Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Utecht listed the topics of concern that came out of the email communications between councilors and staff, as follows: · Section 9.03 of the operating agreements; · Microphone time; · Motions to reconsider; · Parking (specific to Ms. Bettman). Ms. Walston explained that she had included Section 9.03: Representing City Positions and Personal Positions, on the back of the draft language for Section 9.03 for comparison purposes. She said she listened to the tape of the discussion on the issue and extrapolated the main points, from which she crafted the draft language. Mr. Kelly felt the draft language captured the council's intent, but wished Section 9.03 had been written more succinctly. He liked that it had been divided into three different paragraphs as there had been three separate concerns that needed to be addressed. His only concern lay in the paragraph regarding local intergovermnental bodies or advisory groups. He felt the sentence that directed councilors to inform the other members of the council of matters being considered by an intergovernmental body should contain the caveat 'if possible,' given that agendas sometimes did not arrive with adequate time to provide notice and receive direction on such policies. He commented that the last sentence of the second paragraph, which directed councilors to vote on matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations as per adopted City or council policy and direction, was a key point for him. Ms. Taylor said sometimes the council knew in advance what was being considered, as in the case of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She advocated for holding a work session on MPC agenda items in order to solidify which direction the City Council representatives should take. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Kelly to consider a situation in which he was in that voting position and, to the best of his ability, believed he was following City Council direction but had, in fact, misinterpreted the direction. Mr. Kelly responded that there were fuzzy areas sometimes and one did the best he or she could. Ms. Taylor commented that sometimes that just happened. Mr. Pryor related his experience as a representative of the School District 4J to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He underscored that he spoke for himself in that capacity and not for the school board, unless specifically directed by the board to do so. Mr. Pryor remarked that it seemed unnecessary to list the different intergovernmental bodies and advisory groups given the definition. He also pointed out it was possible that a group could be left off the list. He recommended eliminating the list, noting that this alone would shorten the section by three sentences. Ms. Bettman said one reason this issue had been raised was because the MPC brought it up to the council. She averred that councilors did not always have the time to check in with councilors regarding their positions on issues, but where there was clear council policy she declared councilors should vote consistently based on the policy. She noted that legal counsel had indicated that there was no legal requirement for an elected representative to vote in any way other than how they wanted to. Mr. Pryor said the principle was fine because the councilors were part of a larger representative body. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 3 Process Session