Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Solomon expressed uneasiness with the term “decisive.” She pointed out that the City Manager would <br />certainly want the program to be successful and voiced confidence that he would work with the auditor in <br />that vein and ensure that the auditor has the employees he/she determines were capable for the positions. <br />Ms. Solomon opined that an MOU was not necessary at this point in the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor opined that “decisive” was a proper term and spoke to a recent editorial in The Register-Guard <br />that stated that if the position was not independent it would be meaningless. She said she would support the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé? pointed out that from an employee’s standpoint, it must be clarified who the supervisor was and <br />how that relationship was set up. He said he favors an MOU; however, the City has a charter that must be <br />adhered to and it dictates that the City Manager makes the final decisions on hiring and firing of staff. Mr. <br />Papé? opined that “decisive” would insinuate that the auditor would make such decisions and he therefore <br />could not support the motion. He suggested that a consulting role would be more appropriate. In <br />conclusion, Mr. Papé? pointed out that the language in the motion before the council was not? included in the <br />ballot measure and therefore was not proper. <br /> <br />City Attorney Klein stated that the City Manager had the authority and could choose to delegate hiring <br />and/or firing decisions but that the City Council did not have the authority to require the City Manager to <br />delegate a hiring/firing decision. He added that the City Council could certainly direct the City Manager to <br />produce an MOU; however, it could not direct the City Manager to delegate his Charter power. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor stressed that he was supportive of the independent auditor position, that he wanted it <br />to succeed and set a precedent for future auditors. He said, however, that he did not want to bind future city <br />managers to an agreement that may or may not flourish in the future. City Manager Taylor indicated that an <br />accommodation could be achieved in the spirit of the intent of the motion; however, he cautioned the City <br />Council not to direct the City Manager to take an action that was inconsistent with the City Charter. City <br />Manager Taylor then turned to the issue of transferring staff. He explained that should the auditor’s staff be <br />organized, there were certain requirements as to how transfers occurred. City Manager Taylor reminded the <br />council that the staffing and funding of the positions would be resolved through the budget process. Finally, <br />he opined that the supervision, hiring, termination, and transfers that would inform this discussion should be <br />discussed with the auditor following his/her hire. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested that the council not take action on this motion at this time; rather, that the language <br />be sent back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed support for the motion. She spoke to the timing of the signing of the MOU and offered <br />the following friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, with acceptance by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggested the MOU be signed <br />within 30 days of the hire of the auditor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that independence was a crucial component of the auditor’s role as perceived by the <br />community. She reiterated that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, which made it <br />likely that staff would be involved in the intake of those complaints. Therefore, the auditor needs to have <br />some leverage with those employees. Ms. Bettman opined that the functioning of the office could in fact be <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />