Voters were clear on independent police auditor.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Art Johnson For The Register-Guard

I was surprised to be accused of secrecy by representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association in their July 24 guest viewpoint. The term does not apply.

Last November, Eugene voters passed an amendment to our City Charter, now Section 15A, establishing an office of independent police auditor. To be independent, the auditor is to report to and be accountable directly to the City Council, independent of the chain of command and control of the city manager.

The voters were responding to tragic disclosures of misconduct by individual police officers and a pattern of a lack of supervision by those charged with oversight. That misconduct brought shame upon Eugene and cost taxpayers $5 million.

This matter is of particular interest to me because of my long history with the city. I was a member and later chair of the first Human Rights Commission. I have been Eugene's city attorney. I have prosecuted various civil rights actions, one of which received national attention and resulted in major permanent reforms in police training and police practices in San Francisco.

The Eugene Police Commission, after extensive study of grave problems within our police department that had come to light, recommended to the City Council the establishment of an office of independent police auditor. The council agreed, and referred the proposed charter amendment to the voters over the objection of the city manager. I supported the ballot measure. The voters approved it by a substantial majority.

Then, it was reported about June 1 that the city manager had issued an administrative order providing that he would continue to exercise significant supervision and control over the new police auditor's office. The order is inconsistent with the terms and intent of Section 15A. If not overruled by the City Council, that administrative order will deny the auditor the very independence which the voters approved of, and which is essential for that important job to be properly done.

Because of my long-standing interest, I obtained a copy of the administrative order and of an earlier city attorney's opinion (which to my knowledge had not been previously published). I reviewed the Police Commission report and the minutes of relevant City Council meetings. I consulted with others and prepared a legal opinion summarizing the amendment, the legislative record and my conclusions.

By then I was about to leave on a long-scheduled family vacation, and I chose not to generally publish the opinion until my return so that I could participate in any discussion that might follow. After returning, I shared the opinion with the city manager, the city attorney, the editorial board of The Register-Guard, and anyone else who asked for it.

On July 16, the editors of The Register-Guard, after reading my opinion and having followed up with their own research, including the legislative history, published an editorial urging that the administrative order be set aside. They wrote: "By approving the charter change, voters made it clear they wanted the council, not the city manager, to hire and oversee an independent auditor."

Section 15A creates a new city police auditing function. It does not establish a single new position. From the beginning, the council and manager have recognized that the auditor's office would require no less than three people to perform the work required. Further, the manager and the council have budgeted funds for those three positions. The Register-Guard editorial concludes that, "Giving the city manager even partial authority over the auditor's staff creates the potential for bureaucratic confusion and inefficiency, and would compromise the auditor office's independence from city administration."

The merits of the current police chief or city manager are not at issue. Rather, we are talking about establishing appropriate checks and balances within our city governance to prevent such terrible tragedies from ever again occurring.

Those who now object to a fully independent police auditor's office should be asked, why do you object? Why should anyone be concerned that Section 15A requires that the auditor, including the staff, be fully independent of the chain of command of the city manager, who will continue to be the ultimate supervisor of the police department? The opposition by the manager's office and the Eugene Police Employees Association is unfortunate. I hope they will reconsider.

All of us should take all reasonable steps to reinstate in Eugene citizens' minds and hearts complete confidence in their city government and in their police department; a department containing highly qualified officers who work to protect this community.

A truly independent police auditor will give confidence and will benefit us all.

Art Johnson is an attorney practicing in Eugene.