Legality of police auditor resolution dubious.

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

As a concerned Eugene citizen and an executive board member for the local police union, I have followed the controversial police auditor process from the beginning. For the past 18 months, I have watched certain city councilors turn this independent auditor concept into an emotion-based political power struggle.

This boondoggle's last remaining inkling of credibility was destroyed at the Aug. 14 Eugene City Council meeting when Resolution 4889, introduced by Councilor David Kelly, passed 7-1. The resolution, which had minimal citizen comment, negates the city attorney's legal opinions and the city manager's administrative order.

The only councilor not fooled by this wolf in sheep's clothing was Gary Pape.

On Aug., 16 The Register-Guard dished out an editorial on the council's resolution. The editors tossed around catchy phrases and praised Mayor Kitty Piercy, local activist attorney Art Johnson, and former state Labor Commissioner Jack Roberts for their behind-the-scenes work. The newspaper, however, in its miserably shallow and lopsided rendition, missed the crux of the resolution: its legality.

The editors were so caught up in unconditionally supporting the resolution they neglected to ask the tough question: Did the council majority overstep its legal authority? Citizens have a right to know if the council's process was legal.

Our councilors are bound by oath to follow the laws of our land, including the City Charter. The charter clearly states that the city manager appoints and removes all city employees, except the municipal court judge and the police auditor, who are hired by the council. The council cannot legally pass a resolution arbitrarily taking away the manager's charter-given powers; only the citizenry, by vote, can accomplish that.

This is where it gets interesting: The Register-Guard's editors, some councilors, the mayor and a group of local activists believe that voter-passed Ballot Measure 20-106's `intent' was to give the council hiring power over the auditor's staff as well. Never mind that the measure was singular and undeniably clear: `The City Council is authorized to hire, supervise, and specify the salary of an independent police auditor. ...'

The city attorney's office wrote two separate legal opinions stating that the police auditor ballot measure did not include any language surrounding the auditor's staff, and that the city manager should retain that hiring right.

Of course, local attorney Johnson opined otherwise. Why wouldn't he? Heck, give me some time and I can go out and find another attorney who can counter Johnson's opinion. Where does it end? We can speculate all day long as to what the intent of the ballot measure was.

The bottom line is that the measure was specific for a reason: It messed with our city manager form of government. It opened the charter and shifted a specific, not open-ended, hiring responsibility to the council. If the crafters of Measure 20-106 wanted the voters to allow the council to hire the auditor's support staff as well, they should have spelled it out carefully and clearly.

Yes, citizens of Eugene, it's that important. For all we know, if the ballot measure actually had included the auditor's support staff, it could have very well changed the outcome of the vote. But we'll never know, will we?

It's vitally important to keep this matter in perspective. As a tenured Eugene Police Department employee, elected police union representative and, most importantly, taxpaying citizen of this community and Ward 4, I am not bothered by the content of this issue; who hires and supervises the auditor's support staff is irrelevant. I am, however, distressed over the manipulative, flawed and possibly illegal resolution process.

If the council is not questioned over this bully tactic, what's to prevent it from repeating this action the next time it wishes to arbitrarily squash our city manager form of government?

According to the City Charter, council resolutions are not subject to repeal through the electoral process. Therefore, it appears, the only way to challenge Resolution 4889 is through the legal system; let the courts decide if the council majority's action was legal.

If the council is sued, it usually turns to the city attorney's office for legal representation. Eugene taxpayers cover the expense of the council's defense. However, that office already has issued two legal opinions that differ from the council's resolution. Would Johnson represent the council? But then, who foots that bill?

Erik Humphrey, an 11-year member of the Eugene Police Department, is a member of the Eugene Police Employees' Association's executive board. He submitted this column as a private citizen, and not on behalf of the police department or the union.