20-106 would politicize police oversight.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Willy Edewaard and Erik Humphrey For The Register-Guard

Contrary to what proponents have been preaching, Eugene's Measure 20-106 is not about the implementation of police oversight. It's about changing our city's form of government, plain and simple. If passed, this measure opens up the City Charter and gives the Eugene City Council authority to handpick and supervise all future police auditors and citizen review boards.

The police union is not opposed to civilian review. Our department is filled with excellent employees who have dedicated themselves to high-risk public service. We are used to public scrutiny, and we welcome public input.

We do, however, strongly disagree with the council majority's assertion that such review will be successful only if managed by the City Council. To allow the council to appoint and supervise an auditor and review board is a recipe for disaster. It's far too political, and it opens the door to conflicts of interest. It's inherent that ward-elected councilors, who must answer to myriad constituents, will be thrust into the already highly charged police-community complaint process. Our community already pays top dollar to the city manager and the chief of police to conduct and oversee police business.

Why doesn't Measure 20-106 mention the costs associated with implementing oversight? It's conservatively estimated that an auditor and review board will run taxpayers upwards of $500,000 annually. This money will more than likely come from existing city services.

We ask: Could oversight money be better spent elsewhere? Hire more street cops and detectives? What about combating skyrocketing financial and property crimes? How about fully funding the narcotics team to help fight our community's methamphetamine crisis?

Measure 20-106's supporters are suggesting the obvious: The money spent on oversight is minimal compared to settlements in lawsuits arising from the abuses of former officers Roger Magana and Juan Lara.

The same supporters are tossing around these names in an apparent attempt to get the public to vote with their emotions instead of the facts.

Fact No. 1: Oversight is not a onetime cost. It will be ongoing, and will have to be budgeted annually.

Fact No. 2: Magana and Lara were anomalies, and oversight would not have prevented them from getting hired.

Fact No. 3: They both had known criminal histories and were allowed by the city to become police officers anyway.

Fact No. 4: The city manager and police chief have taken steps to ensure that the city of Eugene will no longer allow bad applicants to continue on in the police hiring process.

Fact No. 5: Magana and Lara were thoroughly investigated by their own department and rightfully sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Councilors Bonny Bettman and Andrea Ortiz are members of the Police Commission, which recommended this oversight model to the council. These same councilors then decided it was best to send Measure 20-106 to the voters in November in a special election, spending about $160,000 along the way. Bettman and Ortiz then loaned money to the Vote Yes for External Police Review committee.

Eugene's mayor and Bettman and Ortiz also wrote in support of the measure for The Register-Guard's Oct. 23 Commentary section. Ask yourself: conflict of interest?

In the last election, Bettman received 7,290 votes in Ward 1 and Ortiz received 5,767 votes in Ward 7. About 70,000 ballots have been mailed regarding Measure 20-106. Do the math and ask yourself: Do Bettman and Ortiz really speak for the entire community? When they say that Measure 20-106 is what this community wants, is that true?

Eugene voters said yes twice to the West Eugene Parkway. The mayor and City Council majority recently took it upon themselves to reverse that decision. Do we have a hospital in Eugene? Need we say more? Does Eugene really want this kind of political dysfunction also plaguing the police oversight and complaint process?

The mayor and Bettman and Ortiz have said that police oversight is not worth the money if Measure 20-106 does not pass.

However, if voters say no to Measure 20-106, the Police Commission and several councilors fully expect the council to mandate the city manager to implement oversight anyway. Which is it going to be? Is this another parkway in the making?

Why are we even voting on this in November? Why was this issue pushed so hard and fast in a single-issue special election? Why is the official ballot language so open-ended and vague?

Why does the council majority believe Eugene taxpayers should spend $500,000 or more a year fueling police oversight, at the expense of unknown existing city services? Is Measure 20-106 really about police oversight, or simply about who gets to control it? Demand the tough answers before voting on this charter-changing measure.

Willy Edewaard is president of the Eugene Police Employees' Association. Erik Humphrey is the association's treasurer.