Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

chair and asked if it was reviewed and voted on by the CRB. Ms. Wilkinson said that the report was circulated among members, and revisions were suggested and made ,and the report was again circulated. There was no formal vote on the report but she believed members were in general agreement. Mr. Clark noted the CRB’s recommendation to form another Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) and requested Mr. Gissiner’s comments on that subject as well as on the remainder of the report. Mr. Gissiner believed the report represented consensus on the part of the CRB. He suggested that the council keep in mind that several CRB members were relatively new. He was hesitant to ask for major changes in the ordinance until the current CRB had gotten more experience. Speaking to the recommendations, Mr. Gissiner noted that the decision regarding who could designate a community impact case was a council decision. He believed that the Police Auditor’s Office provided as much information to the public as was possible in a manner consistent with State law. He had discussed the CRB’s concerns with the State Attorney General, who indicated he planned to offer changes to State law regarding personnel records. Mr. Clark asked what was uncertain about State law as it related to confidentiality. Ms. Wilkinson said that one of the State statutes that discussed personnel records spoke to disclosing the record if it was considered to be in the public interest, but there was no statutory direction as to who decided that or what was in the public interest. She did not think the City Attorney had issued such a definition, and the Attorney General had declined to respond to the CRB’s inquiry. City Attorney Glenn Klein reported that there were no cases that defined what was in the public interest for purposes of the statute in question. He said that the City Code or City Charter guided the City in regard to who made the determination as to what was in the public interest. In regard to the Internal Affairs files, the City Manager or Police Chief made that determination. If someone disagreed, that individual could challenge the determination under State law, and the District Attorney would rule on the subject. That decision could also be appealed to Circuit Court. He had advised the CRB that determination was not within its purview or the purview of the Police Auditor. Mr. Clark said that the issue did not appear to be one of confidentiality, but one of authority over who determined what was in the public interest. Ms. Wilkinson agreed. Mr. Gissiner said the Attorney General had indicated there was no legislative definition of “public interest” and he believed one was needed. Currently, the Attorney General made that determination on behalf of the State. Mr. Gissiner noted that many of the CRB’s recommendations were related to collective bargaining agreements, and he deferred to the attorneys as to whether one superseded the other. He did not think that Oregon had yet had a court case that stipulated a collective bargaining agreement overrode an ordinance, or vice versa. Speaking to Mr. Clark’s question about reconstituting the PAORC, Mr. Gissiner said he could see a case being made for that. He reiterated his concern about the need for the CRB to gain more experience with the revised ordinance. Mr. Clark said he thought the PAORC did a thorough job and he was happy with the way the revised ordinance had worked to this point. He believed that it might be premature to form another review committee at this time. Mr. Zelenka thanked Ms. Wilkinson and the other CRB members and expressed appreciation for the board’s work. He believed that eventually the City would want to review the ordinance again, but pointed out that the last review was fairly recent. He suggested that the CRB begin to compile a list of issues for future review. MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 6