Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Keizertimes. (Salem, Or.) 1979-current | View Entire Issue (May 14, 2021)
EIZER times $1.00/ ISSUE Volume 42 • No. 30 MAY 14, 2021 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION: SEE FULL STORY PAGE 9 NEWSTAND PRICE: $1.00/ ISSUE Former city manager Chris Eppley shown at a Keizer City Council budget committee meeting in 2016. FILE PHOTO, Keizertimes EPPLEY GUNSHOT FALLOUT SUBSCRIBER ADDRESS : Asked about accountability, City offi cials opt to muddy the waters By ERIC A. HOWALD Of the Keizertimes After an internal investigation regarding the form city manager fi r- ing a gun in his offi ce was released to the public, Keizertimes submitted a list of questions to city offi cials and Mayor Cathy Clark hoping to fi ll in gaps in the fi nal report and what steps the city would be taking in the aftermath of the incident. We are presenting our questions alongside the city offi cials’ responses (with one editor’s clarifi cation) in their entirety. Keizertimes: Will there be any consequences for current Keizer employees who knew Mr. Eppley had violated city policy well before the March 4 incident? City’s response: The City of Keizer does not comment on employee personnel matters except as required by law. KT: Why was there a 13-day delay between the incident and contacting the Oregon State Police to request an investigation? CR: Consistent with the fi ndings in the Oregon State Police report there did not appear to have been a crime committed that would require immediate police attention. KT: The Oregon State Police appear only to have investigated whether Mr. Eppley had been “reckless” in his discharge of a weapon in his offi ce. ORS 166.370, possession of fi re- arm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility, states any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded fi rearm or any other instrument used as a danger- ous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. The mere act of taking a fi rearm into his offi ce appears to violate Oregon law. Why is this not addressed in the internal investigation report or elsewhere? See MUDDY, page 10
