Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor opined that “decisive” was a proper term and spoke to a recent editorial in The Register-Guard that stated that if the position was not independent it would be meaningless. She said she would support the motion. Mr. Papé? pointed out that from an employee’s standpoint, it must be clarified who the supervisor was and how that relationship was set up. He said he favors an MOU; however, the City has a charter that must be adhered to and it dictates that the City Manager makes the final decisions on hiring and firing of staff. Mr. Papé? opined that “decisive” would insinuate that the auditor would make such decisions and he therefore could not support the motion. He suggested that a consulting role would be more appropriate. In conclusion, Mr. Papé? pointed out that the language in the motion before the council was not? included in the ballot measure and therefore was not proper. City Attorney Klein stated that the City Manager had the authority and could choose to delegate hiring and/or firing decisions but that the City Council did not have the authority to require the City Manager to delegate a hiring/firing decision. He added that the City Council could certainly direct the City Manager to produce an MOU; however, it could not direct the City Manager to delegate his Charter power. City Manager Taylor stressed that he was supportive of the independent auditor position, that he wanted it to succeed and set a precedent for future auditors. He said, however, that he did not want to bind future city managers to an agreement that may or may not flourish in the future. City Manager Taylor indicated that an accommodation could be achieved in the spirit of the intent of the motion; however, he cautioned the City Council not to direct the City Manager to take an action that was inconsistent with the City Charter. City Manager Taylor then turned to the issue of transferring staff. He explained that should the auditor’s staff be organized, there were certain requirements as to how transfers occurred. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the staffing and funding of the positions would be resolved through the budget process. Finally, he opined that the supervision, hiring, termination, and transfers that would inform this discussion should be discussed with the auditor following his/her hire. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council not take action on this motion at this time; rather, that the language be sent back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. Ms. Ortiz expressed support for the motion. She spoke to the timing of the signing of the MOU and offered the following friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz, with acceptance by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggested the MOU be signed within 30 days of the hire of the auditor. Ms. Bettman stated that independence was a crucial component of the auditor’s role as perceived by the community. She reiterated that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, which made it likely that staff would be involved in the intake of those complaints. Therefore, the auditor needs to have some leverage with those employees. Ms. Bettman opined that the functioning of the office could in fact be undermined if it was not completely independent. She then spoke to the City Charter and said there have been conflicting interpretations of charter language in the past. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion as follows: The Eugene City Council directs that the City Manager shall enter into a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU) with the Police Auditor outlining a specific joint decision-making relationship for hiring, supervising, evaluating, transferring, or terminating staff within the Auditor’s Office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 6 Work Session