Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion by striking the word “re- <br />cent.” <br /> <br />City Attorney Jerome Lidz suggested that if Mr. Kelly’s intent was to disqualify everyone who had ever <br />worked for the Police Department, all text in the motion after “department” should also be deleted. Mr. <br />Kelly accepted the clarification. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé did not support the amendment because he considered it to be discriminatory for reasons he did not <br />consider legitimate. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling also did not support the amendment. He questioned why the City would eliminate those with <br />experience and expertise from the pool of candidates. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at his colleagues’ reaction. It was his understanding from the Police <br />Commission discussion that this issue touched on how wide the net of exclusions should be cast. He <br />recalled that one proposal excluded anyone who had ever done law enforcement in the state of Oregon. He <br />said the council needed to think about the community’s reaction if the council appointed a former police <br />officer to the position of police auditor. He believed the community would object. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Kelly. She underscored that the issue was about external police review, and <br />while Eugene police officers do a wonderful job and could be viable, good candidates for the position, the <br />transparency of process the council was trying to accomplish was important. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the amendment referred to recent background and affiliation, and he questioned what that <br />meant in terms of time frame. What did affiliation mean? Did that eliminate those who were consultants to <br />the department? He could support excluding people employed by the department but needed more <br />information about what recent background and affiliation meant in terms of its exclusionary element. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Laue to comment. Mr. Laue said the commission discussed the four options the <br />council also saw. The commission’s preferred option was the option the council was now considering. The <br />commission discussed excluding people with prior law enforcement experience and agreed that there may <br />have been someone hired by the Eugene Police Department 20 years ago who worked for the department for <br />a few years and then went onto have a stellar career in another field. The commission did not think <br />excluding such candidates was appropriate. Mr. Laue reminded the council that it would select the auditor, <br />and he anticipated that those who got beyond a certain point in the hiring process would undergo a <br />background investigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said it was inconceivable to her that the council would hire someone who had worked for the <br />police to be the auditor because she believed it would be impossible for them to be neutral. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the motion excluded a person who had been a cadet with the department. He did not <br />think it made sense. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly rephrased the text for his amendment, saying that candidates for the position may not have any <br />employment, past employment by, or past contracts with the City of Eugene Police Department in the prior <br />20 years. Ms. Ortiz, the second to the motion, accepted the revised text. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that the motion be expanded to include the Lane County Sheriff’s Department and the <br />City of Springfield as those departments worked closely with the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Kelly <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting <br />