Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/20/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 20, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Piercy noted that although more information had been expected to be presented regarding the hiring of the new police auditor, council and staff were still performing due diligence and had no new information to present. A. WORK SESSION – Reconsideration of Resolution 4976 Authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to Secure a Borrowing by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to remove Resolution 4976 from the table for the purposes of further discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Attorney Glen Klein noted that the motion had been automatically removed from the table once the work session had been convened. Mayor Piercy recalled that the motion regarding the resolution had been tabled at the previous work session meeting for the purposes of providing LCOG the opportunity to discuss the matter with those City Councilors who were initially in opposition to the resolution. Mayor Piercy requested that City Manager Jon Ruiz and his staff re-state their positions of support for Resolution 4976 for the benefit of the public and to explain in more detail why it was a risk for the City that was worth taking. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge noted that Eugene was a member agency of LCOG, which had received similar assistance from other members before. She believed that the risk to the City was reasonable given the proposed financing mechanism, and suggested it was unlikely that a government would default on the debt. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a request from Mayor Piercy for an explanation of the repayment contingencies under the resolution, reported that LCOG would place one year’s worth of loan payments into a reserve fund that could be drawn on in the event that LCOG missed a payment. She further noted that, when depleted, the reserve fund would be replenished by the City as a loan that would need to be repaid by LCOG with interest. Ms. Cutsogeorge also noted that, in a worst-case scenario, the City would also maintain a lien position on the LCOG building and its corresponding assets. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Ruiz observed that the City of Eugene had a longstanding and generally positive relationship with LCOG. His recommendation was based on his belief that City staff understood the risk involved and the risk was minimal for the reasons stated by Ms. Cutsogeorge. He thought the loan was a means of maintaining an important collaborative partnership at low risk. Mr. Clark indicated that while he had initially been opposed to Resolution 4976, recent conversations with LCOG Executive Director George Kloeppel had convinced him that the loan money would be spent effectively and productively. He said that the risk involved in the contingent loan agreement appeared small and given that the organization was located in downtown Eugene, it made some sense for the City of Eugene to take the risk. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, stated that the City's annual dues for its LCOG membership were approximately $70,000 plus a number of corresponding operational costs for phones, IT support and planning services. Ms. Taylor felt that the City should encourage LCOG to keep its operations in the downtown area. The motion to adopt Resolution 4976 passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Brown voting in opposition. Ms. Piercy hoped that the LCOG Board of Directors would provide some form of acknowledgement of its partnerships and support from the City of Eugene. B. WORK SESSION – Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) Next Steps Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided a brief overview of the history, origins and primary goals of the PAORC and briefed the council on the most recent developments from the March 9, and April 20, 2009, PAORC meetings. Ms. Medary noted that the six outstanding issues from the most recent PAORC meetings concerned processes for appealing the Police Chief's adjudication authority of the Police Auditor to recommend discipline, subpoena power for the Civilian Review Board (CRB) and the Police Auditor, the Police auditor's role in the training of police employees, the CRB's role in the evaluation and oversight of the auditor, and the auditor's position in Eugene Police Department (EPD) hiring practices including that of the Chief of Police. Ms. Medary noted that the PAORC had recommended that the council discuss the supervision of the Police Auditor and consider using the council officers as opposed to the full council. She noted that those topics were scheduled to be discussed at the next City Council work session meeting. Ms. Medary restated the council options from the agenda item summary materials for the benefit of the council and further noted that the City Manager's recommendation to revise the ordinance language focused upon proposed revisions to those elements of the charter that addressed concurrency and complaints against the Chief of Police. Ms. Ortiz advocated for a broader discussion regarding both roles of the Police Auditor in the oversight process and the budgetary issues surrounding the Police Auditor's office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor felt that while it might duplicate the efforts of the PAORC, it might be necessary for the council to go over some of the outstanding issues again to make sure that all council members had been fully informed on the issues before voting on any action items. Ms. Piercy commented that she, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Zelenka had participated in the PAORC process and had supported the revisions to the ordinance. Mr. Poling supported the City Manager's recommendations but felt it might be advisable to hold off on voting on the council option until they were able to get the input of the new Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka was disappointed that the police union representatives had ultimately chosen not to participate in the PAORC process and noted he supported the recommendations of the PAORC. He hoped that the outstanding issues surrounding complaints against the chief, concurrency, and budgetary issues would be resolved in short order. He supported the idea that any administrative investigations with respect to the police oversight be carried out concurrently with criminal investigations. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling's statement that it might be beneficial to postpone action on the ordinance revisions until the new Police Auditor had a chance to provide a different perspective on the matter. He further noted that the chief's minority report regarding the PAORC's work might need to be considered more closely. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor's earlier comments and hoped that the remaining City Council members would have a chance to review each of the items that had been addressed during the PAORC process. Ms. Medary, in response to a request from Ms. Piercy, briefly discussed the nature of the proposed ordinance revisions surrounding the Police Auditor's budget process. She noted that the proposed revision to Section 2.450(5) of the Eugene Code had been unanimously agreed on by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that recent requests from interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds for increases to the auditor's budget indicated that it might be necessary to have a much more detailed discussion on the ordinance revisions that pertained to the auditor's budget. Ms. Medary noted that the ordinance revisions to Section 2.450(6) of the Code regarding the Police Auditor's level of access to the EPD's internal affairs resources had also been unanimously agreed upon by the PAORC. Ms. Ortiz noted that the level of access indicated by the revision would not preclude considerate use of the internal affairs resources and hoped that the auditor would continue to set up appointments to use those resources and materials. Ms. Medary briefly described the nature of the expanded definitions of the office of the Police Auditor as described in Section 2.452 as well as the revised language requiring the auditor to review a random selection of service complaints. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon, commenting with respect to the proposed revisions to Section 2.456(c), asked how a copy of a liability claim for damages against the EPD would automatically be considered a complaint subject to the Police Auditor process. Ms. Medary replied that such risk management processes were already in place and that the revision was meant to codify those processes. Ms. Medary briefly described the remaining proposed revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein noted earlier comments from Ms. Ortiz regarding the budget increases requested by interim auditor Dawn Reynolds and noted that any such requests would not be subject to any of the proposed ordinance revisions being currently discussed because they would not take effect until the following year. Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Ortiz, briefly explained the language of the proposed amendment to Section 2.450(5) and noted that the proposed revision had no real effect on the processes of the City Council or Budget Committee. Mr. Clark worried that the proposed revisions to Section 2.450(5) might allow the City Manager to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the Police Auditor with respect to the budgets provided for the Police Auditor's office. Mr. Klein, responding to a request from Ms. Piercy, confirmed that language similar to the proposed ordinance revisions regarding the Police Auditor's budget was already part of the Eugene City Code. Mr. Zelenka suggested that it might be advisable to have the Police Auditor's budget be a line item in the City's total budget because it would allow the public to clearly identify how the Police Auditor's office was funded separate from the EPD. Ms. Solomon commented that it might be difficult to determine what an appropriate level of funding would be for the auditor to perform their duties as described in the Code and hoped that reasonable limits might be applied with respect to the Police Auditor's budget. Ms. Piercy offered that the budgets for the Police Auditor's office were generally the direct result of the auditor's own practices and experience. City Manager Jon Ruiz noted that recent increases to the Police Auditor's budget had been provided for additional investigation resources as well as additional compensation for the deputy auditor position. Mr. Zelenka maintained that a Police Auditor budget that was sufficient for external investigations as stated in the proposed ordinance revisions would be affected by the type and number of investigations performed by the auditor's office. Mr. Clark, speaking with regard to the proposed revisions to Section 2.454(5), asked how the PAORC had discussed the nature of complaints against the Chief of Police and how such complaints might work with potential conflicts of interest between administrative supervisors from different areas of the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had been fully cognizant of the dual role that was served by the Chief of Police and how his or her duties as a public safety officer might conflict with his or her duties as the administrative head of a City division. He noted that allegations against City administrators were handled differently than allegations and complaints against sworn police officers. Mr. Pryor noted that the PAORC had reviewed several of the inconsistencies related to allegations against the Chief of Police and found that the Police Auditor and the City Manager would ultimately be the principal entities responsible for investigating and reviewing allegations against the Chief of Police. Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC had recommended that any complaints against the chief be handled by the Police Auditor as a service complaint rather than immediately referring allegations against the chief to the City Manager as described in the proposed ordinance revisions. Mr. Klein added that the proposed ordinance revisions did include language as part of 2.454(5)(b) that preserved the Police Auditor's role in investigations of allegations against the chief. Mr. Zelenka noted that the PAORC discussions had concluded that the Police Chief was still primarily a sworn public safety officer but that the adjudication process for complaints against the chief should be different than those for regular police officers. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Ruiz for clarification regarding the nature of his recommendations regarding allegations against the Police Chief. Mr. Ruiz responded that the proposed revisions would allow the Police Auditor to have a chance to review the draft adjudications regarding complaints against the chief before the City Manager's adjudications were made final. Ms. Solomon indicated that she would support the City Manager's recommendations with regard to the proposed revisions on the issue of complaints against the Police Chief. Ms. Ortiz stated that she viewed the chief as an administrative head of a City department more than as a public safety officer and felt that complaints against the chief should be handled accordingly. Mr. Clark worried that elements of investigations against the administrative heads might become hidden the farther they moved up the chain of command and maintained that the Police Auditor should not have ultimate authority over the Police Auditor and vice versa. He noted that he would find the proposed ordinance revisions acceptable so long as it was made expressly clear that the Police Auditor was ultimately accountable to the City Council rather than the City Manager. Mr. Pryor maintained that the chief was more of an administrator as opposed to a public safety officer and as such supported the recommendations of the City Manager with respect to allegations against the chief. He noted that the City Code should make it explicitly clear that any investigations of complaints against the chief would be performed in cooperation with the Police Auditor. Ms. Piercy noted that the PAORC had attempted to present their recommendations in a manner that would allow complaints against the chief to be handled effectively regardless of whether he was considered to be an administrator or a public safety officer. Mr. Klein responded that the PAORC's recommendations generally reflected a broad interpretation of the Police Chief's position with respect to any allegations brought against him or her. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds noted that she had attended the PAORC meetings and that their conversations had focused on finding the most efficient manner for investigating complaints against police chiefs. Mr. Poling related from his personal experiences that while their duties often overlapped police chiefs primarily served as administrators rather than as public safety officers. He noted that he supported the City Manager's recommendation in that regard. Mr. Zelenka noted that the original City ordinance contained no provisions for dealing with allegations against the Police Chief and also noted that the PAORC had attempted to draft broader language in the proposed ordinance revisions with respect to the kinds of allegations that might be brought against a police chief. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the City Manager's recommendations were very limiting and did not go far enough to provide an effective mechanism for initiating and investigating complaints against police chiefs. He further maintained that the PAORC recommendations would be more effective because they allowed the Police Auditor to classify and monitor complaints brought against the Chief of Police rather than the City Manager. Mr. Ruiz noted that while he found the preamble to the PAORC's proposed ordinance revisions acceptable, he would not be in favor of any ordinance revisions that would make the City Manager ultimately accountable to the Police Auditor. He felt it would be important for effective police oversight to maintain the City Manager's authority to initiate and maintain investigations against any members of the Police Department. Police Chief Pete Kerns noted from his work as a member of the PAORC that the proposed ordinance revisions would expand the Police Auditor's role to monitor not only the Police Chief but the City Manager