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