CC Minutes - 02/22/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

have. That was the reason, for instance, that Court employees were still under the supervision of the City Manager rather than the Municipal Court presiding judge. Mr. Kelly said he wished City Manager Taylor could speak hypothetically. City Manager Taylor said that he was speaking to what the charter provided and thought it consistent with what the voters adopted. Mr. Kelly said his bottom-line goal was to ensure that the auditor’s office was as successful and as smooth- running as possible. He supported the amendment, recognizing there was time before the auditor was hired to discuss the issue. Mr. Pryor said he understood that people were seeking independent oversight of the Eugene Police Department. He did not support the amendment because he was concerned that it was beginning to drift away from the charter. There were existing, workable models for organizations where supervision was under one jurisdiction and employees were under another. He was also reluctant to create a parallel government structure to the one in place. He wanted to work toward collaboration and partnership, not separation. He was fully supportive of the independent auditor and believed that independence could be accomplished with the committee’s proposal. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks about parallel government. He determined from City Manager Taylor that the Court employees were hired by the City and supervised by the court administrator. Judges also participate in their supervision in a way that recognized legal requirements and charter restrictions. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about placing the extra burden of supervision on the auditor, who would have a lot of other work to do. She preferred an approach that was consistent with the way other City employees were hired. She said when an employee was hired one expected them to do their job, regardless of who their supervisor was. She said the auditor would be involved in personnel matters and would provide input, but a focus on supervision would take away from the focus of the job. Ms. Bettman maintained the committee’s proposal would undermine the independence of the auditor’s office. The spirit of the ballot measure was to have an auditor independent of the manager’s authority. The recommendation placed the City Manager’s administration in the office of the auditor and removed the auditor’s ability to manage his or her own staff. She suggested that its adoption would handicap the auditor’s office because professionals considering applying for the position would believe the City was setting them up to fail, and would not even apply for the position. Ms. Taylor said the whole purpose of the ballot measure was independence and independence of administra- tion. Some people were worried because the administration has been the City Manager, the Chief of Police, and the police hierarchy, and the idea was to have something independent. Independence required that the auditor hire his or her own staff. She did not think that would take much time. The amendment to the motion failed, 3:5; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly referred to the position description and asked committee members if they evaluated the qualifica- tions against those required by other cities. He asked how many people could meet those qualifications. Mr. Laue pointed out the position spoke of having “knowledge of.” He said the committee worked from other position descriptions from other communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting