Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kelly thought the challenge was trying to think globally in order to determine when to elevate certain <br />topics to a level of greater study and discussion. He suggested staff look at other elected bodies for a model <br />of how action was addressed or not addressed in work sessions. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor reported that he had worked in jurisdictions where no action was taken during work <br />sessions. He thought moving all public hearings to a single night per month could set the council up for <br />deferring action in a work session. He said ultimately if the council was uncomfortable taking action on a <br />particular item, the council could vote to postpone to a time/date certain. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked how a jurisdiction that took no action at a work session could clearly inform and direct staff <br />as to how to proceed. City Manager Taylor replied that there was greater deference to staff about what the <br />next step was. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that sometimes the council had a “real work session” and other times she felt the <br />council did not have a robust discussion. At times when she was asked to be the tie-breaking vote she felt <br />like suggesting that the item be discussed further instead. She thought it would be good for the community if <br />there was more support for a direction in which the council wished to move. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that staff should know the sentiments of the councilors so the work could be done up <br />front. She preferred to have deeper deliberations on issues and less on process. She also believed that a <br />councilor had the right to propose a motion at any time and should not be required to provide intended <br />motions in advance. She declared that councilors needed to give direction to staff and motions were the <br />vehicle by which they could do so. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked the councilors if they felt they were having enough deliberation of the issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor liked it better when no action was taken at the work session. She felt the council rushed to make <br />decisions with the current system. She did not believe most items were so urgent that they could not wait for <br />a regular meeting for action. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly remarked that some work sessions worked well and some did not work. He did not want to have a <br />“one-size” procedure. He added that often a requested second work session might not fit into the schedule <br />for three months. He wondered if there was a way for the council to review the tentative agenda and suggest <br />putting the important issues out front so that if a second session was needed it could be queued up early. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé averred that providing comment to the council officers would be a way to give input in setting the <br />agenda. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor related that one of his city manager colleagues had a color-coding system with his <br />recommendations in order to indicate how strongly he felt about any one of them to the councilors he worked <br />with. He suggested that there might be a way for the councilors and Mayor to indicate how important they <br />thought an item was on a scale of one to ten. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the problem with prioritizing was that there was really no way to know if something <br />was a big deal or not. She felt that one councilor could see problems that another councilor might not and <br />this was not predictable. She said the council may just need more work sessions. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 10 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br />