04/28/1969 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

01Q2 .e 4/28/69 Mr. McKinley presented a statement indicating other city positions in the same classifications as firefighters. He said. the staff has a question as to the equivalency of schedules, because there isn't a direct comparison in the number of positions in the series for police and firemen. If this motion passes, .the Manager will bring back his best judgment as to what the equivalent schedule I is. Mr. Mohr affirmed the Manager's statement, and said it is not the job of the Council to state exact salaries, but to set a policy 'toward schedules. He agreed the Council should look oversa salary schedule. Mr. Flynn objected to the statement being placed before the Council when the firefighters had had D previous knowledge of it. Mr. Frank Jackson said a firefighter could be compared with a Patrolman C, Sergeant to Lieutenant in the Fire Department; and right on down the line. There would be no difficulty in comparing grades. He asked that the Council go ahead with its original motion to establish parity, and asked them to take a vote. e Mayor Anderson said' there was no question in the minds of the Councilor citizens of Eugene as to the ability of the Fire Department, but there is some question concerning, responsibility. This matter should be put in proper perspective. The City Manager is empowered by the City Council tQ make certain recommendations. It is up to the City Council to either reject them or accept them, and that the City Manager was doing what he was asked to 'do. The Mayor thought the Council should be objective in its thinking and be fair in the approach to a very difficult problem. The question was called on the motion. Mr. ~ague voted no. The motion carried. I Mr. Flynn thanked the Council for their support. Kendall Ford Suit - Mr. Mohr asked to have it recorded' in the minutes that he had changed his vote- on the Kendall Ford rezoning issue to vote no. The City Attorney said unless the Council voted to reconsider the matter, it is terminated as of now. He'$aid Mr. Mohr wanted to move to reconsider L because there had not been enough discussion on the issue;" The matter has been recorded and is not II before' the Council now. The Attorney did not think Mr. MOhr could change his vote. The Council has 11 not adopted a set of by-laws . Mayor Anderson ruled in favor of Mr. MOhr. Mr. Wingard questioned the ruling of the chair. Mr. Gribskov~ seconded the motion. ,I A vote was taken on Mr. Wingards motion to question the ruling of the chair. I I I' The Motion failed. ~ Mr. Wingard moved to adj ourn. .' Motion died for lack of a second ~ Mr. Mohr moved that the city of Eugene file a petition for intervention in the Kendall Ford suit. Mrs. HaYward seconded the motion. Mr. Wingard called for a point of order - should this not be reconsidered at the next session? did not believe reconsideration' coii1d be at the same session. He I Mayor Anderson ruled it shou1d.be considered at this session. Mr. Wingard questioned the ruling, w~th Mr. McDonald second. Mr. McKinley said Mr. Luvaas is arguing the matter for the I voted not .;to'.support intervention earlier in the evening. II and prepare his arguments for tomorrow morning, I I I I I I Kendall suit tomorrow morning. The Council Mr. Luvaas planned to go, after the meeting, e The City Attorney read from Demeter's Manual on expires with adjournment - the right to propose be reo0nsidered~at this meeting. Parliamentary Law and Procedure: "Reconsideration or consider expires with adjour~ment". It can still Mr. McDonald said this session is'not through until tomorrow. Mr. Wingard withdrew his objection. Mr. Mohr said that the City doesn't enter the suit on behalf of individual persons, but is simply trying to resolve a jurisdictional problem in the matter of zoning between two jurisdictions; not putting ourselves on record as favoring individual citizens, one against the other. The City must be recorded as being interested in following through. I Mrs. Hayward said she had really failed to point out other points of the discussion held at the II committee meeting when the Council took a vote on this. They did discuss in some detail the relation- ship with the County, ways to enter the suit because they all were concerned about the relationship I with the County. One of the members of the County Commissioners has said this is an area where the city might have ~0me jurisdiction, and one of the others would like to have.it clarified and would be delighted to have it clarified in the courts. To clarify this issue in the courts would be helpful for all. I A vote was taken on the motion to reconsider. The Motion failed with Mr. Mohr, Mr$. Hayward and Mrs. Bea1 voting in favor and Messrs. Teague, Wingard, McDonald and Gribskov voting against. I " ~I\ e ~ :.:'4/28!. 69 ,,-~, --=------...;- ;; 10 I