Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/25/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 25, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Council President Chris Pryor called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy was attending a utility conference and speaking on Eugene’s pursuit of sustainability. A. WORK SESSION: Feral Cats City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced Mary Walston, City Manager’s Office, to discuss the topic of feral cats. Ms. Walston stated that the work session was held at the request of Ms. Solomon because of the large number of feral cats in her ward and the problems they were causing. She said there were requests to include other problem animals, such as raccoons and nutria, but these animals fall under the jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This could be the topic of another work session. Also, the direction to work with Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) limited this conversation to cats. She said that feral cats were defined as the offspring of abandoned cats and typically formed colonies. She said colonies continued to breed and the cats frequently had diseases that could spread to household pets. She said that LCAS had previously accepted feral cats and euthanized them, but was now working with community groups to develop a trap, neuter and return (TNR) program. She said the City operated a self-supporting spay/neuter clinic, but did not handle feral cats. She said cats had no legal status as there was no licensing program in the City or the County. She said some people had objections to a cat licensing program, or a microchip program, but there were examples of successful programs in other communities. She said the agenda packet contained information on several approaches to dealing with the problem of feral cats. Ms. Solomon said many of her constituents were concerned with the problem of feral cats. She struggled to distinguish between a feral cat and a neighbor’s cat that was a nuisance. She agreed that the community would not accept euthanizing as a solution and appreciated the information about options. She felt the TNR program had promise. Ms. Walston said she understood that LCAS was working with local veterinarians who were willing to donate their services and Greenhill Humane Society had been asked about using its spay/neuter surgery space. She introduced the Assistant Director of Lane County Department of Health and Human Services, Karen Gaffney, who was managing LCAS and available to answer questions. Ms. Solomon said she would support the City’s participation in a program but did not want the City to be the sole funding source. She wanted the City’s contribution to result in a specific number of cats that had been spayed or neutered. Regarding the 3,500 surgeries performed by the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic last year, she asked if those cats were all from Eugene. Ms. Walston said that was her understanding, but she would research the question. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked if someone could take their neighbor’s cat in to be spayed or neutered at the City’s clinic. Ms. Walston said a person would need to demonstrate ownership of the animal. Ms. Ortiz was in favor of a TNR program. She asked if live traps could be made available to the public. She said that feral cats presented health hazards to other animals and she would support the suggested motion. Mr. Zelenka objected to euthanizing feral cats. He was interested in a TNR program that was a cooperative effort among jurisdictions and jointly funded. He questioned opposition to microchips, which helped reunite a pet and owner. He was interested in additional information about a cat licensing program. Ms. Walston said a cat licensing program was difficult to enforce and many cats did not wear collars. She said in the City of Eugene the compliance rate for dog licensing was about 40 percent and in the County was 30 percent. She would check on cat licensing programs in other jurisdictions. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gaffney said the TNR program had existed for a long time in the community through the efforts of volunteers who worked independently to trap cats and return them. She said the County hoped to develop a larger, systemized program that would utilize volunteer veterinari- ans to perform surgeries, which would greatly reduce costs. She hoped to spay/neuter 20 cats per day when the program was in operation. The Greenhill facility would be used to perform surgeries and volunteers would assist people to trap and transport animals. She said there was a large supply of live traps available. Mr. Zelenka asked if the mobile clinic that used to visit the area and perform surgeries on feral cats still existed. Ms. Gaffney said it did, but no longer visited Lane County. She was pleased to hear that the City of Eugene was interested in participating in the TNR program. Ms. Taylor said that people might be willing to accept a cat licensing program if the revenue was used to support a spay and neuter clinic for feral and domestic cats. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a report by the end of the calendar year with recommendations and resource needs to assist local animal welfare groups to address the issue of feral cats. Ms. Solomon asked if LCAS had all of the components in place to implement a TNR program. Ms. Gaffney said it did and the new and exciting component was volunteer veterinarians to perform surgeries. She hoped to start operations on September 7, 2008. Ms. Solomon commented that the TNR program was necessary because of irresponsible pet owners and it was unfair for those owners to pass the burden of addressing the problem to the rest of the community. She hoped that people would accept responsibility when they got a pet. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation Process Alana Holmes, Human Resources, said in response to the council’s direction, recommended criteria for evaluating the Police Auditor had been developed in conjunction with the Civilian Review Board (CRB). She said one set of criteria would be used by the CRB in its evaluation of the Police Auditor and a separate, similar set was recommended for the council’s use. Police Auditor Chris Beamud said the CRB had approved the criteria and felt it was an adequate instrument for reporting to the council pursuant to the CRB’s evaluation responsibilities. Ms. Ortiz asked if the council would receive feedback from complainants in order to complete evaluation element D related to complaint intake and adjudication. Ms. Beamud said the system was currently informal, but eventually the council would receive that information. She said the sample size of complainants at this point was too small to be statistically valid. Ms. Ortiz felt that was an essential component of the evaluation in order for the council to determine if the Police Auditor was meeting the community’s expectations. Mr. Clark asked if there was a comprehensive job description for the Police Auditor beyond what was included in the ordinance. Ms. Holmes said the City had information that was developed for the recruitment brochure when Ms. Beamud was hired; that could be transposed into a more formal position description. Mr. Clark asked if the council had clearly formalized its expectations of the Police Auditor, other than in the recruitment materials. Ms. Holmes said that nothing had been formalized beyond those materials. Ms. Taylor stated that she would need more information about the Police Auditor’s activities before she would be able to complete the evaluation form. She suggested regular reports from the Police Auditor to keep the council informed. Mr. Poling agreed with the need for more feedback from complainants and that there should be a mechanism for everyone who used the system to report on their experience with it. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were formal position descriptions for the City Manager and municipal judges. Ms. Holmes said the City Manager position was defined in recruitment materials and the employment contract, the same as for the Police Auditor. She said position descriptions did not exist for municipal judges. Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy of the employment contract and recruitment brochure for the Police Auditor. He noted that Ms. Beamud’s second employment anniversary was in October and hoped that an evaluation process could be completed by then. He wanted to see the CRB evaluation before the council conducted its evaluation and agreed with other councilors that more feedback from complainants was needed in order to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the complaint intake and adjudication process. Ms. Beamud said she was developing a report for the quarter ending March 3, 2008, which incorporated statistics on the number and nature of complaints her office had received. She had not conducted a formal survey to obtain feedback from complainants, but could do that. She said there had been about 200 complaints filed since October 1, 2007. Ms. Solomon observed that 200 complaints should be sufficient for a statistically relevant evaluation. She regarded complainants as customers and wanted to know how they felt about their experience with the Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Auditor. She said it was essential to obtain that information in order for the council to conduct its evaluation of the Police Auditor and program. She was interested in seeing a draft survey instrument to obtain customer feedback. Ms. Bettman cautioned that complainants’ feedback would be based on their entire experience, including things over which the auditor had no control that could influence their perceptions of the system. She said a survey instrument should identify which aspects of the system were being evaluated. She said if the council wanted a formal job description for the Police Auditor, it should also have one for the City Manager. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of obtaining customer feedback, but pointed out that the information would be self- directed as people could choose whether or not to respond and that would have an influence on the overall results. He said the information would be useful, but should be considered in that context. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the performance criteria for the Police Auditor as recommended by the Civilian Review Board. Ms. Ortiz said there were certain organizational performance expectations that each City employee had to meet in addition to specific job duties. She asked if there were customer feedback mechanisms for all the services provided by the City. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones replied that a feedback mechanism existed for most of the services provided directly to the public. Ms. Ortiz said she was interested in feedback that simply indicated whether a person’s experience with the Police Auditor’s office had been positive or negative with respect to courteous and helpful treatment, not necessarily their attitude about the final outcome, as that was not something Ms. Beamud could control. Mr. Zelenka clarified that he would support a customer survey to determine how people felt about the police auditor system, but it should not be included in an evaluation of Ms. Beamud’s job performance. He asked how difficult it would be to develop position descriptions for the Police Auditor and City Manager, and how useful that would be to the council. Ms. Holmes said she could develop position descriptions from the information in the recruitment brochures. She said the value to the council could be removing the extraneous information from the recruitment materials and streamlining job requirements into a more useful format; that could be done if the council felt that would be helpful to their evaluation efforts. Mr. Clark asked if the intent of the motion was to make elements A through F the only criteria upon which the Police Auditor’s performance would be evaluated, or could other elements be added at a later point in the process. Ms. Holmes said the motion would establish the format of the evaluation document, but not limit the council’s ability to add comments. She noted the council had also discussed obtaining feedback from interested community groups as part of the evaluation process. Mr. Clark said his concern was to avoid limiting the scope of the council’s evaluation of the position and program structure. He said the evaluation did not address at this point some of the duties described in the ordinance. He also recognized that there were ongoing discussions and negotiations about the auditor’s involvement in some aspects of the investigative process. Mr. Pryor commented that councilors would have to conduct their evaluations based on the criteria to which the council had agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Holmes stressed the importance of the Police Auditor being aware of the council’s expectations and what she would be held accountable for. She said there were a number of job requirements in the ordinance and those could also be included in the evaluation. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to include in the evaluation any other duties included in the ordinance that were not explicit in the evaluation form. Mr. Clark explained that his intent was to assure the council was not limited in its ability to conduct a complete and thorough review. He said the CRB recommendations were good, but not complete. He was not interested in imposing any expectations that were not part of the ordinance. Ms. Bettman said she did not understand the amendment as this or any future council could do exactly what it had a majority to do. She said the council could bring anything it wished forward in an evaluation. She felt the recommended criteria covered every aspect of the auditor’s role and authority. Her concern was how to evaluate the program and cooperation between it and other departments. She directed Mr. Clark’s attention to the Police Commission report, which described the police auditor model. She saw consistency between the methodologies used to evaluate the Police Auditor and municipal judges. Mr. Pryor said he could support the amendment, but it raised the larger issue of the difficulty of being a part- time supervisor for a full-time employee and trying to develop a mechanism where casual supervision could be translated into a meaningful evaluation. He said as council president, he probably had the most frequent contact with Ms. Beamud, but did not feel he was able to provide the level of supervision she deserved. He was not certain that adding more criteria would be helpful, given the minimum amount of supervision the council provided. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. His intent was to include some missing items in the evaluation form, such as customer feedback, accuracy of complaint classification, review of investigations and adjudica- tion recommendations. Mr. Zelenka remarked that an evaluation process should incorporate multiple inputs, one of which was the evaluation form. He said the elements in the form were guidelines to trigger the council’s thinking on that topic area and the form should be regarded as a tool in the evaluation process, but did not limit the scope of the council’s review. Ms. Taylor felt the evaluation form was already complete and the amendment unnecessary. She said the problem was obtaining the knowledge necessary to use the form effectively. She wanted frequent reports and conversations with the Police Auditor as it was the responsibility of the entire council to provide supervision. Ms. Bettman stated that the Police Auditor was not an employee meant to be micromanaged; the level of supervision should be comparable to that of the council’s other employees. She said the position was granted considerable autonomy in carrying out the provisions in the ordinance. She would not support the amendment after hearing comments from Mr. Clark and Mr. Pryor that attempted to resurrect issues already settled by the voters. She said the evaluation form was a tool and part of a larger evaluation predicated on the success of processing complaints. She hoped that someone would offer a friendly amendment to seek feedback from the Police Auditor’s employees. Mr. Zelenka stated that discussion of the role of the Police Auditor should be based on a job description, which could be used as an evaluation tool. He did not see the need for the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 5 Work Session City Attorney Glenn Klein commented that that he was not certain how the recommended evaluation form would be revised based on the language of Mr. Clark’s amendment. He said if the amendment was passed, more discussion by the council would be required to clarify the specific revisions. He said Mr. Clark’s concern that the main motion as stated would exclude items in the ordinance from the council’s evaluation could be addressed by specifying that the council was adopting the CRB-recommended forms, not the criteria. That would allow the council to discuss the items in the ordinance within the context of the evaluation forms. Mr. Clark changed his motion to a friendly amendment to the main motion by insert- ing the word “tool” following “performance criteria.” Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman restated her motion as amended: I move to adopt the recommended per- formance criteria tool for the Police Auditor as recommended by the CRB. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase: including the institution of a process requesting feedback from complainants. Mr. Poling felt that a process could be developed that would obtain information from complainants about specific aspects of the Police Auditor’s performance and not the entire process. He felt the more information the council had, the better it would be able to fairly evaluate Ms. Beamud’s performance. Mr. Zelenka asked if Mr. Poling’s intent was to add the survey as a formal part of the evaluation. Mr. Poling said he wanted to assure that there was a process for obtaining information from complainants and providing it to the council to be considered during the evaluation. Mr. Zelenka cautioned that it was inappropriate to use a complainant feedback survey in the context of an evaluation because it would include feedback from people who were angry about the entire process. He said the survey process was unscientific and tainted by self-selection and the outcome of the process. Ms. Ortiz said she would prefer to amend the motion to assure the evaluation process was not limited to the forms. Her concern with Mr. Poling’s amendment was that complainants could not be required to provide feedback and if only a few responded, she was not certain how that would help the council provide further direction to Ms. Beamud, although she would want to see it. She did not want the council to begin micro- managing its employees. Ms. Bettman asserted that the feedback form was not a formal survey and should not be part of a formal evaluation process. She said the Police Auditor provided quarterly reports to the council, which would include complainant feedback, and she would not support the amendment. Mr. Pryor said his concern was with being informative, rather than directive. He agreed there were other elements that the council needed to consider in its evaluation, but it should be explicit about what those were so Ms. Beamud would clearly understand the council’s expectations. He felt the survey could inform the evaluation, but should not be a formal part of it. He thought the council needed further discussion to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation process. Mr. Clark said the council’s job was to provide clarity to Ms. Beamud in terms of expectations and feedback. He agreed that the council should create a more thorough job description for the Police Auditor to avoid future MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 6 Work Session misunderstandings about expectations. He said the Police Auditor’s position was established to provide trust within the community and while the survey was not scientific, it would help the council understand the extent to which that was happening. He said the feedback might be more reflective of the overall system, but could also provide pertinent information about Ms. Beamud’s performance that the council should have. Mr. Zelenka said he did not want to support the amendment because it overlapped with programmatic evaluation. He suggested that Mr. Poling withdraw his motion and councilors could indicate if they agreed that the evaluation process would consider, but not be limited to, the performance criteria tool recommended by the CRB, a self-evaluation from Ms. Beamud, the council’s experience of the auditor’s work over the past year, a survey of Police Auditor employees, the job description to be developed, the complainant survey and other inputs. He said the list was inclusive, not exclusive. Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. Mr. Pryor determined that with the exception of Ms. Bettman, councilors were in agreement with Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion. Ms. Bettman hoped that developing a job description for the Police Auditor was not an attempt to rewrite the role and authorities granted to the auditor via the ordinance, which she felt constituted a definitive job description. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the evaluation the CRB’s evaluation form from employees of the Police Auditor. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Zelenka explained he voted against the motion because that item was included in the list of items he had suggested and to which other councilors had agreed. He would support the main motion, augmented with councilors’ concurrence on the other elements he had suggested. Ms. Ortiz said she did not support the motion because her expectation was that Ms. Holmes would develop materials for the council based on what was already in the ordinance. She would support doing the same thing for the City Manager. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 7 Work Session