Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the council adopt Council Bill <br />4998, an ordinance concerning the Police Auditor. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown asked Police Auditor Mark Gissiner to confirm his recollection that the memorandum <br />submitted to the council by Mr. Gissiner had indicated that he could not recall a case in Cincinnati in which <br />an administrative investigation could not occur concurrently when it was appropriate to do so. Mr. Gissiner <br />replied that the only time there was a consecutive issue had been instances when there were shots fired by <br />police officers. He explained that in this case there was a criminal investigation first, followed by an <br />administrative investigation. He recalled “one or two” times in which an officer was possibly being charged <br />with criminal charges and the administrative case had been suspended until the criminal investigation was <br />done. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown did not think this had been much of an issue in Eugene either. <br /> <br />Mr. Gissiner remarked that in the genesis of the auditor/police relationship there were some concerns about <br />it, but they had gotten past this. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown was amenable with all of the changes to the ordinance with the exception of the one <br />regarding concurrency. He did not see the idea of a disagreement by the chief of police with the auditor <br />having to go before a municipal court judge as a diminution of the auditor’s authority. He asked if the <br />police chief in Cincinnati had ever disagreed with him regarding a concurrent investigation. Mr. Gissiner <br />replied that he found it ironic that the issue of concurrency had been viewed as problematic more for the <br />complainant than for the officer there and the argument in favor of consecutive versus concurrency in <br />Eugene was more of a problem for the officer than for the complaint. It was unusual for him to see this <br />couched in this way. He explained that because the complainant was not a trained observer, his or her <br />version of events would be less likely to remain consistent throughout the process whereas a police officer <br />was a trained observer and was much more likely to maintain consistency. He said in Eugene there was <br />more concern about an officer being consistent through the process, which was the reverse of the situation in <br />Cincinnati. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown said he was a little concerned that the changes would present a diminution of the auditor’s <br />power. <br /> <br />Mr. Gissiner noted that the ordinance allowed the auditor to separately conduct an external investigation if <br />he or she believed it was warranted. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz was glad to be at this point in time, moving the revisions forward. She said if it did not <br />work or problems arose, they could bring it back for further revision. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy explained that PAORC was not being reconvened because they had decided to wait until the <br />new auditor was in place. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka thanked the members of the PAORC for the hours they had contributed to the process <br />and the “homework” associated with it. He noted that the committee had also heard a lot of public input and <br />had held a public hearing. He believed that changes that were proposed closed loopholes, clarified rules, and <br />made the office of the Police Auditor stronger. He averred that they were consistent with the two votes that <br />the public had engaged in on the auditor ordinance. He supported the changes. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling noted that in addition to the people that Councilor Zelenka had mentioned, there had also <br />been a subcommittee of councilors that had worked on the final recommendation. He said they had <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />