CC Minutes - 04/17/06 Process Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was moving on and doing its business but the press chose not to report that. He appreciated Mr. Pryor’s distinction between conduct and intent as one could not construe intent. He believed the only way the council and staff could move on was in a partnership. He said he did not doubt Mr. Poling’s experience but Mr. Kelly did have the experience of being disrespected or marginalized by a small number of staff. Mr. Kelly agreed that Assistant City Manager Carlson’s case was symptomatic of a larger issue. He regretted that Ms. Bettman and Assistant City Manager Carlson had not taken the opportunity to sit down and talk in the month since the incident occurred, and advocated for a specific, definitive, positive policy initiative that reinforced what was acceptable on the part of staff and provided a way for communication to occur between staff and the elected officials within the limits of the City Charter. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Papé said he had never felt he had been unable to talk to staff one-on-one. He thought the issue of how the council communicated with staff had been resolved. Mr. Poling said when he talked to a staff person he generally prefaced the conversation by clarifying that he might need to go through management, and when he was referred to management he could deal with that. He had never encountered a problem talking with staff on a one-on-one basis. Ms. Bettman said she had been told by staff that they were prohibited from speaking to her. That practice did not appear to be consistent among the councilors. Ms. Bettman said the issue at hand was the attitude demonstrated by the e-mail, which implied to staff below management level that it was “okay” to portray and perpetrate a negative attitude toward elected officials. She did not believe that staff and the council had a partnership because the playing field was not level. She said she could take criticism; that was not the issue. The issue was the ability of a high-level staff person to undermine her credibility with other staff when she was trying to advance the values of her constituents. She reiterated that her communications were public and a matter of public record. If she said something that someone did not like and it got around, she was accountable for that. When staff communi- cated in secret away from the public, it did not add to a level playing field. Ms. Bettman said she knew there would be a backlash against her and people would make the issue about her, but she brought the issue up because she found it so important. She said it was important that the organization model respect for the councilors who worked hard to get elected, worked for practically free, and attempted to do the best for their constituents. She concluded there should be zero tolerance for “that kind of undermining.” Ms. Muir said she was aware that in the past, Planning staff indicated to councilors that there was a prohibition on direct communications but that had been a matter of misunderstanding. Chief Tallon added that there was no prohibition in his department on communicating with the council, but the City Manager indicated he wanted to know when conversations between the council and staff took place so that he was aware of what was going on and staff could provide consistent information to all members of the council. Chief Tallon thought the result was improved and consistent communication. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at the remarks of Chief Tallon as he thought City Manager Taylor indicated the council could talk only to him, the staff responsible for preparing an agenda item summary, and the executive manager. He thought a clear, written clarification from City Manager Taylor to the council and the executive management team about the policy would be in order. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 11 Process Session