Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/10/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 10, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Betty Taylor participated by telephone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that Ms. Taylor would join the meeting by phone once the Items of Interest were completed. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy called for a moment of silence in honor of Veteran’s Day. She also acknowledged the recent passing of Randy Papé and offered the council’s deep condolences to his wife, children, and grandchildren. She noted that his brother, Gary, had been a member of the Eugene City Council from 1999 through 2006. She lauded Randy Papé for being a long-term community leader in Eugene and throughout the State, having served on the Transportation Commission and having been a passionate advocate for the University of Oregon, as well as a leader for important causes such as the United Way Campaign. Mayor Piercy thanked the public for a great voter turnout and especially for the support of the two city measures, the road bond and the charter amendment for the auditor’s office. Ms. Bettman also thanked the voters. She expressed congratulations to everyone who had just been elected or reelected. Mr. Zelenka echoed the congratulations. He was especially pleased that the road measure had passed, having worked on the transportation committee that helped to craft the language. He noted that the backlog of road repairs would still take 40 years to address. He also commended the hard work of City staff, the University of Oregon, and the Fairmount Neighbors, that brought about agreements to bring forward the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the arena project, which had been approved by the Hearings Official. He said it had been a good process. He noted that the Fairmount Neighbors planned to meet on November 12 at the Laurelwood Golf Course at 7:00 p.m. He added that he would participate in the City Council Work th Session on the 12 via telephone. Ms. Ortiz related that she had attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference in Cincinatti, Ohio, along with Acting in Charge (AIC) Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, and others. She thanked AIC Police Chief Pete Kerns for sending Sgt. Doug Mozan and another officer to the conference. She appreciated their willingness to take time away from their families to help make the community a better place. She noted that she intended to place a motion on the table later in the meeting regarding the Elmira Road/Maple Street improvement. She also wished to note that the State of Oregon Health Department planned to speak about cancer clusters related to the railroad pollution issue on November 19 at the Red Cross office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Additionally, Ms. Ortiz wanted to thank the voters. She had been inspired to see so many young people getting involved in the political process. She also stated that the Whiteaker Community Council and the Active Bethel Citizens were both having their monthly meetings on November 12. Mr. Clark extended his congratulations to everyone on their victories. He expressed appreciation for the Mayor’s statement about honoring our veterans. He noted that he had a good friend from college from North Bend who had been killed in Afghanistan a few weeks earlier. He also felt it was entirely fitting to take time to remember Randy Papé for his service to the state of Oregon. Mr. Clark recalled that he had supported the idea of the street bond but had thought the timing might not be the best for it. He was happy that the voters had supported it and that his concerns were unwarranted. He stated that he would make efforts to ensure the council was a good steward of those funds and that the money would be put to work in the ways that had been indicated up front. Mr. Poling wished the United States Marine Corps a happy birthday. He thought the corps was now 233 years old. He thanked all of the marines for their service to the country. He related that the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO) was exploring the option of opening up another visitor center in the Gateway/Beltline area, close to the freeway. He noted that he had been experiencing computer troubles; if anyone had not received a response from him it was likely that he had responded but it had not gone through. Mr. Poling said a letter to the editor would be published soon and was to be signed by the Mayor and councilors. He did not intend to sign it. He felt it would be hypocritical for him to thank the voters for measures that he did not support. He noted his intention to ensure the bond money was used as it was intended. In closing, he thanked the Mayor for recognizing veterans in honor of Veteran’s Day. Mr. Pryor expressed gratitude to the voters for entrusting the council with bond money. He felt it presented a unique opportunity to show that the council could take the money and use it wisely. He related that he had attended the HIV Alliance breakfast and it had been inspiring. He had also attended the Churchill Area Neighbors meeting, as well as a couple of meetings on Bailey Hill Road. He said the first of the latter meetings was a small gathering to talk about the changes to be made to the road. He had an opportunity to speak with the mother of the boy who had been killed there. He stated that this had been followed on November 7 with a press conference with Senator Ron Wyden, and some other people, to talk about larger transportation issues. He underscored that the Bailey Hill changes were on his mind and he wanted to see them through. He also wished to express appreciation