Laserfiche WebLink
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 />Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had recommended that any complaints against the chief be handled by <br />the Police Auditor as a service complaint rather than immediately referring allegations against the chief to <br />the City Manager as described in the proposed ordinance revisions. Mr. Klein added that the proposed <br />ordinance revisions did include language as part of 2.454(5)(b) that preserved the Police Auditor's role in <br />investigations of allegations against the chief. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC discussions had concluded that the Police Chief was still primarily a <br />sworn public safety officer but that the adjudication process for complaints against the chief should be <br />different than those for regular police officers. <br />Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Ruiz for clarification regarding the nature of his recommendations regarding <br />allegations against the Police Chief. Mr. Ruiz responded that the proposed revisions would allow the <br />Police Auditor to have a chance to review the draft adjudications regarding complaints against the chief <br />before the City Manager's adjudications were made final. <br />Ms. Solomon indicated that she would support the City Manager's recommendations with regard to the <br />proposed revisions on the issue of complaints against the Police Chief. <br />Ms. Ortiz stated that she viewed the chief as an administrative head of a City department more than as a <br />public safety officer and felt that complaints against the chief should be handled accordingly. <br />Mr. Clark worried that elements of investigations against the administrative heads might become hidden the <br />farther they moved up the chain of command and maintained that the Police Auditor should not have <br />ultimate authority over the Police Auditor and vice versa. He noted that he would find the proposed <br />ordinance revisions acceptable so long as it was made expressly clear that the Police Auditor was <br />ultimately accountable to the City Council rather than the City Manager. <br />Mr. Pryor maintained that the chief was more of an administrator as opposed to a public safety officer and <br />as such supported the recommendations of the City Manager with respect to allegations against the chief. <br />He noted that the City Code should make it explicitly clear that any investigations of complaints against the <br />chief would be performed in cooperation with the Police Auditor. <br />Ms. Piercy noted that the PAORC had attempted to present their recommendations in a manner that would <br />allow complaints against the chief to be handled effectively regardless of whether he was considered to be <br />an administrator or a public safety officer. Mr. Klein responded that the PAORC's recommendations <br />generally reflected a broad interpretation of the Police Chief's position with respect to any allegations <br />brought against him or her. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />