My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 03/13/06 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2006
>
CC Minutes - 03/13/06 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:26 AM
Creation date
4/20/2006 1:51:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/13/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
tion as to who would be included in the community group to meet with candidates; however, he said that <br />the City Council should also be invited to recommend individuals and ultimately validate such a list. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to enter into a <br />Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Police Auditor ensuring that the Police <br />Auditor shall have a decisive role in the hiring, supervising, evaluating, or transferring of <br />staff for the Auditor’s Office. Further; that the MOU shall be signed by both parties within <br />two weeks of the Police Auditor’s hiring date. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained that the Police Auditor may not wish to terminate an individual; rather, he/she may <br />want to transfer the individual out of that particular office. She then pointed out that a review of the Police <br />Commission report, the background material for the ballot measure, and the rebuttal from the proponent <br />committee in the Voter’s Pamphlet ascertained that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, <br />and that the public was promised that the Auditor’s Office would be independent. She read the following <br />from the pamphlet: Our Police Commission unanimously recommends an external review system that <br />ensures structural independence by separating police review from the City Manager. She then read the <br />following from the Charter Amendment: The auditor would be providing staff to the Civilian Review <br />Board (CRB) and the CRB would review the function of the Auditor’s Office. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman <br />pointed out that the auditor’s staff would ensure the independence of the office so it was essential that the <br />auditor have some leverage with those employees. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor expressed support for the substance of the motion and said that he was willing to meet <br />with the auditor to work out a reasonable accommodation, taking into account what the City Charter <br />dictates, the existing personnel policies, and labor agreements. However, he voiced a concern with the <br />language to “direct” the City Manager, and questioned what constitutes a “decisive” role. Additionally, City <br />Manager Taylor suggested that a four-week timeline to craft and sign an MOU, rather than two weeks, may <br />be more prudent in light of the fact that the auditor would face a significant learning curve as he/she <br />becomes oriented to the position and the community. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glen Klein commented that “decisive” could be interpreted in such a way that the auditor <br />would make staffing decisions and the City Manager would be bound by those decisions, or, it could be <br />interpreted that the auditor would have a significant role and therefore the City Manager would need to take <br />into account the auditor’s recommendations. City Attorney Klein pointed out that in conformance with the <br />City Charter, it was the City Manager who hires staff; however, the manager could take input from his/her <br />department directors. He said that an MOU was not problematic but while the auditor’s role would be <br />significant, it would not provide direction to the City Manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor expressed support for an MOU; however, he opined that “decisive” was not a commonly <br />encouraged human resource term, as it could be interpreted in various ways. He stressed that caution must <br />be exercised with components involving human resources, pointing to the significant number of court cases <br />around employee relations. Mr. Pryor suggested that the language for the MOU be based upon clarity of the <br />relationship between the City Manager and the auditor, and that a review of best practices would be a <br />prudent step prior to any action taken by the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that council support of such an MOU should be viewed “philosophically” rather than legally. <br />He opined that if the council philosophically directed the City Manager, it was appropriate as he was the <br />council’s employee. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion with the understanding that reasonable <br />people could work out a reasonable process. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.