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