as well. He noted that such revisions would expand the authority of the Police Auditor beyond what was intended for effective civilian oversight of the police process. Mr. Brown noted he was in favor of the PAORC's recommendations with respect to Section 2.454 and felt that they corresponded well with the goals of the Police Auditor’s office. He appreciated that the PAORC’s recommendations allowed the Police Auditor to actively monitor investigations. Mr. Pryor hoped that whatever recommendations the council decided to adopt, they might eventually reshape the ordinance in a manner that could better accommodate both the administrative and law enforcement aspects of the Police Chief’s position with respect to any oversight procedures. He maintained that there seemed to be strengths and deficiencies in both the City Manager’s and the PAORC’s recommendations and suggested that more time might need to be devoted to discussions on the matter. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Ms. Ortiz believed that the Police Auditor should not have the authority to begin investigations on allegations against the Chief of Police and that such authority should reside with the City Manager. Mr. Zelenka felt that language clarifying the nature of the Police Chief’s administrative duties in relations to any allegations brought against him should have been included in the preamble to Section 2.454(5) of the PAORC’s recommendations. He agreed that more time might be needed to discuss the matter and make more careful revisions to the section. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated that she preferred the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the ordinance. Mr. Clark maintained that it would be important for the ordinance and any other City policies related to police oversight to have a clean and explicit separation of the authorities of the City Manager, the Police Chief and the Police Auditor. Ms. Piercy noted that one of the primary challenges of the council with respect to its discussions on police oversight was that they had limitations on what they were able to say regarding personnel issues. Mr. Poling, responding to earlier comments made by Mr. Zelenka, expressed that the language used in the City Manager’s recommendation would preclude any abuses of authority with respect to allegations of misconduct brought against the Police Chief. Ms. Piercy confirmed that the council members needed more time to discuss the PAORC’s ordinance recommendations regarding allegations against the Chief of Police. Ms. Medary described the PAORC’s recommendations regarding the concurrency issues and complaint processing policies described in Section2.456 for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein responding to a request from Ms. Piercy commented that the Police Auditor currently had the exclusive authority to route and classify complaints but that the Police Chief also had the authority to re- classify complaints. He noted that the PAORC’s recommendations would shift the authority to re-classify complaints from the chief to the Police Auditor. Mr. Clark felt that it was important to not hamper the work of the auditor with respect to their authority to classify or re-classify complaints. He hoped that the PAORC members could provide more detailed information with regard to their recommendations regarding the matter. PAORC Chair Tim Laue noted that one of the issues that had originally brought the matter of police oversight to the attention of the Police Commission was that members of the public were dissatisfied that complaints brought against the EPD were classified as inquiries rather than as official complaints. He further noted that the PAORC had ultimately decided that the classification authority for complaints should reside with the Police Auditor’s office while the adjudication and investigation authorities should reside with the EPD and the Police Chief. Mr. Poling believed that the Police Auditor should have the authority to re-classify complaints if such actions were warranted but further noted that such authorities might not need to be exclusive to the auditor. Police Chief Pete Kerns noted that he did not support removing the chief’s authority to re-classify complaints and noted that such authorities allowed the chief and EPD to handle and investigate complaints in an efficient and effective manner. Ms. Reynolds believed that the conflicting authorities with respect to classification of complaints made it impossible for the Police Auditor’s office to hire outside investigators and therefore hampered the auditor’s ability to conduct thorough investigations. She hoped that the police unions and the EPD would recognize the necessity for the Police Auditor to have the authority to re-classify complaints. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling recognized that there had recently been a great deal of negative publicity surrounding the council’s work on police oversight matters and hoped that the public would recognize that the council’s diligence and support for effective police oversight in general and the Police Auditor’s office in particular had not waned. Ms. Ortiz noted that she and other council members would need more time to consider and discuss several of the police oversight issues referenced in the PAORC ordinance revision recommendations. Ms. Piercy responded that they would hold further discussions surrounding the ordinance revisions at their next meeting. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 20, 2009 Page 8 Work Session