Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Lane County had a performance auditor. He asked the council to consider the success rates of the County's bond measures and how the public perceived the County. Mr. Meisner thought it was premature to place this item on the ballot, given that the council had just held a discussion on the police review process and it had been stressed that the review would take a year. He felt the parameters of the auditor position were nebulous. He also suggested that the council should consider what it was going to cut or what new fee or tax it was going to propose to pay for such an auditor. He recognized there was the possibility that an independent auditor would find efficiencies. He noted that, as a result of such audits, some cities discovered more programs were needed and costs increased. Mr. Taylor shared his personal experience with performance auditing. He said the City had hired qualified auditors to look at specific areas. He predicted that an internal auditor would add approximately $120,000 annually to the City budget. He was uncertain how such an auditor would "stack up" against all of the other City's needs, such as the need for more police officers and more money for social services. He could not recommend placing this on the ballot in November. He thought the discussion to be worthy, but that it was premature to take action at the present meeting. Mayor Torrey recognized that some members of the council had been supportive of this for two years. He felt that what was pushing this item to the forefront was the conviction of two police officers. He stated that the police department of the City of Portland was the subject of much public scrutiny and criticism in the last year, although the City had an independent police review under its independent external auditor. He advised the council not to assume that having such an auditor would solve the problems of the City. He stressed that this was not a double-majority measure and did not need to be rushed onto the November ballot. He recommended that, should such a position be voted in, it should be made an elected position in order to be truly independent. He stated that, in the event of a tie, he would, as a courtesy to Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Poling, vote in support of the motion in order to provide them the opportunity to cast their votes. However, he would vote against it at the regular meeting, should the need arise. Ms. Bettman said she would not put the motion on the table should it be amended to be a "redundant auditor," which she asserted it would be if it were answerable to the City Manager. She quoted research which asserted that "an appointed auditor reporting to the legislative body has the fewest impairments upon independence." She though this form was the best option. Ms. Bettman agreed that an auditor identified problems. She alleged that, working with the City Manager, such problems would be solved prior to coming before the council. Regarding financing the position, Ms. Bettman asserted that an independent auditor would save money. She countered that the council should think about how much the credibility of the organization was worth. She noted that the EPD had put out an audit with the same information on it for three years and nothing had been done about it. Ms. Solomon opposed having such an auditor because she was not interested in establishment of another government position. She pointed out that the proposal itself planned for an oversight committee, which would require that the City pay for staffing it. She predicted such an auditor would, before long, need an assistant. She believed the independent contracts the City already had for performance audits were working. She opined that an independent external auditor would ultimately be a contract manager as it would not be possible for one person to have expertise in all of the areas of the City services. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session