor supervision for the council’s <br />consideration. He pointed out that both the ordinance and the Charter charged the council with supervision <br />of the Police Auditor, which was an independent office. He said the opinion would differentiate between the <br />auditor’s role of investigating and making findings and the council’s supervision of the auditor as an <br />employee. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor saw supervision as keeping in touch and identifying a contact person who could then report to <br />the council. She used the example of a principal who supervised teachers but did not tell them how to teach. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka clarified that the motion about police auditor supervision recently passed by the council was <br />intended to provide supervision of the functioning of the police auditor’s office rather than interfere in <br />outcomes of those functions. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said the new oversight system had brought many improvements regarding handling of complaints. <br />She said the council did not know details of how the auditor’s office functioned and it would be helpful to <br />have information about those processes. She felt that supervision of the auditor should be provided by <br />council officers and intended to put forward a template for that supervision at the council’s work session on <br />the subject. She thought the Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor should represent a quality control <br />model. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor felt part of the council’s role as supervisor should be to support its employees and that required <br />mutual trust. He said the question was how to foster sufficient trust between the council and the auditor to <br />have a smooth and effective relationship. He hoped that was a question the council would explore. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy observed that oversight systems took time to become established and gain the confidence of the <br />community. She liked Ms. Taylor’s proposal for shared supervision and asked the council to consider it. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown remarked that councilors had been remiss by not meeting frequently with the Police Auditor as <br />they did the City Manager. He wished the CRB meetings were on a different night so councilors could <br />attend. He appreciated the auditor’s quarterly reports and felt that recent misunderstandings had resulted <br />from procedural “gray” areas that could be resolved through regular meetings. He hoped when a new <br />auditor was hired the entire staff of the auditor’s office would meet weekly with council and CRB <br />representatives to discuss procedural matters. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s comments about a quality assurance model and did not see that any <br />substantive changes to the system would be required to achieve that. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />