Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agree with them. She pointed out that staffpeople had an entire agenda item summary (AIS) and an uninterrupted presentation to "make their case." Ms. Ortiz liked having a timer and also the idea of a cumulative amount of time. However, she agreed with contentions that the one-minute time limit was unrealistic. She suggested rounds should go no lower than two minutes. Ms. Ortiz said interactions with staff worked best when it provided the facts and not direction. Ms. Taylor opined that staff members were sometimes trying to make policy and this was the j ob of the council. Mr. Kelly remarked that this sort of abuse was not widespread. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz that after a presentation, staff should only provide facts. Mr. Kelly averred that agenda packets were getting thinner. He pointed out that the agenda packet for the next work session at which the council would consider remanding an ordinance did not contain a copy of the ordinance. Mr. Pryor related his expectation that staff would have a position on an agenda item. He said elected officials relied UPon this because the staff members were hired based on their expertise. He agreed, however, that staff members should draw the line at lobbying for a particular position. Ms. Utecht summarized the discussion, as follows: · The council would hold a work session without the buzzer; · Mayor Piercy would try to help draw attention to time limits; · It was suggested that people who attend a meeting to testify at a public heating that looked to be ultimately postponed due to time constraints be sent home earlier than at the end of the meeting; · Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor talked about the possibility of having a cumulative amount of time to speak to issues; · Some councilors felt the one-minute rounds for comments and questions should be eliminated. Ms. Utecht noted that Mr. Pap6 included Robert's Rules of Order on his list of concerns. Mr. Pap6 clarified that his concern was particular to the act of reconsidering a motion. He stated that should the maker of the motion not be present and/or not informed 24 hours prior to the motion to reconsider, then the motion should be tabled. Mr. Kelly thought it could be brought up and tabled again. He said a motion to reconsider meant something unusual was going on. He felt there were two rules in place that addressed this - one that dictated that a councilor with a motion needed to let staff know in advance and the other that said a councilor could request in writing that a motion not be considered in their absence. Mr. Poling asked how one would know in advance if a motion to reconsider "came out of left field." Ms. Rose read the clause from the operating agreements that governed such motions and it was determined that Mr. Pap6's concem was addressed. Mr. Poling was not sure how to address the issue. He felt the language would still allow someone to make a motion to reconsider at a meeting at which the councilor who made the original motion was absent. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 6 Process Session