Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/25/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 25, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. POLICE COMMISSION: Tim Laue, Angie Sifuentez, John Brown, Carla Newbre, Maurice Denner, John Ahlen Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the July 25 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that Eugene had been named one of the best walking cities in America by the American Podiatric Medical Association. She also mentioned that Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and consultant Joshua Proudfoot had written an article entitled “Managing and Reporting Sustainability Progress in City Operations” that was featured in the Spring/Summer edition of Sustain magazine. Mr. Pryor reported that during the July 21, 2005, meeting of the Lane Metro Partnership, an increase in activity among smaller companies had been reported and that the recreational vehicle industry was now a slightly larger employer in the area than wood products. He said the partnership was continuing to work with Molecular Probes and Williams Bakery on their relocations. He said employers were beginning to experience a shortage of employable people, which emphasized the importance of linkages between employment and training. He announced that employment awards would be presented at a luncheon on August 25, 2005, at the Valley River Inn. Ms. Bettman reminded residents in wards 1 and 2 that the Mayor’s one-on-one conversation would be held th on July 26 at Market of Choice on 29 Avenue and Willamette Street. Ms. Ortiz described a recent report by the HIV Alliance to the Lane County Human Services Commission. She said the alliance was cutting its needle exchange program and using limited resources to provide insurance for people who were HIV-positive instead of prevention services. She said the needle exchange program cost $140,000 annually and was too expensive to be continued. She noted that the alliance reported no new cases of HIV among youth and asked anyone with suggestions on how to maintain prevention programs to contact the alliance. Ms. Ortiz reported that she spoke at Lane Community College (LCC) youth empowerment classes for children of color and encouraged young people to become involved in the political process, as well as to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 1 Work Session consider medical and public safety careers. She said that Fire Chief Tom Tallon was sending a representa- tive to the classes to follow up with interested students. Ms. Ortiz related that she would be competing in the Relay for Life at LCC over the coming weekend and invited everyone to attend the grand opening of the Santa Clara Fire Station on July 30, 2005. She also noted that the Lane Independent Living Alliance would present a play on July 26 and recognize Human Rights Commissioner Dwight Souers for his barrier-awareness efforts. She thanked the Eugene Library for conducting Spanish-language readings for youth. Mr. Papé asked when the City Council would address the issue of green buildings certification. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that a work session was scheduled in the fall. Mr. Papé repeated Ms. Ortiz’s invitation to the fire station opening in Santa Clara. He reported that he had been attending meetings of the Oregon Passenger Rail Advisory Council (OPRAC) and the legislature was working behind the scenes to resolve budgetary issues that remained deadlocked. He said the critical issue for rail was the difference between the House and Senate funding levels. He encouraged members to communicate their support for funding for two trains. Mr. Kelly reported that he met with incoming Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) president Adam Walsh to discuss ways in which the City and University could work more closely together. He encouraged involvement of the University in the arts and outdoors initiative as it was an important player in both areas. He said that few members of the general public attended University events that were open to them and hoped that the public’s awareness of those events could be raised. Ms. Taylor commented that one of the reasons people did not go to University functions was the lack of parking. She said a rail line from downtown to the University would enable people to travel back and forth between downtown and the campus. Ms. Taylor said a recent phone call from a representative of the Obsidians raised the issue of the rigidity of some of the City’s regulations and classification of a group as a business when it was not a business. She said the Obsidians wanted to remodel and slightly expand its lodge but regulations required different fire prevention measures that might prevent the expansion. She said the group was told it would need sprinklers and a reservoir. She asked if there was any flexibility on such requirements when the planned expansion was minimal. She said she was reminded of the Garden Club which was also classified as a business and noted that neither the Obsidians nor the Garden Club existed to make money. Mr. Poling said he recently attended a meeting related to the Sorrel Way traffic calming project. He said that the meeting was well-attended and City staff did a good job of outlining options in its presentation and taking feedback. He said another meeting was planned in September 2005. He said he planned to attend a Cal Young Neighbors meeting on July 28, 2005, at the Sheldon Community Center and called attention to the third annual Multicultural Festival occurring at the center on August 2, 2005. City Manager Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly’s comments regarding greater opportunities to involve the University, not only in the arts and outdoors effort but to build on the Mayor’s theme of a walkable community. He said that many people did not realize it was an easy walk from downtown to the campus and he frequently walked to the University for meetings, which also solved any parking problem he might encounter. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with Police Commission and Presentation of Police Complaint System Recommendations Mayor Piercy welcomed the members of the Police Commission who were in attendance and noted that Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Bettman were also members of the commission. City Manager Taylor introduced Police Commission Chair Tim Laue, Vice Chair Angie Sifuentez, and members John Brown and Carla Newbre and invited them to join the council to present their report and recommendations. Mr. Laue thanked the Mayor and the council for the opportunity to present the commission’s report and said that two outcomes were desired: 1) approval of the commission’s work plan for the next year; and 2) direction from the council on the next steps in terms of civilian oversight for the community. He outlined the format of the presentation and thanked the many community organizations and members who participated in the process of developing recommendations for a police complaint system. He also thanked the members of the Police Commission and the commission’s staff for the project, Jeannine Parisi and Karen Hyatt, for their extraordinary efforts. Ms. Sifuentez presented highlights of the Police Commission Annual Report: FY 2004-2005 and the proposed work plan for July 2005 – March 2006. She said the work plan proposed that the commission continue refining the oversight model and outstanding issues, pending direction from the council, and begin working with the Police Department on the development of policies and ordinance language necessary to implement portions of the model. Ms. Sifuentez noted that in addition to the complaint system, the commission worked on in-car video/audio recording policies, which were given conceptual approval by the commission as well as approval for funding from telecommunications taxes for a two-year implementation period. She also drew the council’s attention to the commission’s work on a uniform standards ordinance that would ensure that Eugene police officers were easily distinguishable from other public safety officers. She said the ordinance would go into effect January 1, 2006. She was pleased to report that the effort also resulted in changes at the State level thanks to support from Senator Floyd Prozanski. She noted that the Downtown Public Safety Action Plan was submitted to the council in September 2004 and it included a range of strategies to support a safe and vibrant downtown. Ms. Newbre stated that in addition to extensive research on various oversight models, the commission conducted a series of public forums to determine the specific concerns of the community. She pointed out that specific questions asked at the public forums were included in the agenda packet materials. She said that fear of retaliation was the primary thing preventing people from filing a complaint against the police, along with concerns about possible bias and a belief that complaints would not be taken seriously. She said that based on those responses, the Intake Committee focused largely on how complaints were received and processed and it soon became apparent that an auditor’s office was needed. She said the intake model recommendations reflected a variation of a dual-intake process because it provided an independent, neutral location for people to file complaints and it redirected case-handling decisions, such as classification of complaints and possibilities for alternative resolution, to help ensure that all complaints were treated with due diligence. She illustrated the process with a schematic of the proposed model and noted the various access points based on community members’ request for several options for obtaining information. She said the committee strongly recommended that the term “inquiry” no longer be used because it generated MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 3 Work Session controversy in the community. She said the complaint-handling process emphasized two values: 1) improved access and safety and 2) facilitating the best resolution to a complaint. Mr. Brown reported that the Adjudication Review Model Committee, which he chaired, reviewed three models for civilian review and agreed that the hybrid system was the favored system. He noted that what the committee recommended was not what was before the council; the committee’s recommendation was modified at the commission level based on ongoing public input. He said the hybrid model consisted of professional civilian employees supervised outside of the Police Department who actively monitored investigations for quality assurance, plus a five- to seven-member review board of volunteers who reflected the community but did not represent any constituency to evaluate the work of the auditor; the review board could reopen closed cases. He said that in order to ensure that allegations of misconduct were investigated in a thorough, objective and timely manner, the commission was recommending that Internal Affairs (IA) be restructured to become a specialized investigative unit handling internal investigations so that supervisors were no longer both conducting investigations and making a recommendation for the outcome of that investigation. He reviewed the functions and authority of the auditor and the review board. He stated that while the hybrid system had checks and balances to ensure strong accountability, success of the system depended on the quality of the selected auditor, the committee volunteers’ ability to be impartial and fair in all aspects of the work, and adequate funding. Mr. Laue emphasized that one of the commission’s goals at the beginning of the process was the develop- ment of a system that it felt was best for the community, that was open and accessible, and that could build community consensus around the alternatives for policing. He said to achieve that goal community members and organizations were involved extensively in the process. He noted that there was unanimous support on the commission for the model as a whole that was presented to the council, but that did not mean every member agreed with every aspect; it did mean that the commission thought the model was the best way to move forward. With respect to outstanding issues, Mr. Laue listed the following: ? The model was a framework and required filling in of details as well as employee contractual and public records issues resolved before implementation. ? The system would need to be continually evaluated and retain flexibility for adjustments as it was implemented. ? Approval of the commission’s work plan by the council would allow work on refinements to con- tinue and a preliminary plan for implementation of the model to be developed. ? A decision from the council and possibly the community before the model can be finalized. ? Adequate funding to support the model. ? A charter amendment to allow the mayor and council to hire an auditor and appoint a review board. This governance approach was selected because the structural independence of the oversight model was important to engendering trust and building support in the community for both the Police De- partment and the auditor’s office. Continuing, Mr. Laue said that research indicated oversight models tended to fail, in part, because there were not adequate resources to implement them well. He noted that governance of the model would work either under the auspices of the City Council or the City Manager. He said that if a charter amendment failed at the ballot, the commission fully expected the council to move the model forward under the City Manager’s Office. He added that there were a number of ways that governance by the mayor and council MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 4 Work Session could occur, but the commission had left that decision to the council. He asked for direction from the council on how the commission should proceed and a decision on the commission’s extended work plan. Mayor Piercy commended the commission for its work. She called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly added his thanks to the commission for the extensive amount of work it did. Referring to the issue of warrants and records checks, he asked if IA would have to act on an outstanding warrant discovered during the investigation of a complaint referred by the auditor and if so, under what authority. Ms. Newbre said it was her understanding that warrants were orders issued by a judge and police officers were required to act on them. Mr. Kelly indicated he was impressed by the integrated nature of the recommendation and the unanimous support for it and was interested in pursuing a charter amendment for a council-appointed model. Ms. Taylor asked if it was necessary to check on the existence of warrants. She opined that some of the people who were likely to have complaints were likely to have been in trouble with the law in the past and were afraid. Mr. Laue replied that a records check on all parties involved would be the first step for an officer when a complaint was referred by the auditor’s office; that was a standard practice in policing. He said that failing to follow standard investigative protocol or best practices in that regard would open the officer and the City to liabilities. Ms. Sifuentez pointed out that the auditor was not obliged to arrest a person if there was a warrant, but could advise the person that there was an outstanding warrant that should be resolved. She said that did not mean that the auditor would not follow through on the complaint. Mr. Laue added that there was a distinction between minor warrants and those that needed to be acted upon immediately, such as warrants for violent felonies. Mr. Brown said that an anonymous complaint could be filed. Ms. Taylor observed that external police review almost passed when it was on the ballot six or seven years ago, which indicated strong interest in the community. Mr. Pryor commended the commission’s work. He referred to the three full-time staff positions that were recommended to support the auditor function and asked if the commission had discussed the caseload that was anticipated. Mr. Laue said that historically, 50 to 60 complaints that required full investigative files to be opened were received each year. He expected that number to increase somewhat in the first years the model was implemented. He said the commission did not discuss the dollar amounts associated with the required staffing, which could consist of two additional investigative officers, plus an auditor, management analyst, and administrative aide. Mr. Poling complimented the commission’s efforts and asked if the management analyst and administrative aide positions could be filled by qualified personnel currently within the department or be kept completely separate. Mr. Laue replied that the commission felt the auditor’s office should be separate from the Police Department as it required some form of structural independence to gain the necessary credibility. Mr. Poling asked if there was a breakdown in the communities that used an external auditor system between those where the auditor reported to elected officials and those where the auditor reported to a city manager or administrator. Police Commission analyst Jeannine Parisi replied that she could provide that information but it was not a straight comparison because different municipalities had different governance structures. She said that typically where there was a strong mayor form of government, the auditor reported to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 5 Work Session mayor and when there was an elected body, the auditor reported to the city manager. City Manager Taylor commented that a common feature among the communities was that where the auditor was external to the police department the auditor reported to the chief executive officer, depending on whether it was a strong mayor or city manager form of government. Mr. Poling questioned why the council would take the issue to the ballot at a cost of $100,000 when the commission indicated either governance approach would work for the model and the council would implement the city manager governance approach if the ballot measure failed. He asked what message would be sent to the voters if the ballot measure failed and the council implemented the model anyway. In the interests of cost, speed and efficiency, he recommended that the council not wait until November or May to put the matter on the ballot when it had the authority to move forward and have the City Manager make the appointment now and begin to implement the model. Mr. Papé praised the commission’s work, the thoroughness of its