Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka said there were different opinions on the timing of investigations and the working group agreed <br />that it was appropriate for the police auditor and police chief to develop a process for consideration by the <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor remarked there were two competing interests: the need to avoid interfering with a criminal <br />investigation and the need to complete administrative investigations in a timely manner. He felt those issues <br />could be resolved through a collaborative working relationship between the police auditor and police chief <br />and that was why the working group was willing to wait on the outcome of those discussions. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the council direct the City Man- <br />ager to work with the new Police Auditor on recommended language and protocols <br />related to the concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and return <br />before summer break with a final ordinance for action by the council. The motion <br />passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling hoped the City Manager understood the council’s intent was for the police chief to be in- <br />volved in those discussions. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br /> City Council Supervision of Police Auditor <br /> <br />Human Resources Director Alana Holmes stated that the purpose of the work session was to determine how <br />the council wished to conduct supervision of the police auditor. She said areas of interest for the council’s <br />discussion included preferred types of communications, meetings, availability for responding to issues that <br />might arise regarding performance or behavior and processing issues or concerns related to the police <br />auditor. She noted that a form entitled Police Auditor Monthly Activity Report was included as Attachment <br />A to the agenda item summary. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein suggested that the council discuss whether any changes were required to the formal complaint <br />process it had approved and how complaints that did not fall within that formal process should be addressed. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that several approaches to communication in terms of information sharing, coaching <br />and critical feedback had been put forward, including designating the council officers, the council officers <br />and the Mayor, or rotating the assignment among all council members. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney had any recommendations for dealing with complaints that did not <br />involve legal issues and were supervisory in nature. He said he and Mr. Zelenka had been meeting weekly <br />with the current auditor to discuss work flow, office operations, the budget and other administrative issues. <br />He felt the process had worked well, but he was not certain it would be necessary to meet weekly with the <br />new auditor and suggested that monthly meetings would be appropriate. He was in favor of continuing to <br />have council officers provide that oversight. He was not certain if the Mayor needed to be included in that <br />supervisory function. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka stressed that the council needed to clarify that it supervised the police auditor and regular <br />supervisory meetings with the auditor were necessary. He agreed that the current process was working well <br />and said he and Mr. Clark were cognizant of the prohibition against influencing the outcomes of any <br />investigations. He said their meetings with the auditor focused on workload, the budget and items that <br />needed to be brought to the council’s attention. He said supervision by the council officers and Mayor <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />