Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/17/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 17, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz (via telephone), Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Proposed Ordinance Modifying the Powers and Duties of the Police Auditor City Manager Jon Ruiz invited questions from the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein referred the council to the ordinance prepared by staff at the direction of the City Council, included in the meeting packet. Mayor Piercy reported that since Ms. Bettman put forth her proposed ordinance amendments, the council had heard from members of the Civilian Review Board and Police Commission expressing support for amending the ordinance but asking the council to slow down and institute an inclusive process. Mayor Piercy thought that the council could take the time to be inclusive and thoughtful. She supported the recently passed charter amendment, the Police Auditor’s Office, and the CRB and wanted to do all she could to ensure their success. Ms. Bettman asserted the provisions she presented to the council were strictly limited to implementing the charter revisions recently passed by the voters and addressed the authority and roles already provided via the charter, the council, and the voters to the Police Auditor’s Office. The council set a work session date and public hearing to allow for input on the provisions. She reiterated she had presented no new provisions. When the item was moved forward to a hearing, she had asked legal counsel to identify any legal issues, but the council did not “have that memo.” Ms. Bettman continued to support moving her proposals forward to a public hearing because they were limited to implementing the charter, were consistent with past processes, and there were “huge problems” with the motion she anticipated would be put before the body. She asserted that the motion had been “heavily lobbied for over the weekend,” precluding a public response. She assumed the motion had the votes to pass so the meeting was “pretty much just a staging.” Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein to state if in his opinion there were provisions in the existing ordinance inconsistent with the new charter language just approved by the voters. City Attorney Klein said the existing ordinance was not inconsistent with the charter. Ms. Bettman said that Mr. Klein prepared a memorandum after she put forth her original motion that indicated there would be unintended consequences to the mandatory nature of what she wanted to see. Those consequences were that the auditor would be required to participate in criminal investigations. At MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 1 Work Session that time, Mr. Klein interpreted the language to include both administrative and criminal complaint investigations. Now it appeared he was saying there was no inconsistency. Mr. Klein said that at the time he shared that earlier conclusion, there was no legislative history from the City Council. His memorandum was part of the Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein and Mr. Zelenka had a lengthy discussion of the conclusion in that memorandum. Both Ms. Bettman and Mr. Zelenka disagreed with the conclusion and denied that was what the proposed charter amendment would require. The council then voted to refer it to the voters. There was nothing in the ballot title that spoke to the fact that the charter amendment would require a change to the ordinance, and nothing in legislative history or intent outside that discussion. Because of that legislative history created by Mr. Zelenka and Ms Bettman in that council discussion, Mr. Klein concluded that the voters had not understood that the charter amendment would require any changes to the ordinance, and based on that, he believed a judge would agree that the charter amendment required no change. Ms. Bettman recalled that she had said at the time that the charter amendment mandated the council to give the Police Auditor the authority to monitor all investigations, but it did not require the auditor to be involved in every police investigation. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that in lieu of the public hearing scheduled for December 8, 2008, the City Council create a committee to review the issues raised by Councilor Bettman’s November 10 motion as well as other issues that the committee mem- bers believed should be reviewed, and to report back to the City Council by March 11, 2009, with recommendations on amendments to the Police Auditor ordinance. The commit- tee shall be composed of two members of the Civilian Review Board, to be designated by the Civilian Review Board, two members of the Police Commission, to be designated by the Police Commission, two individuals designated by the Citizens United for Better Policing, two members of the Eugene Police Employees Association, the Police Auditor, the Police Chief, the Mayor, two councilors appointed by the Mayor, and two community members at- large also appointed by the Mayor. Ms. Ortiz said she received immediate and ample feedback the day after the council took action and those she spoke to felt that the council was moving very quickly. She was concerned about the ramifications of the council’s action, leading her to think the process should be slowed down somewhat. She anticipated the result of her motion would be an inclusion conversation focused on how to make the program work. She wanted to get the needed work done thoughtfully and carefully with as much community input as possible. Ms. Taylor