report and Mr. Laue’s leadership. He asked about the purpose of the task force on the alternative resolution that was referenced in the commis- sion’s report. Mr. Laue replied that the commission was recommending that in concert with the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which had handled mediation for the past ten years, a task force be formed to involve community stakeholders in an examination of current practices and the role of mediation and advocacy in the complaint process. He said many people believed that alternative resolution was a “win- win” situation with respect to complaints. He said that the council would approve any task force that was established. Mr. Papé asked how the commission’s recommendations compared to those in the International City/County Management Association-Police Executive Research Forum (ICMA-PERF) report. Mr. Laue replied that the ICMA-PERF report recommended that the Police Commission become an external review board, which was anathema to the commission. Mr. Papé urged the council to remember during its deliberations the Eugene Police Employees Association comment that many of the issues that prompted a call for oversight were due to inadequate staffing and inadequate hiring and screening mechanisms, which would not be cured by an oversight process. He urged the council to continue to address the lack of resources in the Police Department. Mr. Laue commented that the police union and the commission had an underlying value that aside from the oversight model, both were looking for ways to improve services to the community. Ms. Solomon remarked that she had been on the commission for a year and was always amazed at the consistently high quality of its work and staffing. She questioned the process by which a decision on a November election was made during a single meeting and asked why that decision had to be made immediately. City Manager Taylor said that the steps and timeframe for placing something on the November ballot required that the council provide direction today. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with taking immediate action as this was the first discussion the council had had on the issue and there had been no public hearings. She acknowledged the extensive public outreach conducted by the commission but felt the commission’s credibility should also be supported by the council through formal public hearings on the recommendations. She stated that if the council decided to move forward with a November election, it would need to establish language for the charter amendment, which contradicted Mr. Laue’s earlier statements about the need to retain flexibility in the model. She was very reluctant to proceed with a charter amendment and preferred Mr. Poling’s suggestion that the council move MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 6 Work Session to immediately implement the model under the City Manager’s supervision. She said this would retain flexibility and allow the system to be revised as necessary. Mr. Laue replied that the commission had recommended a charter amendment election on narrow terms that would give the council the authority to hire and auditor and appoint a review board. He did not expect that the council would include any of the other details in the report. Ms. Solomon was not certain she could support a council-appointed auditor who would report directly to the council. She felt that the City Manager’s job was to be the conduit from the City organization to the council and for the council to have an employee report directly to it would undermine the City Manager’s authority and that form of government. She was reluctant to see that in the form of a charter amendment and would prefer an ordinance. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission and its officers and subcommittee chairs. She said the City of Seattle’s oversight entity was called the Office of Professional Accountability and she liked the name because lack of accountability or perceived absence of accountability unfairly prejudiced the community’s appreciation of the Police Department’s dedicated employees. She felt the commission’s recommendations represented a form of oversight that was independent of the Police Department and responsive to the public through the normal channels of democratic government. She quoted from the author of Problem-Oriented Policing that “To the degree that we expend resources on strategies that don’t solve problems we will always have inadequate resources. We must move to smarter budgets and surgical strategies; rather than swat flies, we should install screens.” She said she viewed the proposal as installing a screen. She said the only issue that would go on the ballot would be the form of governance and the question of who the police auditor was accountable to. Ms. Ortiz echoed the thanks and praise from other councilors and also thanked the HRC, Whiteaker Community Council and the Police Department for their participation in and support of the process. She said she was not comfortable with the auditor reporting to the council but the community had asked for an external review board that was outside the purview of the City. She said it was owed to the community to have the complaint process be as transparent as possible and if the commission’s recommendation was to way to get there she would support it. Referring to Mr. Poling’s question about why go to the ballot if the council would then implement the system under the City Manager, Mr. Kelly said that the governance was not a foregone conclusion; while the commission’s report did indicate the City Manager approach was another option, he could not support it because of the fundamental issue of structural independence. He said there was a credibility problem that needed to be addressed and going with a system that was seen by the public as not fully independent would not solve it. He agreed with Ms. Solomon’s point that this was the first meeting at which the council had considered the commission’s report and recommendations, but noted the thoroughness of the commission’s work over the past year, including extensive public outreach. He said the charter amendment would be very brief and basically ask if the council