Laserfiche WebLink
undermined if it was not completely independent. She then spoke to the City Charter and said there have <br />been conflicting interpretations of charter language in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion as follows: The Eugene <br />City Council directs that the City Manager shall enter into a Memorandum of Understand- <br />ing (MOU) with the Police Auditor outlining a specific joint decision-making relationship <br />for hiring, supervising, evaluating, transferring, or terminating staff within the Auditor’s <br />Office. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor explained that the suggested amendment would ensure that neither the City Manager nor the <br />auditor would be able solely to hire, fire, or transfer staff. He voiced confidence that such a process would <br />provide clarity and be successful. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the amendment as it would not provide the auditor with <br />leverage and it gives the auditor the input the City Manager wants to provide. She argued that “decisive” <br />ensures that both parties agree prior to staffing decisions. Ms. Bettman said that the amendment leaves the <br />decision-making up to the City Manager. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Attorney Klein replied that the City Manager must agree to a <br />joint? partnership. He reiterated that the City Manager has the authority to hire and fire and unless the <br />manager was willing to delegate all or a portion of that authority, a joint decision would not be in compli- <br />ance with Section 16 of the City Charter. Mr. Papé? reiterated that the City Council? should have included <br />appropriate language in the ballot measure if it wanted to have a truly independent staff in the Auditor’s <br />Office. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the amendment under discussion; however, he said he prefers the <br />language in the original motion as it provides a greater expression of what the relationship between the City <br />Manager and the auditor would be. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that the motion provides for accountability. <br /> <br /> The amendment failed: 2:6, with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Poling in favor. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape? seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to propose a substitute motion to direct the <br />City Manager to meet with the auditor following hire to draft an Memorandum of Under- <br />standing (MOU) as to how the auditor’s staff would be hired, supervised, evaluated, trans- <br />ferred, or terminated; further, to present the MOU to the City Council in draft form for its <br />approval within 30days of that hire. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed support for the substitute motion which she pointed out allows the City Man- <br />ager and the auditor to craft a draft MOU as opposed to the council, who would not be working in those <br />positions and therefore should not put forth parameters of that relationship. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman responded that the auditor would have no authority with the City Manager and cannot <br />determine the text of the MOU. She said that the specifics of the MOU do not need to be reviewed by <br />the council as such an exercise would be considered “micro-managing.” Ms. Bettman opined that her <br />motion was clear in its intent. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />