Laserfiche WebLink
Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds noted that she had attended the PAORC meetings and that their <br />conversations had focused on finding the most efficient manner for investigating complaints against police <br />chiefs. <br />Mr. Poling related from his personal experiences that while their duties often overlapped police chiefs <br />primarily served as administrators rather than as public safety officers. He noted that he supported the <br />City Manager's recommendation in that regard. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that the original City ordinance contained no provisions for dealing with allegations <br />against the Police Chief and also noted that the PAORC had attempted to draft broader language in the <br />proposed ordinance revisions with respect to the kinds of allegations that might be brought against a police <br />chief. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the City Manager's recommendations were very limiting and did not go <br />far enough to provide an effective mechanism for initiating and investigating complaints against police <br />chiefs. He further maintained that the PAORC recommendations would be more effective because they <br />allowed the Police Auditor to classify and monitor complaints brought against the Chief of Police rather <br />than the City Manager. <br />Mr. Ruiz noted that while he found the preamble to the PAORC's proposed ordinance revisions acceptable, <br />he would not be in favor of any ordinance revisions that would make the City Manager ultimately <br />accountable to the Police Auditor. He felt it would be important for effective police oversight to maintain <br />the City Manager's authority to initiate and maintain investigations against any members of the Police <br />Department. <br />Police Chief Pete Kerns noted from his work as a member of the PAORC that the proposed ordinance <br />revisions would expand the Police Auditor's role to monitor not only the Police Chief but the City Manager <br />as well. He noted that such revisions would expand the authority of the Police Auditor beyond what was <br />intended for effective civilian oversight of the police process. <br />Mr. Brown noted he was in favor of the PAORC's recommendations with respect to Section 2.454 and felt <br />that they corresponded well with the goals of the Police Auditor’s office. He appreciated that the <br />PAORC’s recommendations allowed the Police Auditor to actively monitor investigations. <br />Mr. Pryor hoped that whatever recommendations the council decided to adopt, they might eventually <br />reshape the ordinance in a manner that could better accommodate both the administrative and law <br />enforcement aspects of the Police Chief’s position with respect to any oversight procedures. He maintained <br />that there seemed to be strengths and deficiencies in both the City Manager’s and the PAORC’s <br />recommendations and suggested that more time might need to be devoted to discussions on the matter. <br />Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. <br />Ms. Ortiz believed that the Police Auditor should not have the authority to begin investigations on <br />allegations against the Chief of Police and that such authority should reside with the City Manager. <br />Mr. Zelenka felt that language clarifying the nature of the Police Chief’s administrative duties in relations <br />to any allegations brought against him should have been included in the preamble to Section 2.454(5) of the <br />PAORC’s recommendations. He agreed that more time might be needed to discuss the matter and make <br />more careful revisions to the section. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />