Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Taylor said it was inconceivable to her that the council would hire someone who had worked for the <br />police to be the auditor because she believed it would be impossible for them to be neutral. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the motion excluded a person who had been a cadet with the department. He did not <br />think it made sense. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly rephrased the text for his amendment, saying that candidates for the position may not have any <br />employment, past employment by, or past contracts with the City of Eugene Police Department in the prior <br />20 years. Ms. Ortiz, the second to the motion, accepted the revised text. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that the motion be expanded to include the Lane County Sheriff’s Department and the <br />City of Springfield as those departments worked closely with the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Kelly <br />declined to accept the suggestion as a friendly amendment and recommended the committee consider Ms. <br />Bettman’s request. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling believed the amendment and Ms. Bettman’s suggestion would exclude those with previous law <br />enforcement within Lane County and the State of Oregon, which limited the pool of candidates who met the <br />requirements outlined in the job description. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé expressed appreciation for the remarks of Mr. Laue and Mr. Poling. He said making a judgment <br />on the basis of one’s past affiliation was classifying someone and assuming they could not be unbiased or <br />fair in the position. He thought it was discriminatory like categorizing people by race and he was offended <br />by it. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Papé’s point, Mr. Kelly disagreed that the council would be classifying an individual; the <br />public would do that. He maintained that hiring a former Eugene police officer would undermine the <br />council’s credibility with the very people it was working hard to gain the trust of. <br /> <br />The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bett- <br />man, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting <br />no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amended motion was unanimous, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to implement the police auditor and civilian <br />review board oversight program in a manner that is consistent with the Police Commission <br />recommendation of July 25, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $17,000 from the General <br />Fund Contingency to the Human Resources and Risk Services Department in Fiscal Year <br />2006 for the purpose of recruitment and selection of the Police Auditor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said it appeared the motion put the division in charge of recruiting and selecting the auditor. <br />She needed more information before she could vote on it. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, with the consent of her second, withdrew the motion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 9 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />