CC Minutes - 05/20/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor felt that while it might duplicate the efforts of the PAORC, it might be necessary for the council to go over some of the outstanding issues again to make sure that all council members had been fully informed on the issues before voting on any action items. Ms. Piercy commented that she, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Zelenka had participated in the PAORC process and had supported the revisions to the ordinance. Mr. Poling supported the City Manager's recommendations but felt it might be advisable to hold off on voting on the council option until they were able to get the input of the new Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka was disappointed that the police union representatives had ultimately chosen not to participate in the PAORC process and noted he supported the recommendations of the PAORC. He hoped that the outstanding issues surrounding complaints against the chief, concurrency, and budgetary issues would be resolved in short order. He supported the idea that any administrative investigations with respect to the police oversight be carried out concurrently with criminal investigations. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling's statement that it might be beneficial to postpone action on the ordinance revisions until the new Police Auditor had a chance to provide a different perspective on the matter. He further noted that the chief's minority report regarding the PAORC's work might need to be considered more closely. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor's earlier comments and hoped that the remaining City Council members would have a chance to review each of the items that had been addressed during the PAORC process. Ms. Medary, in response to a request from Ms. Piercy, briefly discussed the nature of the proposed ordinance revisions surrounding the Police Auditor's budget process. She noted that the proposed revision to Section 2.450(5) of the Eugene Code had been unanimously agreed on by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that recent requests from interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds for increases to the auditor's budget indicated that it might be necessary to have a much more detailed discussion on the ordinance revisions that pertained to the auditor's budget. Ms. Medary noted that the ordinance revisions to Section 2.450(6) of the Code regarding the Police Auditor's level of access to the EPD's internal affairs resources had also been unanimously agreed upon by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that the level of access indicated by the revision would not preclude considerate use of the internal affairs resources and hoped that the auditor would continue to set up appointments to use those resources and materials. Ms. Medary briefly described the nature of the expanded definitions of the office of the Police Auditor as described in Section 2.452 as well as the revised language requiring the auditor to review a random selection of service complaints. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 3 Work Session