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