Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Poling said that designating the council officers as the contact point provided consistency and let the <br />auditor know who to contact when there were issues or concerns that needed to be addressed. He supported <br />the council officers as the supervisory contact point, while offering other councilors the opportunity to <br />participate in meetings informally if they wished to. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council is the police au- <br />ditor’s supervisor; there shall be bi-weekly meetings, shifting to monthly meetings <br />when appropriate; meeting topics shall include workload, budget and items for <br />council attention; the meetings shall be with the City Council officers, Mayor and a <br />third rotating City Councilor who voluntarily signed up; encourage at least bi- <br />monthly individual meetings between each councilor and the Police Auditor; pro- <br />vide formal discussion time on the City Council agenda related to the police auditor <br />on a regular basis; and direct the City Attorney to bring back recommended lan- <br />guage for a process to handle non-violation complaints. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said the motion needed to include language specifying that the auditor should contact the council <br />officers with questions and concerns as the identity of the third councilor would change. He did not feel that <br />it was a good idea to include participation of the Mayor and a third councilor in the motion as that could <br />occur informally. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka accepted as a friendly amendment Mr. Poling’s suggestion to eliminate <br />the reference to a third councilor and include language that required the Police Au- <br />ditor to communicate directly with the council officers when issues or concerns <br />arose and provide copies of the communication to the other councilors. He declined <br />to accept elimination of the Mayor as a meeting participant. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to omit the Mayor as a member of the <br />supervisory team. The motion failed, 3:5; Mr. Brown, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, Ms. <br />Taylor and Mr. Zelenka opposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the Mayor was free to attend meetings with the police auditor, as were any of the other <br />councilors, but he felt the motion would create some ambiguity about who the auditor should contact. He <br />asked if it was Mr. Zelenka’s intent that the auditor could contact the Mayor or was that contact limited to <br />the council officers. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said communications should go to the Mayor and council officers, with other councilors <br />receiving copies. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated that she would not support the motion because all councilors should be involved. She did <br />not think the auditor would have time to meet with officers and then with all the rest of the council. She said <br />all councilors needed to be in touch with what was happening and any decisions should be made by the full <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said his impression was that the motion encouraged councilors to meet with the auditor <br />individually but did not require it. He supported the inclusion of the Mayor, but considered council officers <br />to be the auditor’s principal contacts on a day-to-day basis. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />