Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling, responding to earlier comments made by Mr. Zelenka, expressed that the language used in the City Manager’s recommendation would preclude any abuses of authority with respect to allegations of misconduct brought against the Police Chief. Ms. Piercy confirmed that the council members needed more time to discuss the PAORC’s ordinance recommendations regarding allegations against the Chief of Police. Ms. Medary described the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the concurrency issues and complaint processing policies described in Section2.456 for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein responding to a request from Ms. Piercy commented that the Police Auditor currently had the exclusive authority to route and classify complaints but that the Police Chief also had the authority to re- classify complaints. He noted that the PAORC’s recommendations would shift the authority to re-classify complaints from the chief to the Police Auditor. Mr. Clark felt that it was important to not hamper the work of the auditor with respect to their authority to classify or re-classify complaints. He hoped that the PAORC members could provide more detailed information with regard to their recommendations regarding the matter. PAORC Chair Tim Laue noted that one of the issues that had originally brought the matter of police oversight to the attention of the Police Commission was that members of the public were dissatisfied that complaints brought against the EPD were classified as inquiries rather than as official complaints. He further noted that the PAORC had ultimately decided that the classification authority for complaints should reside with the Police Auditor’s office while the adjudication and investigation authorities should reside with the EPD and the Police Chief. Mr. Poling believed that the Police Auditor should have the authority to re-classify complaints if such actions were warranted but further noted that such authorities might not need to be exclusive to the auditor. Police Chief Pete Kerns noted that he did not support removing the chief’s authority to re-classify complaints and noted that such authorities allowed the chief and EPD to handle and investigate complaints in an efficient and effective manner. Ms. Reynolds believed that the conflicting authorities with respect to classification of complaints made it impossible for the Police Auditor’s office to hire outside investigators and therefore hampered the auditor’s ability to conduct thorough investigations. She hoped that the police unions and the EPD would recognize the necessity for the Police Auditor to have the authority to re-classify complaints. Mr. Poling recognized that there had recently been a great deal of negative publicity surrounding the council’s work on police oversight matters and hoped that the public would recognize that the council’s diligence and support for effective police oversight in general and the Police Auditor’s office in particular had not waned. Ms. Ortiz noted that she and other council members would need more time to consider and discuss several of the police oversight issues referenced in the PAORC ordinance revision recommendations. Ms. Piercy responded that they would hold further discussions surrounding the ordinance revisions at their next meeting. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 7 Work Session