Laserfiche WebLink
board to have the authority to reopen closed cases. He believed the board would recommend the council <br />consider such revisions because of the ambiguity between the charter and ordinance. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Gissiner to provide the council with the charter language and ordinance language <br />regarding the CRB's authority over closed cases. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Laue clarified that community impact cases were not <br />closed when they came to the board. The police chief made a preliminary determination on such cases, <br />but the CRB commented on the case before it was closed. He said the board would not ask the chief to <br />reopen a case because it agreed or disagreed with the adjudication, but because it was concerned there <br />were lines of inquiry that were not followed up on or facts that were not considered. He noted that the <br />case involving the Chinese student was not a community impact case, and that Eugene had only had such <br />case to date. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the language in the ordinance, City Attorney <br />Brotherton clarified that the code was very specific about the CRB's authority over community impact <br />cases; by negative implication, the CRB had the authority over no other cases. The CRB was asking the <br />council to revise the code to be more explicit. Mr. Zelenka concurred with the CRB's recommendation. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Gissiner to speak to the recommendation that he consult with CRB members <br />before designating a community impact case. Mr. Gissiner indicated that his current practice was to <br />confer with the CRB if he thought it was possible a case would be designated as a community impact <br />case. Mr. Laue clarified that the CRB was less' interested in seeing that codified than in seeing that <br />direction reflected in the Police Auditor's policies, procedures, and operating manual. He said that the <br />ordinance as written reflected the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee's recommendations. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Gissiner said he worked with City Attorney Glenn Klein <br />to establish a definition of "good cause" and would provide it to the council and mayor. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the CRB's concerns regarding public transparency, Mr. <br />Laue said current law limited the public's ability to review information that would give it more <br />confidence that cases were thoroughly and completely investigated. He said the Attorney General had <br />considered some changes to the Public Meetings Law that would have allowed the CRB to share <br />information about cases where no discipline had been involved but those proposals had made no headway <br />during the last legislative session. <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested the City could pursue changes to State law. City Attorney Brotherton briefly <br />reviewed the statutes in question and concurred that statutory changes would be needed to achieve the <br />transparency desired by the CRB. <br />Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Laue for his work on the CRB. He determined from Mr. Laue that he was <br />suggesting the council reaffirm the existing ordinance to clarify the board's role for the community. Mr. <br />Farr asked City Manager Jon Ruiz to consider the mechanics of that process. <br />Mr. Poling expressed concern that the board's recommendation for CRB consultation prior to Mr. <br />Gissiner designating a case as a community impact case could delay Mr. Gissiner's investigations. He <br />also wanted to ensure that if such consultation was codified it be clear that the board's recommendations <br />were just that, and the auditor had authority to make a final determination. He did not support granting <br />the board authority to reopen a closed case for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Laue. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 17, 2011 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />