Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/16/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 16, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor. I. REPORT FROM EXTERNAL REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. City Manager Vicki Elmer introduced Elaine Green, committee chair, who introduced other members of the External Review Advisory Committee (ERAC) present. Committee member Bill Young described the committee process. He commended the composition of the committee and the selection of former city councilor Gretchen Miller as the initial chair of the committee. Committee chair Elaine Green discussed background information the committee considered in its deliberations and the different models the committee investigated to reach its recommendation for a civilian monitor process using an auditor model. Committee member Lieutenant Rick Siel provided an overview of the recommended model. Committee member Jeff Miller provided an overview of the committee's recommendation to establish an independent auditor system. The committee recommended that the council refer a charter amendment establishing the system to the voters. Mr. Miller estimated the cost of establishing and operating the program at $150,000 to $170,000 annually, and suggested that having such a system in place would offset costs that might arise from future liability. Committee member Floyd Prozanski discussed the committee's recommendation for a council- level policy advisory group. He said that establishing a council-level policy advisory group would require no charter amendment. He said that the council-level policy group would provide input regarding existing and proposed policies to the police chief, the department, and the council. The group would be appointed by the City Council. Mr. Prozanksi said that the group may not supplant the Council Committee on Public Safety, but would provide the council with a citizen perspective to issues. He suggested that the policy group could take the place of the Police Forum. Mr. Prozanski discussed the role of the proposed auditor, noting the auditor would be a City employee. He asked the council to consider the members of the two proposed groups carefully to ensure their legitimacy in the eyes of the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Ms. Green referred the council to the tally of individuals offering comment at forums and comment sessions, written comments, and reported that the committee's Web site experienced more than 1,000 hits. Ms. Green stressed the unanimity of the committee's recommendation and asked for the council's concurrence. Mr. Meisner asked staff to expand upon Mr. Miller's remarks regarding cost avoidance related to litigation by providing the council with some actual figures quantifying those costs. Mr. Meisner did not believe that referring the proposal to the voters was a barrier to its implementation, saying that successful passage would give the process legitimacy. He supported referring the proposal to the voters. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Green said that the Police Forum had been established to advise the department on policy related to and implementation of community policing, but recently there had been some impetus for that group to address issues of broader policy, so the proposal would end discussion of that possibility. Mr. Meisner asked if it was possible for the review board to take on the functions of the policy group. Mr. Prozanski said that the committee believed that the proposed structure would maintain credibility and legitimacy. The focus of the policy group went beyond the immediate question of incident review. Ms. Green added that the time demand on members would be considerable. Mr. Meisner asked if other communities had a similar policy group in place. Ms. Green did not know. She said that the committee received input at the forums and meetings that there was a need for a public mechanism to deal with police policies and practices. Mr. Tollenaar asked why a charter amendment was needed to establish the board, pointing out that the council appointed commissions and boards all the time. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that a charter amendment was required to appoint the board because of the responsibilities the board would be assigned related to personnel. If the board made recommendations related to personnel issues, even if not making the final decision, a charter amendment was necessary. At the current time, such decisions were the city manager's purview. Mr. Tollenaar suggested that the City Manager be given the authority to appoint the board. Mr. Laue was not convinced that the establishment of the policy group would result in a broad- based citizen input process. He supported the proposal for a review board and auditor but was less convinced about the policy group. Mr. Prozanski said that the policy group would involve a broad variety of people, including those most disenfranchised. Mr. Miller said that the committee had not spent much time on the policy group, and had wanted to separate the issue from its charge, but it kept hearing about issues that were policy-driven. He suggested that the current Council Committee on Public Safety might wish to add citizen members to broaden its representative base if the council chose not to appoint a policy group. Mr. Young said that the committee also wanted to point out to the council that there was no forum for those issues to be considered. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Laue said that his concerns were both budgetary and the work load that would result from the policy group. He did not think policy questions could be addressed by anyone but the council. Mr. Prozanski said that the issue of perception was very important, and the committee heard continually about citizens' concerns about what was occurring at City Hall. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she had hoped the committee would recommend a council level policy advisory committee. She said that the Public Safety Advisory Committee had served an important function, and suggested that the council merge the Council Committee on Public Safety and Police Forum into a single group. She endorsed the committee's recommendation. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed that research indicated that police were most severe with policy violation by other police. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked about the number of complaints related to police behavior that the City received each year. Mr. Siel estimated that 64 complaints were received in 1997 that generated an investigation; 21 complaints generating an investigation were received in the current year. Ms. Nathanson noted her previous concerns about review boards was that they were often highly politicized and divisive. She said, however, that the information produced by the committee appeared to argue for the recommendation the committee had reached. Ms. Nathanson noted her concerns about the cost of the proposal given the unfunded or underfunded status of other important City initiatives such as the housing program, the Eugene Celebration, the tree preservation ordinance, and nuisance code enforcement; programs that all had different constituents. She considered the cost of the program to be significant. Ms. Nathanson said that she wanted more discussion of the goals for the programs in light of their costs, and the failure and success rate other communities experienced. Ms. Nathanson thought the council was seeking a greater level of accountability, and said that the council should not assume there would be no problems as a result of the program. She believed the program benefits will need to greatly outweigh its costs. Ms. Nathanson asked about the proposed frequency of meetings. She was concerned about work load issues if the board chose to review every case, and was concerned about the process for determining which case to be reviewed. She asked what was included in the cost of external investigation, and what incentive the review board would have to stay within its budget. In response, Ms. Green said that the frequency of meetings would depend on the case load, following the establishment of processes and discussion of how to make the process legitimate. She said that the committee's deliberations were focused on limiting case review, given the nature of the complaints that are received. Ms. Green suggested the fact the board was composed of volunteers meant it would be a self-equalizing system. She reviewed the basis of current estimates. Mr. Miller added that the committee estimate was high to ensure there were adequate funds to establish the system and avoid the need for requesting additional funds from the council. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding program costs in light of other program needs. She commended the committee's report but was also concerned about the costs. She asked whether the council would hold a public hearing prior to the vote. She also asked about the possibility of merging the Police Forum and CCPS. Ms. Taylor asked if the position of auditor could be a volunteer position. Ms. Taylor asked how the police reacted to the plan, adding that she had very mixed feelings and reservations about the recommendation. She maintained that the quality of the police force was high and the police largely acted in an ethical manner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Torrey indicated there would be a public hearing before the voters considered a ballot measure. Mr. Lee also shared other councilors' concerns about the cost of the program but pointed out a referral to the public would make the decision a public decision. He said that the council should make it clear to the public that the proposal would cost money. He was impressed with consensus he heard expressed by committee members and said he hoped it reflected the consensus of the community. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Young said that he hoped the council would place a charter amendment on the November 1998 ballot and make the review system a permanent function of the City. He said that as priorities change, the inclusion of the proposal in the charter would ensure its continuation as a priority. Mr. Torrey said he had not previously supported external review, but understood the perception of its importance and did not know how to overcome that without establishing a system such as that proposed by the committee. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Mr. Miller said that the committee could report on complaints by general categories. Mr. Siel said that a board would have greater credibility among citizens than a telephone response from the police stating the individual's complaint was or was not sustained. Mr. Torrey asked what would occur if the confidentiality of the board was breached. Mr. Klein responded that the individual involved, if he or she willfully breached confidential information, would be liable to lawsuit. The City's position would be that, given the willful nature of the act, there was no City indemnity for that action. The council could remove that individual for not complying with State and local requirements related to confidentiality. Mr. Laue asked about leaks. Mr. Klein said that in the absence of sure knowledge of the identity of the offender, there was little that could be done. Mr. Laue asked if such leaks could place the City in more liability. Mr. Klein said yes. Ms. Green said that the ERAC believed there was incentive for such individuals to comply with the law. Ms. Elmer recommended that the council refer the committee's recommendation to the Council Committee on Public Safety. Mr. Farr thanked the committee for its unanimous recommendation. He said that he had doubted the committee would reach unanimity. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to accept the report of the External Review Advisory Committee and refer the report and its recommendations to the CCPS for further refinement. Ms. Nathanson referred to the work of the Council Committee on Organizational Change and said that the committee continued to hear the theme that people do not hear what happened after they provided comment. She asked if that represented a communication problem or reflected inappropriate input. She said that the council should consider having some discussion about citizen involvement and committees in general before establishing another group to eliminate community confusion about the structure of advisory committees. Ms. Nathanson said MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. that the Citizen Involvement Committee had requested council authorization to review the appointment process to department advisory committees. Roll call; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. II. WORK SESSION: EUGENE CELEBRATION Jim Johnson, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director, provided the presentation. He identified two policy issues for council resolution: 1) should the Eugene Celebration continue under City sponsorship; and 2) because it does not appear that the Celebration can be 100- percent self-supporting, should the Celebration receive a General Fund subsidy in the future. Mr. Johnson said that in response to the latter question, staff did not think that the Celebration could become 100 percent self-supporting. Mr. Johnson provided background on the financial status of the Celebration and alternatives for proceeding. Mr. Johnson said that the options included 1) retain the Celebration as a City- sponsored and operated event; 2) transfer the event to a nonprofit agency; and 3) terminate the event. Mr. Johnson reviewed the findings of the City's consultant, S2 Intelligence, related to other events conducted in other areas of the nation, regarding the operations of those events and how they differed from the Celebration. Mr. Johnson discussed the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing the event to a nonprofit organization. He estimated transition costs at $168,500. Mr. Johnson highlighted strategic issues associated with the transition. Mr. Meisner asked if the Celebration budget had been overspent in 1997. Carol Brewster reminded the council that there was a budget freeze early in 1997 that held budgets at the FY97 level. The Celebration's strategy, as approved by the council, was to replace City funds with replacement revenue starting in 1996, but revenues were frozen at a target below the actual target approved by the council. She said that the Celebration's actual revenue target was $425,000, not $315,000. Ms. Brewster said it was staff's understanding that if the Celebration exceeded the revenue target, it could match its spending to the targeted revenue. The Celebration already had a long-range plan for meeting the 1994 council target, but had been caught in "budget limbo" in June for a September event. Mr. Meisner asked about the total for Celebration expenditures in FY98. Ms. Brewster estimated expenditures at $388,000 through December 1997, which was close to the revenues collected ($365,000) and the $25,000 budgeted for in-kind services. Mr. Meisner asked how the Celebration controlled costs and monitored expenditures. Mr. Johnson said that the need for cost control was part of the rationale for the staff recommendation. He said that staff believed it was time to transition and evolve the event away from the City, not so much for budget reasons, but because if it retained the City focus it could not be self-supporting and would continue to require General Fund support. Mr. Meisner asked why anyone else would want to assume responsibility for the Celebration if staff projected it could not be done at a profit. Mr. Johnson clarified that staff did not think it MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. could be conducted as it had been conducted in the past. Mr. Meisner asked if the City could do the Celebration for less cost. He asked if the event had grown too much, and if the City had been sufficiently cautious about expenses and worked hard enough to generate revenues. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Brewster said that entertainment was the Celebration's main attraction and consumed a significant amount of the budget. She said that the amount budgeted was comparatively Iow when compared with other events. Ms. Taylor asked if the Celebration could employ local talent at a lower cost. She also asked if raising the pin sales had reduced revenues. Responding to the latter question, Mr. Johnson said yes, but pointed out the increase was part of the strategy approved by the council. Ms. Brewster added that most entertainment was local and some entertainers did not get paid at all. She did not think the Celebration had much room to move in that category. Ms. Taylor asked what the City realized from the food booths. Mr. Johnson said that the City collected 18 percent of revenues. Ms. Taylor said she liked the Celebration and thought it was worth the money. She thought the City should continue to operate the event. Ms. Nathanson said she was not willing to discontinue the Celebration. She was uncomfortable with some of staff's responses to Mr. Meisner's questions and some of the choices available to the council. She said that the Celebration continued to get bigger and more complex. She asked if the City had been using the Steering Committee appropriately. Mr. Johnson said he believed the committee would have liked more oversight and policy control. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Warren Wong Acting City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m.