03/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council'. consideration .of panel reconunendation at the April 14, 1975 Council meetiilg. Motion carried unanim~)Usly. . IV - Resolutions by number and title. Resolution:" No. 2379 - Authorizing application to HUD for entitlement and discretionary funding under Housin{;';md Community Development Act was read Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resoltuion. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2380 - Authorizing enforcement action on Echo Hollow West PUD was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2381 - Authorizing pro tern manager appointment was read by number and title. e Councilman Bradley asked why staff felt this action di.d /lot require a Charter amendment. Assistant Manager ans\vered that the Cha'rter 'specifically provides that a manager pro tern has authority of the city manager except that he will not have the power to appoint or dismiss except with approval of t]le Council. This resolu- tion give the pro tern that powe~ of appointment or dismissal. He said the matter had been discussed at great length with the city attorney with the opinion expressed that the pro tern appointment needs no more than adoption of this resolution by the Council. In further respone to Councilman Bradley, Assistant Manager said the authority to appoint or dis~iss was considered an item that could be delegated by the Council. Mr. Bradley said he would vote against adoption of the resolution because in his reading of the Charter he felt that authority ~ould not be delegated. In response to Councilman Williams, r.1r. Bradley said that the Charter when adopted specifically took into consider~tion the appointment of a pro tern until a manager was appointed, and because it took that into consideration the greater authority was vested in the Council for hiring and firing city employes. He said that while it may be practical or expedient ~o delegate the authority as proposed, the Charter provision existed and he thought a Charter amendment would be necessary for delega- tion of that power. Assistantllanager noted that under Mr. Eradley's interpreta- tion' the Council would have to act on each individual employe hired or fired. He said several attorneys had worked on the language of this resolution trying to develop the simplest method of delegating authority properly, that it was made more difficult by trying to vest certain authority in the assistant manager as distinguished from the pro ten ,7':1nager. He said staff would have no difficulty working under the arrangement proposed if the Council would accept the opinion of the city attorney with regard to the simple delegation of authority under this resolution so the city could function as usual until a new manager was appointed. . Councilman Williams said he was not uncomfortable with delegating the responsibility unless there was some concept of law about charter provisions which prevluded delegation of that authority. I:e said he was uncomfortable trying to make a deci- sion between differing attorney~, although he was aware that Congress delegated duties, also the Secretary of Commerce. Jim Korth, assistant city attorney, said there was no difference betwee~ the ~. S. Constitution and the Eugene city ch~rter l+~. 3/24/75 - 19