Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Referring to the performance evaluation form employed in the evaluation, Ms. Taylor questioned when “successful” became the lowest rating. Ms. Smith recalled the council adopted the rating system. Ms. Taylor said it was difficult to evaluate the auditor in the absence of input from the complainants. She wanted to know if the complainants thought the system was working and hoped to see that information for Mr. Gissiner’s next evaluation. Ms. Taylor suggested the Police Auditor’s Office had suffered from the loss of the different points of view expressed by the former Deputy Auditor. She suggested it was good to have another point of view, even if one did not agree, and felt disadvantaged by the loss of that input as well as the loss of the input from former CRB member Rick Brissenden. In response to Ms. Taylor’s concerns, Mr. Gissiner indicated that the survey responses had been summarized in the evaluation and in the future he would include all the surveys that were returned by complainants. Mr. Pryor commended Mr. Gissiner’s ethics and integrity. He thought those attributes made it possible for Mr. Gissiner to build on the foundation that had been in place. He believed the office had finally reached a level of stability that he attributed to the efforts of Mr. Gissiner. Mr. Pryor asked Mr. Gissiner if he hired his deputies for their points of view. Mr. Gissiner said he was persuaded to hire Ms. Pitcher because of her work at the Washington Court of Appeals. He did not hire people for their points of view and noted that he and Ms. Pitcher did not always agree. Mr. Farr suggested the increase in complaints experienced by the Police Auditor’s Office was a positive thing in that it demonstrated more public trust in the system, which led more people to make complaints. He commended Mr. Gissiner’s work. Mr. Zelenka believed that Mr. Gissiner had done an excellent job, was professional, and his ethics were beyond reproach. The Police Auditor’s Office had gone from being controversy to “business as usual.” He found Mr. Gissiner to be independent and objective. He appreciated Mr. Gissiner’s emphasis on training and customer service. He also commended the hiring of Ms. Pitcher as he believed her legal expertise was needed by the auditor’s office. Mr. Zelenka said Mr. Gissiner kept the council informed of events in a timely fashion. His recommendations were reasonable, thought-out, and fair. The CRB appeared to be well-supported and well-informed. At Mr. Zelenka’s request, Ms. Smith reviewed the survey process used to solicit feedback from citizens as well as complainants and indicated staff would work on ways to increase the response rate. Mr. Zelenka suggested the survey results be placed in a separate section of the evaluation. Mr. Zelenka said he would like to see the auditor do more community outreach to discuss the work of the office. Mr. Clark said the purpose of the auditors’ office was to improve community-police relations and he thought that Mr. Gissiner had accomplished that. He said Mr. Gissiner’s high standards inspired high standards in others. Because of the work of the auditor, police sergeants had come to understand they had more of a role in educating officers about appropriate behavior. Mr. Clark also commended Mr. Gissiner for enhancing communications between the Police Auditor’s Office, CRB, and Police Commission. He said that Mr. Gissiner frequently brought policy issues to the commission for resolution. Mr. Poling believed that Eugene was fortunate to have Mr. Gissiner as its Police Auditor. His previous experience in such positions showed. He had turned a frequently controversial program into a program MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2011 Page 5 Work Session