Laserfiche WebLink
However, he thought it would be good for the CRB to work with the revised ordinance and get more experience <br />before returning to the ordinance. <br /> <br /> <br />Speaking to the Public Records Law, Mr. Zelenka suggested that if the CRB had specific ideas for changes to the <br />law, it should forward them to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to consider as a legislative <br />priority. He was interested in pursuing a legislative definition of “public interest.” <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not believe that a collective bargaining agreement could trump a municipal ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the PAORC purposely created a strong auditor’s position to ensure the authority was vested in <br />the auditor, and the CRB was advisory to the auditor. He was unsure he wanted to change that as he believed it <br />was a still a good thing to have a strong auditor. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commended the work of the CRB. He agreed that the CRB would benefit from more experience but he <br />did want to see its concerns addressed in an effective way at some point. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor was pleased with the direction the Police Auditor’s Office had taken over the past four years. He <br />thought the City had stayed on the right course. It acted thoughtfully, deliberately, and collaboratively. He <br />agreed with the comments he had heard from Mr. Clark and Mr. Zelenka in regard to forming a new PAORC at <br />this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Gissiner suggested that staff could consider how to address the issues related to information disclosure, as <br />opposed to the City being forced into a court situation that took years to resolve. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed that the council should wait a while before reconsidering the ordinance. She thought the CRB <br />should be a smaller body of three to five and pointed out it took longer for a larger group of people to work <br />together effectively. She suggested that the CRB could serve as the next PAORC. She suggested that it might be <br />that the CRB should be able to overrule the Police Auditor in some instances as well as reopen cases, and <br />recommended the council discuss the issue in more detail with advice from the CRB. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark recognized CRB member Steve McIntyre for comment. <br /> <br />Mr. McIntyre did not believe the issues that the CRB raised were related to its lack of experience, but rather to <br />ambiguities in the ordinance. He said that clarity in regard to those ambiguities would make the CRB’s job <br />easier. He suggested the council consider the CRB’s request through that lens. He thought the CRB was <br />working well as a body and encouraged the council to attend its meetings. Ms. Wilkinson agreed. She <br />anticipated that some of the same issues that prompted the recommendations could come up again and the CRB <br />would be in the same position. She said the CRB’s suggestion for a new PAORC was just one idea for how to <br />move forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the City Council created the system with a strong auditor in mind and he <br />was happy with that decision. He saw no ambiguity in the current ordinance in regard to the auditor’s ability to <br />determine what is good cause. However, he could appreciate that when there was disagreement between the <br />auditor and the CRB one way to address it was through a new arrangement. He anticipated the council would <br />discuss the issues again in a work session. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown commended the work of the CRB. He agreed with Mr. McIntyre that the recommendations were not <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 7 <br />