Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to authorize expenditure of <br /> an amount not to exceed $70,000 to support the Police Commission's re- <br /> view of the internal affairs policies and procedures and civilian oversight <br /> models. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor opposed the contingency request. She reported that she had reviewed the budget of the Police <br />Commission and the commission had spent $92,000, mostly for staff. She opined that if this would be the <br />only job of the Police Commission, then the staff person could spend all of her time on it. She felt it <br />fortunate that the City had hired a Police Chief who was already familiar with external reviews. She <br />thought it would be possible to easily gather information with the aid of computers. She hoped the <br />council would be kept informed on the commission's work on the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that the commission would be looking at three different aspects of the complaint <br />process: the intake, the investigation, and the adjudication. She said research would be done on each one <br />of those aspects and how different communities treat the processes. She believed the resources to be <br />absolutely necessary because the project would involve an extraordinary effort above the commission's <br />regular workload. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked what the staffing levels were for the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Planning <br />Commission. Ms. Ortiz responded that the HRC had 2.5 FTE staff for the program. Mr. Taylor said <br />different planners acted as support staff to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 felt the contingency request was appropriate and that the proposed work could lead to a further <br />request because of the size of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor said that in addition to the Police Commission study and staff's external review, there was a <br />third element to the review. He explained that the department would continue its relationship with <br />external auditor for internal affairs, Howell Lankford, who would provide a similar review in the next <br />year. He added that, based on Mr. Lankford's most recent report, he had asked Chief Lehner to develop <br />some interim reforms, particularly in the area of intake and investigations. He requested the council's <br />support for the continuation of these three phases of the review. He felt no bigger issue confronted the <br />department and the City at this time and stressed the importance of working through the issue and moving <br />forward to put into practice the types of policies and procedures that would guarantee the support of the <br />community. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon echoed Ms. Bettman's comments. She assured the council that the work would be "$70,000 <br />well-spent." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey stressed the fact that some people felt they could not report abuses of power for fear of <br />retribution was in itself abuse and must be remedied. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner highly recommended providing specialized outreach to the women's community. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> Mayor Torrey thanked Mr. Laue, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Brown for participating in the work session. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />