Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

and said he had exceeded his expectations. Mr. Gissiner brought a degree of stability to the office that allowed it to be less controversial and more effective. He believed that Mr. Gissiner had fostered the council’s goal of having a good oversight model and that he had raised the office’s performance. He was surprised by how far Mr. Gissiner had come in such a short time. He hoped to award Mr. Gissiner both a cost of living adjustment and a step increase because of his exemplary performance. Mr. Poling said Mr. Gissiner had taken over the Police Auditor’s Office at a challenging time. He had high expectations for Mr. Gissiner and they had been met. Mr. Gissiner did not have a personal agenda outside of making the Police Auditor’s Office function as it should. Mr. Gissiner had to make some difficult decisions and Mr. Poling thought he had done an excellent job in doing so. He believed that Mr. Gissiner had re-instilled community trust and confidence in the office and that his work had helped build community confidence in the Police Department as well. He was very pleased with Mr. Gissiner’s performance and expected more of the same in the future. Mr. Zelenka also commended Mr. Gissiner and said he had met his expectations. When Mr. Gissiner was hired, Mr. Zelenka’s best outcome was that the Police Auditor’s Office would become noncontroversial and stay off the front page of the newspaper, and that had happened faster than he had expected. The auditor’s office was operating as it should. Mr. Gissiner did an even handed job in addressing complaints. He was not a rubber stamp for police actions, nor was he antagonistic to the department. Mr. Zelenka perceived the role of the auditor’s office was to provide residents with a place to complain against the Police Department, help them navigate an intimidating and complex process, and to be an impartial processor and adjudicator of complaints. He thought Mr. Gissiner had successfully filled those roles. He also believed that the maturation of the process and greater police union acceptance had contributed to Mr. Gissiner’s success. Mr. Zelenka commended Mr. Gissiner for how he handled the dismissal of the deputy auditor. He also commended him for his work on policies related to search and seizure, vehicle pursuits, and the use of canines. He also expressed appreciation for Mr. Gissiner’s outreach to the community. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to grant the Police Auditor a step increase from Step 3 to Step 4 retroactive to his hire anniversary date and a COLA of two percent starting January 1, 2011. Ms. Solomon supported the motion. She thanked Mr. Gissiner for all his work and said he was exactly what Eugene needed at the time it needed him. Ms. Taylor believed the two previous auditors had difficulty because the system was new and because of police union resistance. While she thought Mr. Gissiner was doing a good job, she suggested that his gender contributed to his success. She thought the fact that the last auditors were women made their acceptance by a male-dominated work group more challenging. Ms. Taylor said she had attended a meeting of the Civilian Review Board at which the board discussed what she considered an egregious example of police wrong doing. Mr. Gissiner had been rigid about the date beyond which the complaint could be accepted, which she found disappointing. However, she found him to be very flexible and courteous in general. She continued to want to know more about the point of view of those who had made complaints. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2010 Page 3 Work Session