CC Minutes - 06/22/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

would provide consistency, but that meant the rest of the council was not engaged in the process. Rotating supervision through all councilors would engage everyone and if the Mayor was present at the meetings that could provide consistency. He suggested that the council include on its agenda a report on those supervisory meetings with the police auditor as a regular and formal item. Ms. Taylor thought there should be regular meetings with the auditor and the full council monthly or every two months. She felt strongly the meetings should not be with just the council officers and supported rotating the assignment among all councilors. She said continuity could be achieved by assigning two councilors and changing one each month. She said all councilors should be involved and know what was happening and those who met with the auditor should be responsible for reporting back to the council. She said the councilors who were providing supervision should meet with the auditor every week or every two weeks. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a reasonable approach to managing the police auditor position that avoided both too little supervision and micromanagement. He was comfortable with council officers providing the day-to-day supervision and liked the idea of bringing another councilor in on a rotating basis. He pointed out that the council was the official employer, but that did not mean the Mayor could not sit in on the meetings. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Klein stated that under the Charter the Mayor was regarded as a member of the council in certain circumstances and not in others. He said the ordinance specified that the council was the supervisor; council officers could not be named as the supervisor without changing the ordinance. He said the council could designate officers to be responsible for day-to-day supervision and include the Mayor if it wished, but that was not delegating authority to take any supervisory action; it only authorized supervisory communication and any action that needed to be taken had to be brought back to the council as a whole. Mr. Pryor supported designating the council officers and Mayor as the regular contact point with the police auditor and felt that meetings twice a month were reasonable. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Klein and Ms. Holmes to develop procedures for addressing complaints formally and informally for the council to consider. She agreed that regular contact with the police auditor, perhaps on a bi-weekly basis, was important. She said it was also important to develop a closer working relationship with the auditor so that person understood the council’s expectations and had a better feel for the community and those who lived there; that process should include all councilors. She liked the format of the monthly activity report document. She stated that any email communication between the police auditor and those designated to provide day-to-day oversight should go to the entire council. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz about sharing with the full council any communications between the auditor and council officers. He supported designating council officers to meeting regularly with the auditor and felt that should occur monthly or more frequently if the auditor and officers deemed it necessary. He was neutral on the issue of adding a third councilor to the meetings on a rotating basis, but did not feel it was necessary as the council officers were capable of providing the supervision. He concurred with the request for written procedures for handling complaints against the police auditor. Mr. Klein remarked that the current complaint process in the code related to all City employees and asked if the council wanted to develop a different informal process just for the auditor or wanted that process to apply to each of the council’s employees. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 4 Work Session