Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/22/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 22, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that meetings to obtain public input on a new police facility and moving City offices would be held on June 23 and June 25. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee Next Steps Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided an overview of the three ordinance revisions identified by the council as requiring further discussion: complaints against the police chief, classification of complaints and timing of investigations. She said a working group composed of councilors Zelenka, Ortiz, Pryor and Poling convened to work on those issues and referred to Attachment B to the agenda item summary, which contained recommendations from the working group as well as from the City Attorney. Mr. Zelenka explained his proposed language for Section 2.454(5) and said it embodied the working group’s comments and addressed concerns from the City Manager. Ms. Piercy determined that all members of the working group agreed with the language. She asked the City Attorney to discuss his recommended changes to the proposed language. City Attorney Glenn Klein said deletion of the first sentence and a section at the end of the second sentence would remove ambiguity and clarify intent. He also suggested removing the language requiring the City Manager to notify the council of an allegation against the police chief as that was not part of the current process when a complaint was filed against a police officer, although there was no legal obstacle to retaining that language. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Klein’s recommendations, with the exception of deleting the requirement that the City Manager notify the council. He felt the council should be made aware of any allegations against the police chief so members would not be caught off guard in the event of questions from the media or public. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern with the notification requirement as the council was not typically informed if there were complaints against any of the other executives who reported to the City Manager. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Poling that the council should receive notification. He said the working group’s intent with the language at the end of the second sentence was to distinguish that the allegation related to the police chief’s action as a police officer, not to the administrative duties of the chief. He asked if language should be added that would clarify the section did not apply to the police chief’s administrative MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 1 Work Session actions. Mr. Klein said his proposed language was intended to make that distinction, but he would do some research if the council wished to add language specifying administrative functions were excluded as there were times when other sworn officers also had administrative duties. He would develop language that made it clear the section referred to administrative duties unique to the police chief. Mr. Pryor commented that the police chief was both a department head and a police officer. He said when the chief was acting as a department head, he or she, should not be treated differently than any other department head. He felt the notification requirement should be discussed further with respect to its applicability to other department heads and whether notification should be limited to allegations based on the chief’s performance as a sworn officer. Mr. Clark asked for the City Manager’s opinion on the notification issue and whether it should apply to any complaint against the police chief, including complaints from officers. City Manager Jon Ruiz said the police chief was unique among department heads because of the dual roles of sworn police officer and administrator. He felt that complaints from officers regarding administrative or operational issues should not be subject to the police auditor process. He was comfortable that the current process available to all City employees for registering complaints was acceptable for addressing administrative concerns. Police Chief Pete Kerns said the police chief had duties and responsibilities that were vastly different from those of a police officer, but there were times that the chief acted in the capacity of a police officer. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to delete the first sentence and delete the last part of the last sentence of the first paragraph as per the city attorney; di- rect the city attorney to bring back language that says this section shall not apply to the police chief’s administrative duties, and not delete “notify the council” with re- spect to Section 2.454(5). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Medary reviewed the working group’s proposed language and City Attorney’s recommended revisions to Section 2.456(1)(d) as set forth in Attachment B. Mr. Klein explained that his recommendation clarified an ambiguity with respect to the police auditor’s authority to classify and reclassify complaints. Mr. Brown asked why the proposed language included the phrase “but before the completion of the investigation.” Mr. Zelenka said the language would allow the auditor to reclassify complaints during an investigation, but once the investigation was concluded and the complaint was proceeding toward adjudication it could not be reclassified. Mr. Poling pointed out that if additional information was obtained after adjudication a new complaint could be filed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark moved to accept the city attorney’s language for Section 2.456(1)(d). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Medary stated that the working group had requested input from the incoming police auditor on Section 2.456(2)(a-f) and the response from Mark Gissiner had been distributed to councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said there were different opinions on the timing of investigations and the working group agreed that it was appropriate for the police auditor and police chief to develop a process for consideration by the council. Mr. Pryor remarked there were two competing interests: the need to avoid interfering with a criminal investigation and the need to complete administrative investigations in a timely manner. He felt those issues could be resolved through a collaborative working relationship between the police auditor and police chief and that was why the working group was willing to wait on the outcome of those discussions. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the council direct the City Man- ager to work with the new Police Auditor on recommended language and protocols related to the concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and return before summer break with a final ordinance for action by the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Poling hoped the City Manager understood the council’s intent was for the police chief to be in- volved in those discussions. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Supervision of Police Auditor Human Resources Director Alana Holmes stated that the purpose of the work session was to determine how the council wished to conduct supervision of the police auditor. She said areas of interest for the council’s discussion included preferred types of communications, meetings, availability for responding to issues that might arise regarding performance or behavior and processing issues or concerns related to the police auditor. She noted that a form entitled Police Auditor Monthly Activity Report was included as Attachment A to the agenda item summary. Mr. Klein suggested that the council discuss whether any changes were required to the formal complaint process it had approved and how complaints that did not fall within that formal process should be addressed. Ms. Piercy commented that several approaches to communication in terms of information sharing, coaching and critical feedback had been put forward, including designating the council officers, the council officers and the Mayor, or rotating the assignment among all council members. Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney had any recommendations for dealing with complaints that did not involve legal issues and were supervisory in nature. He said he and Mr. Zelenka had been meeting weekly with the current auditor to discuss work flow, office operations, the budget and other administrative issues. He felt the process had worked well, but he was not certain it would be necessary to meet weekly with the new auditor and suggested that monthly meetings would be appropriate. He was in favor of continuing to have council officers provide that oversight. He was not certain if the Mayor needed to be included in that supervisory function. Mr. Zelenka stressed that the council needed to clarify that it supervised the police auditor and regular supervisory meetings with the auditor were necessary. He agreed that the current process was working well and said he and Mr. Clark were cognizant of the prohibition against influencing the outcomes of any investigations. He said their meetings with the auditor focused on workload, the budget and items that needed to be brought to the council’s attention. He said supervision by the council officers and Mayor MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 3 Work Session would provide consistency, but that meant the rest of the council was not engaged in the process. Rotating supervision through all councilors would engage everyone and if the Mayor was present at the meetings that could provide consistency. He suggested that the council include on its agenda a report on those supervisory meetings with the police auditor as a regular and formal item. Ms. Taylor thought there should be regular meetings with the auditor and the full council monthly or every two months. She felt strongly the meetings should not be with just the council officers and supported rotating the assignment among all councilors. She said continuity could be achieved by assigning two councilors and changing one each month. She said all councilors should be involved and know what was happening and those who met with the auditor should be responsible for reporting back to the council. She said the councilors who were providing supervision should meet with the auditor every week or every two weeks. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a reasonable approach to managing the police auditor position that avoided both too little supervision and micromanagement. He was comfortable with council officers providing the day-to-day supervision and liked the idea of bringing another councilor in on a rotating basis. He pointed out that the council was the official employer, but that did not mean the Mayor could not sit in on the meetings. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Klein stated that under the Charter the Mayor was regarded as a member of the council in certain circumstances and not in others. He said the ordinance specified that the council was the supervisor; council officers could not be named as the supervisor without changing the ordinance. He said the council could designate officers to be responsible for day-to-day supervision and include the Mayor if it wished, but that was not delegating authority to take any supervisory action; it only authorized supervisory communication and any action that needed to be taken had to be brought back to the council as a whole. Mr. Pryor supported designating the council officers and Mayor as the regular contact point with the police auditor and felt that meetings twice a month were reasonable. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Klein and Ms. Holmes to develop procedures for addressing complaints formally and informally for the council to consider. She agreed that regular contact with the police auditor, perhaps on a bi-weekly basis, was important. She said it was also important to develop a closer working relationship with the auditor so that person understood the council’s expectations and had a better feel for the community and those who lived there; that process should include all councilors. She liked the format of the monthly activity report document. She stated that any email communication between the police auditor and those designated to provide day-to-day oversight should go to the entire council. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz about sharing with the full council any communications between the auditor and council officers. He supported designating council officers to meeting regularly with the auditor and felt that should occur monthly or more frequently if the auditor and officers deemed it necessary. He was neutral on the issue of adding a third councilor to the meetings on a rotating basis, but did not feel it was necessary as the council officers were capable of providing the supervision. He concurred with the request for written procedures for handling complaints against the police auditor. Mr. Klein remarked that the current complaint process in the code related to all City employees and asked if the council wanted to develop a different informal process just for the auditor or wanted that process to apply to each of the council’s employees. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling said the process should be applicable to all of the council’s employees. Ms. Solomon commented that if she were the police auditor she would not want a new supervisor meeting with her every month. She felt that was too disruptive and preferred that council officers meet with the auditor. Initially meetings could be every other week and eventually move to a monthly basis. She was interested in sitting in on those meetings and urged other councilors to take on that responsibility to engage. Mr. Brown liked the idea of having other councilors sit in on meetings with the auditor. He said all complaints, even those that did not allege violation of law, should fit within the existing framework. He said the council should be informed of any complaint against one of its employees and that employee should be able to respond to the complaint, regardless of its nature. He questioned how complaints would be classified and adjudicated. Mr. Zelenka noted that he and Mr. Clark had requested that all communications with the police auditor and city attorney go to all councilors. He stressed it was important that supervision be consistent and that all supervisors be engaged. He was intrigued by Ms. Taylor’s suggestion to designate two councilors with overlapping terms to rotate supervision among all members. He was concerned that bi-weekly meetings would be too much work and difficult to do. He supported the request for a formal process for handling non-violation complaints related to supervisory issues. Mr. Clark said any complaint process should apply to all council employees and preferred to have the provision related to dismissing a complaint if there was no response with seven days eliminated from the process for addressing non-violation complaints. He said the process should instead require that the complaint be sent to the council for action. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka that meetings with the new auditor could initially be bi-weekly and then monthly as time went on. He favored designating council officers to meet with the auditor. He said the meeting schedule could be made available to the full council and any member who was interested could attend. He agreed that any communications should include all councilors. Ms. Piercy said that the two previous police auditors had expressed an interest in having more interaction with councilors on a regular basis and asked the council to consider rotating the assignment. She encour- aged more frequent meetings initially with the new auditor and suggested that the council ask for status reports on whether recommendations from the auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) to improve the system had been implemented. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the Police Commission was the policy body for improving the system and took recommendations from the CRB under consideration. She noted that councilors could meet informally with the auditor at any time and all meetings did not need to be formal and structured. She did not have a preference for designating supervisors, but was comfortable with having the councilor officers continue in that role and allowing other councilors to attend the meetings on a voluntary basis. She encouraged the council to be supportive of the new auditor. Mr. Pryor said that fulfilling supervisory obligations relied on regular contact with employers and having a process that kept supervisors informed about issues and activities. He did not think that addressing basic managerial issues like work habits or schedules needed to involve the full council, but those types of issues were unlikely to arise with professionals like the auditor and City Manager. He agreed that the council officers should be designated to meet regularly with the auditor, with the opportunity for other councilors to sit in on the meetings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Poling said that designating the council officers as the contact point provided consistency and let the auditor know who to contact when there were issues or concerns that needed to be addressed. He supported the council officers as the supervisory contact point, while offering other councilors the opportunity to participate in meetings informally if they wished to. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council is the police au- ditor’s supervisor; there shall be bi-weekly meetings, shifting to monthly meetings when appropriate; meeting topics shall include workload, budget and items for council attention; the meetings shall be with the City Council officers, Mayor and a third rotating City Councilor who voluntarily signed up; encourage at least bi- monthly individual meetings between each councilor and the Police Auditor; pro- vide formal discussion time on the City Council agenda related to the police auditor on a regular basis; and direct the City Attorney to bring back recommended lan- guage for a process to handle non-violation complaints. Mr. Poling said the motion needed to include language specifying that the auditor should contact the council officers with questions and concerns as the identity of the third councilor would change. He did not feel that it was a good idea to include participation of the Mayor and a third councilor in the motion as that could occur informally. Mr. Zelenka accepted as a friendly amendment Mr. Poling’s suggestion to eliminate the reference to a third councilor and include language that required the Police Au- ditor to communicate directly with the council officers when issues or concerns arose and provide copies of the communication to the other councilors. He declined to accept elimination of the Mayor as a meeting participant. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to omit the Mayor as a member of the supervisory team. The motion failed, 3:5; Mr. Brown, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka opposed. Mr. Clark said the Mayor was free to attend meetings with the police auditor, as were any of the other councilors, but he felt the motion would create some ambiguity about who the auditor should contact. He asked if it was Mr. Zelenka’s intent that the auditor could contact the Mayor or was that contact limited to the council officers. Mr. Zelenka said communications should go to the Mayor and council officers, with other councilors receiving copies. Ms. Taylor stated that she would not support the motion because all councilors should be involved. She did not think the auditor would have time to meet with officers and then with all the rest of the council. She said all councilors needed to be in touch with what was happening and any decisions should be made by the full council. Mr. Pryor said his impression was that the motion encouraged councilors to meet with the auditor individually but did not require it. He supported the inclusion of the Mayor, but considered council officers to be the auditor’s principal contacts on a day-to-day basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz concurred with including the Mayor in the meetings, but expected that the council officers would set the agenda. Mr. Zelenka clarified that his motion encouraged other councilors to meet with the auditor at least every two months. Mr. Clark assured the Mayor he meant no disrespect. He only wanted to avoid any confusion about how and where the auditor directed communications. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor opposed. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 7 Work Session