CC Minutes - 10/26/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

she wanted to review was the Citizen Involvement Committee's matrix for the organization's responses to issues, from Iow to high controversy. With regard to neighborhood meetings, she said, she is not interested in "business as usual," adding she believed in neighborhood organizations. Ms. Nathanson said there was an invaluable connection that needed to be made between the City organization and the community. Too many people, she continued, have expressed a lack of confidence in the existing neighborhood organization structure. She cited some of the problems: boundaries that do not make sense; neighborhood meeting agendas; and role definition/clarification. Ms. Nathanson also cautioned against micro- managing or the perception of micromanaging. Mayor Torrey said he would like to see more creative approaches than were reflected in the report; one specifically for public hearings that includes equal representation for opposing sides of an issue. He urged future councils to find creative ways of making public hearings more meaningful. With respect to newsletters, he said they should never be mailed but should be disseminated as inserts in local newspapers. Mayor Torrey identified several committees that "really worked," saying that spoke to the need for a shod-term, issue-oriented, "sunsetted" committee structure. Finally, with respect to neighborhood groups, Mayor Torrey expressed much concern, noting that there were only about five active groups but they seemed to be composed of the same people. Ms. Taylor said she was in favor of setting aside a few meetings to respond to issues raised by the public to demonstrate to people that they are listened to. She said it was important to people to feel that they influence outcomes. She also suggested delaying final decisions until people have had an opportunity to comment. Ms. Taylor ascertained that the budget for the City newsletter was $22,000. Ms. Bridges noted that the largest one-time cost item was the pilot matching grant program at $100,000. Ms. Taylor expressed reservations about spending large sums of money given recent City services cuts. Mr. Tollenaar said he was not prepared to accept all the recommendations, although he would vote to accept the report. He highlighted some of his concerns: 1) sharing decisions, which he described as sharing power-something that should include accountability; 2) the matching grant program, which he felt should be preceded by doing the work required in revitalizing neighborhood organizations; and 3) the quarterly newsletter, which he wanted to discuss further. And finally, Mr. Tollenaar asked for an explanation of "common purpose/improved processes." He asked the council to accept the report and have staff bring back the recommendations in batches for council discussion, followed individual recommendations. Mr. Meisner said he also was not prepared to accept some of the recommendations, specifically the matching grant program without first revitalizing the neighborhood program as suggested by Mr. Tollenaar. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comment about councilors' participation in neighborhood meetings being seen as micromanaging. He also agreed that some neighborhood boundaries needed to be reviewed and also with Ms. Madison letter's criticism about the length of processes and the lack of follow-up. Mr. Meisner also agreed that council meeting formats should be improved on and the report should be accepted but not the recommendations. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to accept the report and direct the City Manager to schedule subsequent work sessions to discuss specific elements of the plan. MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 26, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m.