should be allowed to appoint an auditor and a civilian review board. He characterized the amendment as a very minor change to the structure of government that did not undermine the city manager governance structure. Mr. Papé disagreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks. He said that having an auditor reporting to the council was a huge change in the governance model. He agreed with the need for an oversight board and the need for a charter amendment to establish one. He appreciated the commission’s perspective, but the council should take a broader view and ask whether it was willing to change the strong city manager form of government. He asked if the oversight board, in reviewing the auditor’s work, established the public credibility and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 7 Work Session transparency that seem to be at issue. Mr. Laue responded that was part of it, and the commission felt the oversight board had to be appointed by the council, but also felt the auditor needed on some level be accountable to the council. Mr. Brown noted that an option the commission considered for the oversight board that differed from the way other boards and commissions were appointed was for the mayor to appoint a broad section of the community as a nominating or screening committee, although that was not obligatory. He said the intent was to ensure that the oversight board was not politicized or constituent- based, but based purely on fairness. Mr. Papé observed that the previous ballot measure related to an oversight board and not an auditor. He cautioned the council to really consider whether it wanted to have employees and the associated supervisory responsibilities. He felt that transparency could be achieved through the city manager governance approach. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the council would only hire the auditor and the auditor would be responsible for hiring and supervising the other staff. She cited other communities that had an oversight entity that was answerable to the legislative body. In terms of whether the oversight entity should be administered by the legislative or administrative branch of government, she pointed out that there were three city managers in office during the time that officers Magana and Lara were committing crimes and the model could have been instituted at any time, but was not. Mr. Pryor appreciated Ms. Solomon’s concerns about the implications of a charter amendment and his instinct was to be reluctant to open a document as important as a charter. He said that action should be thoughtful and all aspects considered, but circumstances were extraordinary and it was important to resolve the issues of trust and accountability. He asked what discussions the commission had around the signifi- cantly different impacts in terms of the trust and accountability of the two governance models. He could see trust issues in both approaches and wanted to choose the one that would create the maximum amount of trust within the community. Mr. Laue said it was a difficult discussion for the commission and the biggest concern about council involvement in personnel matters related to making people’s job political; however, the commission ultimately decided that structural independence of the auditor’s office from the chief executive of the municipal organization was important. He said there were risks in both approaches and speculated that the commission’s decision was influenced by operating in the context of Magana/Lara and the abuse that occurred over a period of years. In response to a request from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman read the proposed ballot measure language: “Shall the Eugene Charter be amended to authorize the council to appoint a civilian review board and employ a professional police auditor?” Ms. Taylor noted that the language did not specify any details or obligate the council to specific actions; it asked permission from the voters to appoint and hire. She agreed that the public hearings mentioned by Ms. Solomon should happen at a later date, along with considerable discussion by the council and with the community. Ms. Ortiz said her support of the commission’s recommendation was not personal with respect to the City Manager’s role or the Police Department and was not about placing blame for problems. She said it was about putting in place a system that would ensure transparency in the complaint process so that her constituents could feel there was an unbiased person available to discuss their issues. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that changes to the structure of government as represented by the proposed model would take the agreement of the voters of the entire city, not just a decision by the council. With respect to thoughtful- ness, he said members of the Communities United for Better Policing organization had been working on the issue “for decades.” He agreed that there was the potential for politicizing the process but reported that putting oversight under the City Manager could be just as political as putting oversight under the City Council. He also noted that the council, as a multi-person body, provided checks and balances that a single individual could not. Mr. Papé clarified that he was in support of a ballot measure for the civilian review board, but his concern was with where the auditor should report. He said he was not yet convinced that the auditor should report to the council and more thought should be given to that matter. He noted that at least one of the cities listed by Ms. Bettman did not have a city manager form of government. He reminded the council that in 2001, the Charter Review Commission examined the current city manager form of government and affirmed that it was the appropriate governance structure for the community. He said the commission’s proposal would change the basic structure of the way the City operated and a 90-minute discussion was inadequate for that decision. Ms. Bettman said the council would not be making the decision about structural change; the voters would decide if they wanted a new way of overseeing police functions. She said that having the legislative branch oversee the auditor and civilian review board would provide the key piece of structural independence that was missing. She asserted that an auditor and a police chief who were in the same chain of command were unlikely to disagree. Mayor Piercy spoke of her great respect for the City Manager and his role. She said she had given considerable thought to both approaches and, while it would be simpler and less expensive to move forward with the city manager approach, she listened to the people whose advice was solicited and would support the structural independence of the auditor and review board in order to rebuild trust in the community. She would support an independent auditor and review board. Referring to Ms. Bettman’s remarks about three city managers failing to implement a model when problems were occurring, Mr. Poling noted that the council had not acted to direct the City Manager to bring forward a proposal either. He said there was an opportunity to vote to direct the City Manager to begin the process and address the concerns of people with complaints. He was concerned about the legal issues surrounding the council’s hiring of an auditor and subjecting an auditor to nine supervisors. He felt it would be a cleaner and quicker process to direct the City Manager to begin the process now. He asked if there had been any polling to determine whether a ballot measure was likely to pass. Mr. Laue said he was not aware of any poll. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a) a proposed Charter Amendment to authorize a review board consistent with the Police Commission proposal but not include in the proposed Charter Amendment the appointment of the auditor by the council, and b) a resolu- tion or ordinance calling an election on the Charter Amendment for a November 2005 election. Mr. Poling noted that if the motion passed it did not mean there would not be an auditor; it meant that the City Manager would move forward with hiring an auditor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion with a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council at its August 8, 2005, meeting a) a proposed Charter Amendment consistent with the Police Com- mission proposal, and b) a resolution or ordinance calling an election on the Charter Amendment for a November election. Mr. Kelly said the matter was one of fundamental governance of the police oversight and he felt the issues were clearly on the table and before the community. Ms. Bettman thought it was unfortunate that Mr. Poling placed a motion on the table that basically reflected the comments of one councilor regarding splitting the auditor and review board functions. She said the tremendous downside of splitting those two functions was that when the Police Commission deliberated, it assumed there was a vast universe of options available for the checks and balances of an oversight model and those assumptions were changed when the auditor governance was separated from the review board governance. She preferred to put nothing on the ballot rather than Mr. Poling’s motion and supported Mr. Kelly’s substitute motion because she believed that structural independence was the fundamental issue that needed to be taken to the community. Mr. Pryor said his first instinct was to support Mr. Poling’s recommendation, but the council needed to trust someone at this point. He said as much as he was reluctant to change the fundamental structure of Eugene’s government, taking everything into account he would support Mr. Kelly’s motion primarily because it was the recommendation of the Police Commission, which had done much work and study. He did not like being pushed to make decisions in 90 minutes but would support the commission’s recommendation. Mr. Papé did not feel the issue could be vetted in 90 minutes and preferred to have another work session. He said that the council lacked information on what other communities with a city manager form of government had the type of governance structure being proposed in Mr. Kelly’s motion. He said there were many questions that still needed to be answered. Responding to Ms. Bettman’s remark, Mr. Poling asserted that his motion was not based solely on one councilor’s comments; it reflected his general sense of the discussion up to that point. His intent was not to demean or slight the work of the commission as he understood how difficult its task was. He felt that placing the auditor under the City Manager was a more efficient and effective approach and spending $100,000 on an election for something the council already had the authority to do did not make sense. He said it was clear that all councilors were interested in implementing the auditor and civilian review board implemented quickly. He could not understand spending taxpayer money on an election which, if it failed, the council would implement anyway. Ms. Bettman stated she did not think the money was worth it without structural independence of the oversight entity because it would be redundant to existing management protocols. She pointed out that there was an external auditor report and recommendations for three years in a row and action was not taken until the Magana/Lara scandal. With respect to spending funds for an election, she said that the three times the City attempted to pass a bond levy to build a police station it had failed; it was now time to go back and make an investment in a “screen instead of a flyswatter.” She said that whether the auditor, support staff, and civilian review board were under the purview of the City Manager or the council, the cost would be the same; the only issue was the form of governance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Piercy acknowledged that everyone at the table appreciated the work of the commission and supported the concept of an auditor and external review board and only differed on the structural separation. The motion to amend with a substitute motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solo- mon and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. The amended motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. Mr. Poling moved to approve the Police Commission FY06 Work Plan as pro- posed. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2005 Page 11 Work Session