for Randy Papé. He said he had worked with him a couple of times on school-related issues and had found him to be very thoughtful, deliberate, careful, and competent in what he did. He shared his gratitude to the veterans for the kinds of sacrifices they make in their service to the country. Ms. Solomon thanked everyone for their thoughtful and kind words about Randy Papé. She said he would be greatly missed. She also congratulated everyone who had been reelected. She clarified that the Active Bethel Citizens were holding a meeting of their steering committee later in the week. City Manager Jon Ruiz expressed his gratitude for all of the work that Executive Director of the Public Works Department, Kurt Corey, and his team had done to prepare for the ballot measure on road funding. He noted that he was a veteran and thanked everyone for acknowledging the veterans’ service. He added that while he appreciated the Marine Corps, he believed the Army was older. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy commented that Sen. Wyden’s press conference had also been in regard to the subsequent job creation which undertaking major transportation items would bring about. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Ortiz to place her motion on the table. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to continue to work with prop- erty owners affected by the Maple Street/Elmira Road project to attempt to further address their concerns, with the goal of maintaining the 2009 construction start. Ms. Ortiz underscored the need for Elmira Road to be updated. She said staff had done a lot of good work, but the property owners had concerns with the road designs and wanted the opportunity to meet further with Public Works staff to discuss them. She had received a petition with 200 signatures from area residents. Mr. Pryor appreciated all of the work that staff had done and that there was a construction schedule that needed to be met. He said his point was that he was not interested in creating boutique streets; there must be standards in place. He did not feel this meant the need to discuss the changes with the neighbors was negated. Ms. Bettman would not consider the streets “boutique;” she would consider them unique. She was inclined to support the motion. She had “briefly perused” the materials and noticed that one of the items that was listed to cut in order to come up with $4 million in cuts was the Crest Drive work with the neighborhood. She asked if they were taking one away and putting another one in its place. Mark Schoening, City Engineer for the Public Works Department, explained that the material in the council packet was illustrative of the things they might be able to afford. He said Crest Drive had a specific appropriation. He related that the Elmira Road project was being funded separate from the Road Fund because a portion of it would be assessed and the portion that was not assessed would come out of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). He assured Ms. Bettman that it would not impact the Crest Drive project. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board Report Ms. Taylor joined the meeting by telephone at 5:54 p.m. Dawn Reynolds, Interim Police Auditor, thanked the council for sending her and two members of the Civilian Review Board (CRB) to the NACOLE conference. She called it a very valuable experience. She also thanked Mr. Ruiz for encouraging Acting Police Chief Kerns to send two officers. She noted that Councilor Ortiz and Tamara Miller, chair for the Police Commission, had also gone to the conference. She said they had returned with a lot of good material. She noted that Vicki Cox had joined the Police Auditor’s office after having worked for the City Manager’s Office and expressed appreciation for her work. Ms. Reynolds reported that they had participated in a panel at the conference as one of the smallest cities and one of the few hybrid systems i.e. one with both an auditor and a CRB. She provided a power point presentation about the auditor’s office, its purpose, and its process. She stated that the bulk of complaints were service complaints, or complaints of rudeness or mishandling of property. She said no officers had MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 3 Work Session been arrested within Eugene for criminal misconduct. She said arrests for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) are the most common type of such arrests. She explained that under the Police Operations Manual (POM) officers were expected to obey all laws at all times. She noted that the most recent use of deadly force case had been reported exactly as it was supposed to be and she had been contacted accordingly. Ms. Reynolds related that there had been 241 calls for service on Halloween, more than double the amount from the previous year. She said of those calls only one had resulted in a complaint. Ms. Reynolds stated that transparency was the main issue and the CRB was an important component of this. She noted that the members would typically spend eight or nine hours preparing for their meetings and reviewing case information. She added that she had been very happy about the support the voters had indicated for the charter amendment. She stated that they enjoyed a good working relationship with police leadership at this point and she felt optimistic. She said she and Chief Kerns were mutually committed to making the system work. Ms. Reynolds said the CRB would be reviewing the charter, the ordinances, and the protocols, but not any cases, for its November meeting to see what they needed to do to make the system more effective. She noted that they had seen improvements in Internal Affairs (IA) investigations. The Board felt that questions asked in investigations were sometimes leading in nature and had given that input. She believed they were “well on their way” to meeting the goal of building trust. Mayor Piercy thanked the CRB for their work. She also acknowledged the good job the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had done on Halloween. She felt it had been a positive event. Ms. Ortiz thanked Ms. Reynolds and the CRB members for coming to the council work session. She related that there had been a homicide in her neighborhood involving a Latino victim. She said Chief Kerns had gone out of his way to reach out to the communities of color. He had come to the neighborhood to answer questions and this had meant a lot. Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Reynolds and the CRB. He said he appreciated all of the work they did. He expressed concern about the application of community values in regard to the use of force. He wanted to understand what the community values were and how they would be appropriately applied. He asked if investigating how they could “put a better finger on the pulse of community values” was part of the planning for the future. Ms. Reynolds responded that included in the council packets was an attitude and perception survey they were developing, with the assistance of David Murphy, a professor of criminal justice. She said they had discussed the form with Capt. Steve Swenson. She was confident they would be doing more to define community values. Mr. Clark understood that the purpose of the civilian oversight system included the reestablishment of trust but he had not seen that concept in the slide presentation. Ms. Reynolds replied that the oversight systems were built on the idea that those who had power needed some type of accountability and the trust the community had was earned. She said the public was looking for oversight and this was a two-way street. She was also working to improve the trust of the EPD so they would know that the oversight system was not biased against them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 4 Work Session In regard to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Reynolds said the EPD always sent an officer to the CRB meetings and they encouraged people to come to them and see how they functioned in order to see the seriousness and thoughtfulness they brought to their review. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to establish a council subcommittee to de- velop recommendations for the supervision and management of the Police Auditor and regu- lar communication and coordination of the Civilian Review Board. In regard to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Reynolds stated that she was an attorney with a background in criminal law, having served both as a prosecutor and a public defender. She had also worked in administrative law for many years. She planned to take an American Bar Association (ABA) sponsored Criminal Law Enforcement (CLE) course on excessive force. She said she had taken all of the courses available at the NACOLE conference necessary for certification and she also had been asked, and agreed to, serve on a professional standards committee for NACOLE. She related that she also was taking the Citizens Police Academy. She noted that two of the CRB members had completed the course and the rest planned to do so. She spoke glowingly of the training available at the EPD, and the classes in Ethics and Racial Profiling in particular. Ms. Solomon asked if there was any required training for the CRB. Ms. Reynolds responded that they were developing their work plan and NACOLE had an outline for training modules for the CRB. Ms. Solomon said, regarding the survey, she was curious as to how the information would be used that would be gained from the question that asked to what extent the different entities involved were supportive of the oversight system. She asked who would be taking the survey and how the information would be useful. Ms. Reynolds replied that the survey sought to establish a baseline because it was a new system. She said the survey had not been sent out to anyone at this point, but after it was approved she hoped the council would also respond to it. Ms. Solomon said she would be interested in how broadly the survey would be circulated. She wanted to know how both people who touched the system and people who did not touch the system felt about it. Mr. Zelenka thanked the CRB members for their time and service. He felt that the entire council should supervise the Police Auditor. He said he would like to see the subcommittee’s work completed by a date certain. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the other thing to consider in the motion would be the number of councilors on the subcommittee and who they would appoint to it. Ms. Bettman liked the motion because the charter mandated that the CRB oversaw and evaluated the work of the Police Auditor. She did not think it would be consistent with the charter if the CRB did not have a “major role” in the process. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to delineate that the subcommittee would be made up of four councilors. Mr. Pryor agreed that the intent of the motion was to have it consist of councilors only. He said he had envisioned three councilors serving on the subcommittee but he was amenable to having the number be four. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor suggested that the motion include language that indicated that the committee should come back to the council with a total review and approval as soon as possible. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the language indicate that it should be brought to the council before the first quarter ended. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to indicate that they would form a subcommittee that included councilors, the Civilian Review Board, and the Police Auditor. Mr. Pryor said this was not what he had in mind. He explained that he believed the subcommittee would be working with the CRB and Police Auditor but would not include them. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said he did not think that the motion sought to involve oversight and evaluation of the auditor, but rather to work with the CRB and to bring back a recommenda- tion to the council. He did not see this as being in violation of the charter. Mr. Clark asked whether the council would want to have input from police leadership involved in the process. Mr. Zelenka averred that the motion was just about supervision of the Police Auditor and the establishment of parameters on council communication and securities. He wanted to see the motion be a little stronger in terms of the role of the auditor and the CRB. Mr. Pryor did not see the process being successful without intimate involvement of the CRB. He had been trying to establish a line of authority. Mr. Zelenka suggested making the CRB members akin to ex officio members of the committee. Mr. Pryor was amenable to that. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She averred that the language in the charter was clear; the CRB had oversight over the Police Auditor. She thought to function and work in good faith with the CRB the committee should include the councilors appointed by the council, the CRB and the auditor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to read that it establish a council subcommittee of four councilors, appointed by the council, and including the Ci- vilian Review Board and the Police Auditor, to develop a recommendation on the supervi- sion and support of the Police Auditor and to establish parameters for communicating with the Civilian Review Board; the recommendations would be brought back to the City Coun- cil for review and approval. Mayor Piercy observed that the whole purpose of the motion was for a group of councilors to sit down with the CRB and the auditor and to come back with recommendations for the council. Mr. Pryor affirmed that this was the greater sense of the motions. He said the difference between the two motions had to do specifically with the issue of authority. He stressed that who the auditor worked for did MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 6 Work Session not mean the auditor did not have a relationship with the CRB or that the council did not have a relationship with the CRB or that the CRB should not be involved. He asked the City Attorney to clarify this. Mr. Lidz stated that the Police Auditor provided staff support for the CRB. He said the performance evaluation of the Police Auditor was within the purview of the council. Mr. Pryor felt that the person who was in charge of the performance evaluation of the employee needed to be the person who had the final authority to approve the ultimate recommendation. He stressed that the only difference between the two motions was that he wanted to leave the “path clear.” He did not want to leave the CRB out he just wanted to be clear about what the charter states in terms of supervision. Mr. Zelenka wanted to get vetting on all issues. He felt the amendment would mean the council would be asking the advice of the CRB and auditor in a more formal way. Ms. Ortiz hoped she would be appointed to the committee. She said she was inclusive in her deliberations and whether or not someone was able to vote, she would still take their thoughts forward. Ms. Reynolds reiterated that the CRB wanted communication and there needed to be a formalized arrangement for it. She thought a good team would include a discreet number of councilors, herself and the CRB. She supposed the amendment made it a little more clear, but she believed the intent had always been that they would work together to come up with a plan. Mr. Pryor thought the difference between the motion and the amendment was “infinitesimal” in terms of how it would work on the ground. He said everyone would be involved and everyone would be contributing regardless. He had wanted to draw a clear line between the authority of the council and the authority of the CRB; this was not an attempt to be exclusive. He averred that either way “the job would get done and done in a good way.” The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and it passed. The vote on the motion, as amended, passed 5:3: Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a reporting schedule by the Police Auditor to the council which would require a comprehensive annual written report, quar- terly updates presented to the full council at a council session; the annual report would be one of the quarterly updates written and presented to the council and a monthly written memorandum via the packet. Mr. Clark said he would like to see the report be specific to purpose, tools, and accomplishments. Ms. Bettman stated that there was standardized protocol in the reports in “the industry.” She assumed that this would be what the reports would contain. Ms. Reynolds thought the committee could provide a template for what the council wanted to see in reports. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 7 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Police Auditor to work with the Civilian Review Board to review current administrative procedures and protocols and to de- velop recommendations to accomplish the smooth functioning of the oversight system; these recommendations should be reviewed by the Chief of Police and any comments or concerns forwarded to the council along with the full document for review and action by the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Supervision and Related Issues Ms. Bettman felt the council had talked a “little bit” about supervision in the last section of the agenda and that would take care of a lot of the administrative issues and procedures that could crop up. She had a motion to place on the table in that regard. She averred that the structure for providing complaint oversight needed to be “personality proof.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back Ordinance No. 20374 to a public hearing on December 8, 2008, amended as follows: 1. The Police Auditor shall have exclusive authority to classify and route complaints, as well as to reclassify complaints if upon further investigation and additional in- formation, not available at the time of intake, the Auditor finds reclassification warranted. 2. Investigation of complaints shall commence upon classification of the complaint by the Police Auditor or as soon as possible thereafter, and no investigation shall occur before the Police Auditor has received, classified, and routed the complaint. 3. Upon the opening of a case file, and any time thereafter including closed cases, the Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to all records, evidence, documents, and all material the Police Auditor deems relevant to the complaint. 4. Administrative investigations shall proceed concurrently with any related criminal investigation; administrative investigations shall not be suspended, delayed, or postponed, while criminal proceedings involving complainants and witnesses are re- solved. 5. The Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to the nec- essary Eugene Police Department offices; the same as Internal Affairs staff. In ad- dition the Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to In- ternal Affairs PRO database, the same as the program coordinator and the Internal Affairs PRO supervisor. 6. The Police Auditor shall maintain strict name confidentiality wherever warranted or legally required. Upon classification of the complaint, the Police Chief may request the Police Auditor provide name confidentiality on a specific case, and the Police Auditor shall comply, but the identifications of any involved parties shall not be withheld from the Police Auditor. 7. There shall be an opportunity for appeal of the Police Chief’s adjudication to the City Manager for final determination (on the existing record). Appeal shall be available in cases of misconduct upon the request of the Police Auditor, the Civilian Review Board, or the complainant in cases where there is disagreement between the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Police Auditor and the Police Chief and/or the Civilian Review Board and the Po- lice Chief. 8. Risk claims shall be forwarded to Internal Affairs and the Police Auditor for classi- fication and processing as a complaint. 9. The Police Auditor shall review random selections of Service Complaints. 10. The definition for “police employee” shall include the Police Chief by adding “in- cluding the Chief who answers to the City Manager.” 11. The Police Auditor’s budget shall be sufficient to accomplish all of the duties and responsibilities of the office including sufficient and readily available funds to con- tract for external investigations. 12. Update Section 2.456(2)(c)(d) for consistency with the Charter. Ms. Bettman said one of the things that had been compromised when formulating the ordinance language was subpoena power because the council felt the model gave the auditor access to all of the information and the investigations and the ability to ensure an investigation was thorough. She averred that the issues that had cropped up over the past nine months had shown that there were lots of ways this could be frustrated. She asserted that the provisions in her motion would address those issues and give the Police Auditor and the CRB the “tools they need to do their job.” She felt the motion was “well within the threshold” of the authority granted by the Charter. Mr. Clark supported the idea of effective police oversight and he had maintained this position from the start. He observed that there had been challenges and “rough spots” in the last year. He wanted to see the City move forward on this, but he wanted to do so in a deliberative and thorough way. He felt there were a number of substantive issues contained in the motion and many raised valid points. He said he was under- prepared to make a decision on all of the proposed motion at the current meeting. He declared that if the council was willing to create committees to revisit issues that seemed to him to be much smaller than the compilation of issues in the motion, it would make sense not to rush something far-reaching through in a hurry. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the council constitute a committee to go through all of the components of the motion; a committee that would not be made up of only councilors, but would include many members of the community with many points of view, that would be directed to come back to the council with considered opinions on all of the motion. Ms. Taylor supported Ms. Bettman’s motion as proposed. She thought it was comprehensive and needed. Mr. Zelenka thought that the recent “65 percent yes vote” on amending the charter language indicated that there was support for strengthening the system, per Ms. Bettman’s motion. He felt it sent a “clear signal” to the City, to EPD, and to the auditor that the system needed to work. He averred that the changes would “get us there.” He said the changes should be vetted by the council, adding that the timing of this was important because Ms. Bettman’s history and knowledge on this issue could be used before she left the office of councilor at the end of the year. He believed that if the council passed the ordinance language at the present meeting, it could have a work session on it on November 17, schedule a public hearing for December 8, and then finalize it at the December 10 meeting. Mr. Pryor did not think they should make policy based on when someone was leaving office. He felt the work that Ms. Bettman had done on the ordinance had been “incredible” but he did not want to be rushed MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 9 Work Session into making changes as comprehensive as the ones set forth in her motion. He averred that a motion containing 12 items warranted a lot of discussion. He declared that to move straight to an ordinance and then have a public hearing was faster than his comfort level would allow. He said there was a lot in the ordinance that would likely be desirable; with the right conversation it would be appropriate to incorporate it. He underscored that it was not a matter of doing or not doing it, it was a matter of how they could do it well. He noted that they had just appointed a process using the auditor and the CRB to develop recommen- dations on procedures, protocols, and smooth functioning. He did not know to what degree this motion would jumpstart that process. He likened Ms. Bettman’s motion to “beating [the committee] to the punch.” Ms. Bettman averred that her motion had nothing to do with the council’s supervision of the auditor or the CRB; it had to do with access to information. She opined that they had to reinforce the policy issues like the voters had to reinforce the charter with the language change. She asserted that the issues had been raised before. She felt the proposed timeline provided an adequate opportunity to consider her motion and take public input. She said these were issues they would have to grapple with anyway and the council was the body to do so. Mayor Piercy commented that she would have a lot of trouble moving forward with the motion if there was not another work session. She was also concerned that these were issues that had been brought up and the City Manager was taking administrative steps to address some of them. She expressed concern about whether there were any legal issues. Mr. Lidz stated that the City Attorneys had only seen the motion for the first time earlier in the day. He said there was at least one component of the motion that would be subject to bargaining and there were others that would need clarification. He thought there were components of the motion that had implications for the criminal justice system, and in particular prosecutions. Ms. Solomon said she was stunned at the lack of transparency. She averred that Ms. Bettman was trying to advance all of the components of this motion “on a day’s notice” and with very little public involvement in order to meet “somebody’s personal timeline.” She had concerns about the management of confidential information coming out of the auditor’s office and wanted to discuss this. She also wanted to see more promotion of the unsubstantiated complaints that came out of that office. She agreed with Mr. Pryor, that this could be a meaningful discussion point for the auditor, the CRB, and the council committee. She supported Mr. Clark’s motion. Ms. Ortiz understood that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be “a lot to digest” for her peers who had not “been on this journey.” She said though she did not support several components of the motion she was willing to continue to work on them. She acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s work on the ordinance but wished to point out that the Police Commission had also put in many hours of work on it. Mr. Clark said his intention was to form a different committee than the one they had just formed in the earlier agenda item. He hoped to get wider community input on this. He observed that this issue and other issues had been pretty heated in the community and he wanted to find ways to work together. He stated that he wanted to have a better buy-in from the EPD and the opportunity to get a better legal opinion on several of the points of the motion. He underscored that this was not an issue of competence to deal with a number of difficult questions so much as it was an issue of doing the business of the City in a better way. He hoped they would be more deliberative and would involve more voices in the process rather than “ramming them through quickly.” He opined that this was moving too fast. He noted that the City Attorney had informed him that his motion lacked specificity with regard to the number of councilors the committee would include. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 10 Work Session He said he would leave that open to suggestion. He thought the first person to be appointed to the committee should be Ms. Bettman. Mr. Zelenka opposed Mr. Clark’s motion. He called Ms. Bettman’s original motion a “straw proposal put on the table that we get to whack at.” He did not believe it would change anything at this point. He averred that there would be ample opportunity to include the public’s comments on this, as well as comments from the EPD staff and the auditor. He opined that these were not new issues; they were thoughtful solutions to some of the things that had been “stumbling blocks” in front of the work the auditor needed to do. Mr. Pryor opposed both motions. He thought they could get more council support if they “just took the time” to get more support. He found it unfortunate that they ended up with four to four votes because the council wanted to get something done “now” rather than taking the time to garner more support for something. Mayor Piercy asked what it would take to “get people to a place where they had something they could agree on.” She asked if they should have another meeting. Ms. Bettman opined that tie votes were a “reality in the community.” She asserted that the community had divergent opinions, but a majority had supported the charter amendment. She felt they had taken bold steps and had made progress but now they needed to make updates and refinements to it. She declared that none of the components of her motion were far-reaching. She believed the timeline was adequate as was the notice for the public hearing. She said she had discussed the changes she was proposing “extensively” with the former Police Auditor and Ms. Reynolds, and had received “a little feedback” from the City Manager. Mr. Clark did not want to characterize the issue as support or lack of support for the Police Auditor’s office. He reiterated that he had been a consistent voice in support of effective oversight and had never voted otherwise. He observed that it was said that “half of the community thought the other half was crazy and they were right.” He wanted to have more voices at the table to go through the points of the motion because he wanted to have buy-in from “many other people.” Ms. Taylor considered Ms. Bettman’s motion to be routine. She felt it reinforced what the public wanted. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that in order to have a public hearing on December 8 the ordinance had to be final by November 21 and the title of the ordinance had to be final by November 19. He said they could have the work session on November 17, but if the council made significant changes it would be difficult for thst them to get an ordinance ready by the 19 and the 21. He added that if they had the public hearing on December 8 and then made significant changes it would be very unlikely that legal counsel would be able to turn the ordinance around so that the council could take action on it on December 10. He underscored that while it seemed like there was a lot of time, because of the charter requirement for a ten-day notice there really was not that much time. He stated that the council would need to give the attorneys and staff final direction by November 17. Ms. Bettman alleged that she had seen the council make major changes to ordinances after public hearings. She asked Mr. Klein to define ‘significant.’ Mr. Klein said if there was a lot of time to make the changes to the ordinance it was not a problem. He explained that if they needed to rewrite much of the ordinance between Monday night and Wednesday at noon, the council did not like to receive final ordinance language Wednesday at noon and would want it no MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 11 Work Session later than Tuesday night. He stated that this provided only eight hours to work through any of the issues that could be raised after the public hearing. He did not mean ‘significant’ in the legal sense; he meant ‘significant’ as in things that would cause them to do a major rewrite of the ordinance. Mr. Clark’s amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the schedule that they discussed: a work session on November 17 in lieu of the public hearing which currently had no items on the docket, a public hearing on December 8, and action to be taken on December 10. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon called this schedule impossible. She said it assumed there would be no changes made after the public hearing on December 8. Mr. Zelenka said it was his expectation that most of the substantive changes would be made on November 17. He thought what they would get out of the public hearing would only be “tweaking.” Mr. Clark ascertained that Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz would not be available on November 17. He pointed out that the council was also trying to hire a new Police Auditor and was undertaking several other things. He reiterated his feeling that they were pushing the motion through too quickly. The vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark vot- ing in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and it passed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that no action be taken at the council meetings scheduled for November 17 and 19 in reference to the Police Auditor ordinance. Mr. Poling stressed that all of the councilors should be available to consider “something of this magnitude.” He said they should not take action on November 17, given that two councilors would be absent. Ms. Bettman opined that the protocol had always been that the councilors at the meeting vote on whether or not to move something forward. She said she had attended by phone at times when she could not attend in person. She indicated her opposition to the motion. Mr. Poling stated that he would attend by telephone if that was possible for him to do, but in this case it was not. Mr. Clark urged the Mayor to give consideration to this. He called it “one of those opportunities to build greater consensus” on something they all essentially supported. He said there were many things in the motion that he could agree to, but he objected to the manner in which it was being undertaken. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in fa- vor and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and Mr. Poling’s motion to defer action until all councilors could be present failed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 12 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 13 Work Session