asserted that the feedback she heard questioned the point of a delay. She saw no point to it and thought the public hearing could serve as the needed public input. If the council learned something that gave it pause or made it decide to change something, it could pause or make the change. The public hearing did not end the process. She thought there was nothing unusual or surprising in Ms. Bettman’s proposal and said she did not know where the comments were coming from. She suggested that some people were asked to get in touch with the council, by whom and for what reason she did not know, but she thought the process should go forward as originally proposed. Mr. Clark acknowledged the concerns that Ms. Bettman had about the Police Auditor but suggested that there were some in the community who disagreed about her characterization of the problems and wanted time to understand them better. He supported the motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute the motion with a motion direct- ing the City Manager and Police Auditor to work with the Civilian Review Board to review MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 2 Work Session and recommend next steps for the program of external oversight of complaints involving po- lice employees, including but not limited to, authority for the Police Auditor to determine fi- nal adjudication, authority for the Police Auditor to recommend discipline, subpoena power for the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor, the Police Auditor’s role in training of police employees, the Civilian Review Board’s role in evaluating and overseeing the Po- lice Auditor, and the authority for the Police Auditor to participate in hiring processes for Eugene Police Department employees, including the Chief of Police. Ms. Bettman said that the hearing would have provided the needed opportunity for public input. She understood that people wanted to be involved in the next steps and she supported that. However, the provisions she put forward were not the next steps; instead, they implemented the steps that the council had already adopted as policy and that the electorate had “weighed in on twice.” She believed the use of the phrase “including but not limited to” allowed for the examination of other issues. She asserted that the provisions she put forth had overwhelming voter support and reflected and strengthened current authorities as well as “stop the hemorrhaging” occurring in the oversight system. Ms. Bettman said that the changes she proposed could have been made before the recent mayoral election, but councilors put it off because there were people running for office who felt it might have a negative impact on their elections. Now the council was looking at implementing provisions that “basically, just do what the ordinance already tells the City to do,” which was different from next steps. She maintained that her original provisions were not changes but reinforcements to what the City was already doing, and there was a public process involved. She said the motion would merely extend the delay in implementing the oversight process and “was just another orchestrated delay.” Her motion was consistent with the charter, and separated next steps from implementing existing roles and authorities already approved by the voters. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was committed to the substance of Ms. Bettman’s 12-part motion of November 10. He felt that it represented resolution of long-standing issues that the council had been grappling with for some time, and he considered that it largely addressed administrative issues and clarification of the “way things were supposed to be in the first place.” However, he had many contacts since the last meeting and thought the motion offered by Ms. Ortiz was probably preferable at this time as it was more along the lines of good governance, and he understood residents’ desire for more time. Mr. Pryor opposed Ms. Bettman’s substitute motion but thought many of the provisions she put forward would be at the top of the list of items for the committee to discuss. He said if he was a member of the stakeholder groups he would want to be in a setting to discuss the issues involved rather than be forced into a three-minute speech at a podium at a public hearing. In regard to Ms. Bettman’s assertion that the process was orchestrated, he said that he was not involved in orchestrating anything; he was interested in good governance and a process that worked. He believed in the Police Auditor, voted for the Police Auditor, and supported the Police Auditor. He thought Ms. Ortiz’s motion the best way to achieve what was desired: a collaborative, consensus-driven, easily-agreed-to outcome. Ms. Bettman said the voters wanted an independent complaint process. She objected to the inclusion of members of the Police Commission, asserting it was dominated by the Police Department and therefore not an independent body. She noted that the Communities United for Better Policing had refused to participate in the discussions surrounding the charter amendment, which made her question the entire list. She maintained that to have people who were not independent and who were heavily biased on a committee developing ordinance language would undermine the Police Auditor system and was not good governance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 3 Work Session She reiterated that the process was being orchestrated and the motion put forth by Mr. Pryor was a “thinly veiled delay” and postponement of getting the Police Auditor’s Office “up and fully functioning.” Speaking to comments by the City Manager and Police Chief that they supported the Police Auditor, Ms. Bettman said “thank you,” but recalled that a past manager and chief had been unwilling to enter into an administrative investigation at her behest for a variety of reasons, including the civil cases filed against the City, and the ultimate decision not to pursue such an investigation. She asserted her provisions were “personality proof” and gave the Police Auditor and CRB access to information, documents, and complaint investigations needed to do the job without having to go through third parties or suffer delays or obfuscation. She maintained that to oppose her motion was to overturn the will of the voters. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman. She said the provisions Ms. Bettman suggested were “almost like housekeeping” except that they strengthened and clarified the role of the Police Auditor. She said the Police Commission was intended to advise the council, not make decisions, and if it wanted to give the council advice, it could. She did not support the makeup of the committee, saying it did not make sense. Mr. Clark observed that a local newspaper, The Eugene Weekly, had characterized him as being against police oversight because he would not proceed in the way Ms. Bettman preferred. That was being reinforced by accusations that the council was overturning the will of the voters by refusing to proceed in a very specific way. Mr. Clark said that he had always supported effective police oversight as well as what he believed was good governance. His challenge in regard to the provisions put forth by Ms. Bettman was not in regard to their content but to the process. He looked forward to a broader public process. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks that the Police Commission was heavily dominated by the police, Mr. Clark noted Ms. Taylor’s membership on that group and asked if she felt dominated by the police. Mr. Clark believed the motion put forth by Mr. Pryor represented a fairer and more open process and more importantly, an opportunity for more community education and buy-in to the Police Auditor. Ms. Bettman said “all of a sudden” everyone was in favor of police oversight and committed to the auditor, but not all police oversight was created the same. She said that everyone could reach consensus if the City lowered the threshold and the result was no effective police oversight. She said that was practically the case now. The model in place was very modest because of all the stakeholder input, including that of the police union, the Police Department, and the Police Commission. She maintained that it was a one-sided watered down model because of all the public input. The only authority the auditor and CRB had was “shining a light” She termed it the epitome of irony that Ms. Ortiz was canceling the public hearing. She regretted terribly that the council was about to overturn the will of the voters. Ms. Bettman could have a recommendation for more time and in the meantime there would be compromised investigations. The substitute motion failed 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Zelenka liked the time certain element of the proposal. He was not interested in having the committee ask for more time as he thought it would have plenty of time. He believed that many residents, including him, were in favor of Ms. Bettman’s recommendations. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark, that the proposed committee first review Ms. Bettman’s motion of November 10. Mr. Zelenka offered a second friendly amendment, which was also accepted by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark, stipulating that the committee MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 4 Work Session must request council approval of any issues other than those referred to it by the council. Mr. Clark offered the caveat that any new or additional issues recommended by the council would be considered after its initial charge was complete. Mr. Zelenka offered a third friendly amendment that Ms. Bettman’s motion of November 17 would also be considered by the proposed amendment. He suggested that the committee provide for public input before they make a final recommendation. Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark had no objection to the proposed friendly amendments. Mr. Zelenka asked for more information about the organization “Citizens United for Better Policing.” He suggested alternatively, that two more citizen members be appointed in lieu of that organization’s represen- tatives. Ms. Ortiz expressed the hope the Mayor would select a wide range of representatives with an interest and some history around police issues. She believed there were many people the mayor could call on. She said the Citizens United for Better Policing had a long history of involvement in police issues and its members were willing to serve on the committee. Mr. Clark was willing to let the Mayor balance the committee appointments. Mr. Klein reviewed the revised motion for the benefit of Ms. Ortiz (italicized text added, struck text deleted). Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that in lieu of the public hearing scheduled for December 8, 2008, the City Council create a committee to first review the issues raised by Councilor Bett- man’s November 10 and November 17 motions as well as, then other issues if time permits that the committee members believed should be reviewed, obtain public input, and to then report back to the City Council by March 11, 2009. . .” Ms. Bettman called the motion an extreme example of bad governance. She had witnessed many things she found extremely objectionable but “this really takes the cake.” She said Ms. Ortiz’s “exclusive stakeholder group” was a committee to “second-guess” what the voters overwhelming supported, and replaced what was a standard procedure for amending the code with a “hodge-podge” of a process just so “you can delay the implementation of the oversight system.” She called it a “tragic outcome of what been a long hard process with immense amounts of stakeholder input.” She pointed out that the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) and the Interfaith Community were not included on the list of stakeholders, but had been involved “all along.” She said the Police Commission had spent months researching the complex topic of police oversight, and now the council proposed to “toss the subject” to a group of people handpicked by Ms. Ortiz and Mayor Piercy. She termed the proposed committee “an insider operation” and maintained that it “was a very sad day.” She asserted that the council was “thwarting the will of the voters.” Mr. Pryor indicated his disagreement with Ms. Bettman’s remarks. Ms. Taylor said she had no idea what was behind the motion on the table and asked what specific objections there were to Ms. Bettman’s November 10 motion. She could not imagine there was anything there to object to. She saw no purpose to another committee and called the motion on the table a delaying tactic and big waste of time. Ms. Taylor maintained that the motion represented an obstacle to the work of the Police Auditor. She did not understand the origins of the motion, now it had been constituted, or the objections to the motion passed the previous week. She questioned why a public hearing was not acceptable when it was what the council usually did. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Piercy regretted the characterizations of intention directed at the motion. She believed that those who supported the approach proposed in the motion were concerned about the process and not about undermining the Police Auditor. She thought the issues Ms. Bettman brought up were worth discussion; however, the council heard from many people who wanted the council to slow down and allow a broader community discussion to take place in a timely way. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the chief and auditor were working well together at the current time, and further pointed out that the committee’s recommendation would come to the council for discussion and approval. Ms. Bettman said that if the issue was “all about the process,” perhaps the committee should be charged to work on the City’s smoking ordinance, as it was her understanding that Mr. Pryor was working “behind the scenes” with the Planning and Development Department to make changes to the smoking ordinance, which had an incredible amount of public input. She asked why that issue was not going to some committee for recommendations about changes to the ordinance, and asked Mr. Pryor why he was “working behind the scenes” to change that ordinance. She maintained that was only one inconsistency in regard to process and said she could offer others. Mr. Pryor indicated that there was no truth to Ms. Bettman’s remarks and suggested that she communicate with him first before leveling such charges. Ms. Bettman maintained that the recent election resulted in changes to the charter that required updates to the Police Auditor ordinance be implemented. Ms. Bettman said that the charter had been characterized to the council for as long as she had been engaged in City issues as being “set in stone.” It was strictly interpreted by legal counsel and the City administration when it came to the roles of the manager and the prohibitions placed on the council in terms of the manager’s authorities. She suggested that Mr. Klein was saying that the council could make the choice not to change the implementing ordinance and not to adhere to the charter. If that was the case, she asked why the council could not pass an ordinance that gave it authority to fire the executive managers. Mr. Klein indicated he had nothing to add to what he had already said in regard to the disagreement between himself and Ms. Bettman about what the charter meant. He could not respond to her question because it encompassed many different topics and he was not prepared to respond to all the different topics. Ms. Bettman asked if the council could pass a motion to create an ordinance that gave it the authority to hire and fire the executive managers. Mr. Klein said no. Ms. Bettman asked why that was not within the purview of the council. Mr. Klein indicated that unless otherwise directed by the council, he would not attempt to address questions unrelated to this agenda topic. Ms. Bettman maintained that “this is all about the charter; it is related.” She said she was waiting for an answer to her question. Mr. Klein had nothing to add to what he already said. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion as amended because it opened the subject to a broader community discussion of serious issues, and the issues raised by Ms. Bettman would be the first subject of discussion. He pointed out that many of the issues in Ms. Bettman’s November 10 motion in regard to access and to information and procedure had been addressed by City Manager Ruiz in the memorandum he sent to Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns and the auditor. He looked forward to the results of the committee’s discussion. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 17, 2008 Page 7 Work Session