Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly thanked the commissioners for their service to the City. He referred to the topic of building relationships, expressing some confusion because at the last joint meeting, the commission had presented several process ideas, which the council had accepted. However, none were cited in the packet and nothing seemed to have occurred. For example, regarding how the commission conveys its opinions to the council, the commission had discussed sending memorandums directly to the council on controversial topics and that had occurred only once. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see memoranda from the commission reflecting the issues discussed by the commission when reaching its recommendations, the pros and cons identified in discussion, and the final votes. Mr. Kelly recalled that the commission had also discussed sending commissioners to various council meetings and he was unsure that occurred. Ms. McMillan indicated that it had. Mr. Kelly said the commission also recommended establishing councilor/commissioner "buddies" but he had no contacts. Ms. Levis said that occurred at differing levels. Mayor Torrey expressed concem about the growing incidence of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) issues in the community, saying there were citywide implications to all issues but frequently, a small segment of the community that would be negatively impacted by an action or decision, drove an outcome that affected the entire community, which might have been positively impacted otherwise. He asked how that could be avoided, given that large segments of the community frequently did not see the value of contributing input. Mayor Torrey observed that the commission did not seem to have the same political pressure placed on it that the council received. He said the council needed a group such as the commission to weigh those community ramifications without pressure. Ms. Taylor believed all residents were impacted by political considerations, overt or not. She noted the termination of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), some of whose tasks the commission had assumed, and asked commissioners to comment on whether they believed a separate CIC was needed. Mr. Lawless believed that in regard to large-scale issues, the commission felt an intermediate dialogue about the issues and political ramifications of recommendations was lacking. He said he would like to see occasional work sessions between the commission and council regarding the reasoning behind its recommendations. In regard to the subject of the CIC, Mr. Belcher noted that the commission only addressed the land use component of what the CIC had done. The commission had considered one or two projects to this point, and he thought it was too early to tell if the committee would be missed. Ms. Levis agreed. She said the commission understood the reasons for the committee's demise but in a way she found it sad given how critical citizen input was. Ms. Taylor hoped the CIC would be revived. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to know the reasons for the commission's decision, what the vote was, and why commissioners voted yes or no. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the "buddy" approach employed by the commission. He suggested there were political, technical, and budgetary differences between the work of the council and commission. He said the council was always provided with some information about the budgetary MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 2 Work Session