Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor stated that she preferred the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the ordinance. <br />Mr. Clark maintained that it would be important for the ordinance and any other City policies related to <br />police oversight to have a clean and explicit separation of the authorities of the City Manager, the Police <br />Chief and the Police Auditor. <br />Ms. Piercy noted that one of the primary challenges of the council with respect to its discussions on police <br />oversight was that they had limitations on what they were able to say regarding personnel issues. <br />Mr. Poling, responding to earlier comments made by Mr. Zelenka, expressed that the language used in the <br />City Manager’s recommendation would preclude any abuses of authority with respect to allegations of <br />misconduct brought against the Police Chief. <br />Ms. Piercy confirmed that the council members needed more time to discuss the PAORC’s ordinance <br />recommendations regarding allegations against the Chief of Police. <br />Ms. Medary described the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the concurrency issues and complaint <br />processing policies described in Section2.456 for the benefit of the council. <br />Mr. Klein responding to a request from Ms. Piercy commented that the Police Auditor currently had the <br />exclusive authority to route and classify complaints but that the Police Chief also had the authority to re- <br />classify complaints. He noted that the PAORC’s recommendations would shift the authority to re-classify <br />complaints from the chief to the Police Auditor. <br />Mr. Clark felt that it was important to not hamper the work of the auditor with respect to their authority to <br />classify or re-classify complaints. He hoped that the PAORC members could provide more detailed <br />information with regard to their recommendations regarding the matter. <br />PAORC Chair Tim Laue noted that one of the issues that had originally brought the matter of police <br />oversight to the attention of the Police Commission was that members of the public were dissatisfied that <br />complaints brought against the EPD were classified as inquiries rather than as official complaints. He <br />further noted that the PAORC had ultimately decided that the classification authority for complaints should <br />reside with the Police Auditor’s office while the adjudication and investigation authorities should reside <br />with the EPD and the Police Chief. <br />Mr. Poling believed that the Police Auditor should have the authority to re-classify complaints if such <br />actions were warranted but further noted that such authorities might not need to be exclusive to the auditor. <br />Police Chief Pete Kerns noted that he did not support removing the chief’s authority to re-classify <br />complaints and noted that such authorities allowed the chief and EPD to handle and investigate complaints <br />in an efficient and effective manner. <br />Ms. Reynolds believed that the conflicting authorities with respect to classification of complaints made it <br />impossible for the Police Auditor’s office to hire outside investigators and therefore hampered the auditor’s <br />ability to conduct thorough investigations. She hoped that the police unions and the EPD would recognize <br />the necessity for the Police Auditor to have the authority to re-classify complaints. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />