Laserfiche WebLink
actions. Mr. Klein said his proposed language was intended to make that distinction, but he would do some <br />research if the council wished to add language specifying administrative functions were excluded as there <br />were times when other sworn officers also had administrative duties. He would develop language that made <br />it clear the section referred to administrative duties unique to the police chief. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commented that the police chief was both a department head and a police officer. He said when <br />the chief was acting as a department head, he or she, should not be treated differently than any other <br />department head. He felt the notification requirement should be discussed further with respect to its <br />applicability to other department heads and whether notification should be limited to allegations based on the <br />chief’s performance as a sworn officer. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked for the City Manager’s opinion on the notification issue and whether it should apply to any <br />complaint against the police chief, including complaints from officers. City Manager Jon Ruiz said the <br />police chief was unique among department heads because of the dual roles of sworn police officer and <br />administrator. He felt that complaints from officers regarding administrative or operational issues should <br />not be subject to the police auditor process. He was comfortable that the current process available to all <br />City employees for registering complaints was acceptable for addressing administrative concerns. <br /> <br />Police Chief Pete Kerns said the police chief had duties and responsibilities that were vastly different from <br />those of a police officer, but there were times that the chief acted in the capacity of a police officer. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to delete the first sentence and delete <br />the last part of the last sentence of the first paragraph as per the city attorney; di- <br />rect the city attorney to bring back language that says this section shall not apply to <br />the police chief’s administrative duties, and not delete “notify the council” with re- <br />spect to Section 2.454(5). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Medary reviewed the working group’s proposed language and City Attorney’s recommended revisions <br />to Section 2.456(1)(d) as set forth in Attachment B. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein explained that his recommendation clarified an ambiguity with respect to the police auditor’s <br />authority to classify and reclassify complaints. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown asked why the proposed language included the phrase “but before the completion of the <br />investigation.” <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the language would allow the auditor to reclassify complaints during an investigation, but <br />once the investigation was concluded and the complaint was proceeding toward adjudication it could not be <br />reclassified. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that if additional information was obtained after adjudication a new complaint could <br />be filed. <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark moved to accept the city attorney’s language <br />for Section 2.456(1)(d). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Medary stated that the working group had requested input from the incoming police auditor on Section <br />2.456(2)(a-f) and the response from Mark Gissiner had been distributed to councilors. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />