Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

th Joe Alsup , 36 West 38 Avenue, was present to speak about the ordinance language proposed by Councilor Bettman. He said he had been delighted with the last election. He had been glad to see Mayor Piercy get reelected as he had some concerns that had the mayoral election “gone the other way” the auditor’s office and Civilian Review Board (CRB) might have been threatened. He supported the changes to the ordinance language, but he thought they should take a moment and listen to those who were concerned about the process by which the changes were being made. He commended Councilor Ortiz for her courage in deciding to reconsider the item in order to provide time to look at the proposed changes. He noted that some of the proposed changes were within the bargaining unit of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He said there were some comments made in a work session about the Police Commission that implied the commission was in a position of bias and members seated on the committee would not come to the table with an open mind. He related that he and fellow commissioner, John Ahlen, had been chosen to serve on the committee. He wanted to assure the council that both of them would be going into the process with an open mind and with a “real desire” to promote transparency and to ensure the auditor was “free and unencumbered” and the ordinance lived up to what the people willed it to be. He emphasized that he and Mr. Ahlen would be on the committee to help, to have an open mind, and to be fair. Jeannine Parisi , 2970 Charnelton, said she wanted to voice her support for the committee process to review the oversight ordinance changes and to bring back recommendations in a specified timeframe to the council for its consideration and adoption. She stressed that when she had voted for the charter amendment her vote had been cast for the success of an oversight system. She related that the Police Commission report had stated that modifications to the system would be necessary to respond to and evolve as situations arose that had not been envisioned when the model had been developed. She said ordinance changes consistent with the charter were one of the improvement processes. She averred that another important element was continual system review and evaluation among key stakeholders. She felt the committee presented an opportunity for deliberative critical analysis of the oversight process in an environment that would be amenable to candid discussion, open discourse, and “possibly collaborative problem-solving.” She said the Police Commission had utilized the committee process extensively when developing the model for the oversight system. She recalled that it had been recognized that a public forum could not achieve the level of information exchange and deliberation among parties that could occur in the committee setting. She underscored that many people had worked hard to design and implement the oversight system. She felt the committee presented the opportunity to take a critical look at the system and make “necessary and judicious improvements” that she predicted would set the auditor and CRB up for success and not continued adversity. She averred that public trust, fairness, improved community relations, and transparency were some of the goals of the oversight system. She did not feel that taking time to ensure those goals were realized would undermine her vote. She saw nothing to be gained in fast-tracking the process except for “lost opportunity.” Ann Tattersall , 1385 Bailey Avenue, said she had voted for police review and not a four-month long committee process. She opposed having the “police sit on the committee to work out the review process.” She opined that this meant the police would review the police department and this would override the interests of the citizens who voted for “this law.” She wanted to “see this law implemented.” She felt that no one paid attention when the interests of the “liberal 49 percent” were not being represented. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, had several serious concerns about the ordinance for the police auditor and “the way it is being maneuvered.” She was skeptical of forming a committee to review the issue that had been raised by Councilor Bettman’s November 10 motion. She said members of the committee included two members of the Police Commission, two representatives of the EPEA, and the Chief. She felt that in the face of the tasering event that happened in May, the former Chief withholding information about a criminal allegation, and the criminal behaviors of former officers some years earlier, the people of Eugene did not trust the police department. She averred that there were a lot of good people on the police force and it was unfortunate that they had the burden to bear of the “bad rap” given to them by others. She declared that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 24, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting