Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

not represented in the process and that meant that not all solutions were being considered. She questioned the WEC’s decision-making process and said she saw only six members who could be categorized as environmental or progressive. She asserted that only 100 percent consensus was acceptable to avoid marginalizing those people. Ms. O’Brien said that one of the major factors in selecting a facilitator was demonstrated ability to help groups reach consensus. She contacted groups who had worked with those facilitators and feedback on the Osprey Group, which was selected, was unanimously positive. She said in each case the group had reached consensus without feeling “bullied” or “railroaded” in the process. She said there was strong support for a consensus model and that would be tested at the WEC’s October 24-25 meeting. She urged Ms. Bettman to bring her suggestion for a rail representative to the collaborative at that meeting. Regarding recommendations from the WEC, Ms. Bettman stated if there was not consensus, then it was just the same majority rule process and was not acceptable to her. She reiterated her request for more information about the implications of providing funding to the WEC. She asked if the City was giving a mantle of authority to the group, if the council would see recommendations that were only forwarded by consensus and if a rail advocate would be added to the collaborative. Regarding a mantle of authority, Mr. Zako declared the WEC was under no illusion that it was a decision- making body; members understood they would only be making recommendations and it was up to the council to decide what to do with those recommendations. He said members recognized that recommenda- tions with less than unanimous support would not have much weight and for that reason were completely committed to making consensus recommendations. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of consensus. Ms. O’Brien explained the WEC discussed a consensus model where all members accepted and bought into a decision and, if it was not their first choice, they could live with it. She said members were being trained to not come to the table with specific demands from their own perspective or interests, but rather to present solutions that could work for everyone. Ms. Taylor said she was familiar with that approach and it often meant that less forceful people agreed to something they did not like. She was concerned that the collaborative assumed that EmX was the solution and dismissed rail. Ms. O’Brien replied that nothing had been accepted and nothing had been eliminated. She liked the idea of including a representative of rail. Ms. Taylor remarked that the council was not involved in the process. Ms. O’Brien pointed out that Mr. Pryor was a member of the collaborative and all WEC members were charged with the responsibility to keep their organizations and constituencies involved and informed. Mr. Poling expressed his gratitude for the collaborative, which came together after 20 years of the community fighting over a traffic solution. He applauded people in the community who were willing to step forward and try to help the City solve those problems. He felt it would be unwise to withhold support for the WEC. Mayor Piercy reminded the council that when the council majority decided to eliminate the West Eugene Parkway as a solution, it asked for a collaborative process to work on the issue. She urged support for the WEC, which was in line with the council’s direction. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zako explained that the WEC formally organized in April 2007; three meetings of the full collaborative had occurred since then, along with many subcommittee MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 4, 2007 Page 5 Work Session