Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Medary briefly described the remaining proposed revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the <br />council. <br />Mr. Klein noted earlier comments from Ms. Ortiz regarding the budget increases requested by interim <br />auditor Dawn Reynolds and noted that any such requests would not be subject to any of the proposed <br />ordinance revisions being currently discussed because they would not take effect until the following year. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Ortiz, briefly explained the language of the proposed <br />amendment to Section 2.450(5) and noted that the proposed revision had no real effect on the processes of <br />the City Council or Budget Committee. <br />Mr. Clark worried that the proposed revisions to Section 2.450(5) might allow the City Manager to <br />substitute his or her own judgment for that of the Police Auditor with respect to the budgets provided for <br />the Police Auditor's office. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Piercy, confirmed that language similar to the proposed <br />ordinance revisions regarding the Police Auditor's budget was already part of the Eugene City Code. <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested that it might be advisable to have the Police Auditor's budget be a line item in the <br />City's total budget because it would allow the public to clearly identify how the Police Auditor's office was <br />funded separate from the EPD. <br />Ms. Solomon commented that it might be difficult to determine what an appropriate level of funding would <br />be for the auditor to perform their duties as described in the Code and hoped that reasonable limits might be <br />applied with respect to the Police Auditor's budget. <br />Ms. Piercy offered that the budgets for the Police Auditor's office were generally the direct result of the <br />auditor's own practices and experience. <br />City Manager Jon Ruiz noted that recent increases to the Police Auditor's budget had been provided for <br />additional investigation resources as well as additional compensation for the deputy auditor position. <br />Mr. Zelenka maintained that a Police Auditor budget that was sufficient for external investigations as <br />stated in the proposed ordinance revisions would be affected by the type and number of investigations <br />performed by the auditor's office. <br />Mr. Clark, speaking with regard to the proposed revisions to Section 2.454(5), asked how the PAORC had <br />discussed the nature of complaints against the Chief of Police and how such complaints might work with <br />potential conflicts of interest between administrative supervisors from different areas of the City. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had been fully cognizant of the dual role that was served by the Chief <br />of Police and how his or her duties as a public safety officer might conflict with his or her duties as the <br />administrative head of a City division. He noted that allegations against City administrators were handled <br />differently than allegations and complaints against sworn police officers. <br />Mr. Pryor noted that the PAORC had reviewed several of the inconsistencies related to allegations against <br />the Chief of Police and found that the Police Auditor and the City Manager would ultimately be the <br />principal entities responsible for investigating and reviewing allegations against the Chief of Police. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />