06/06/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Ms. Miller stressed that it was more efficient to call people before the meeting. Mr. Lindberg explained the personal difficulty of contacting staff and councilors before the meeting. Ms. Wooten like the openness of discussion within the meeting. She suggested they make a point of talking to staff on code and policy issues and reserve discussion for important items. Ms. Miller felt if council stayed to the agenda and were sensitive to the time, she would be more relaxed and able to listen to discussion. She hoped increased sensitivity would help. Mr. Murray explained council was discussing a Phase III generation (item 2, last paragraph) . . . do they want to limit themselves. He explained the phenomenon in groups, that they give new people more air time and then there is a second phase, usually more efficient and a third phase, crisis of leadership/ centralization. A fifth phase is crisis of decentralization. Ms. Miller added that the dynamics of the council meetings have changed with Mayor Keller gone. They have all been learning at once. She further explained that she felt it was all right to call a fellow councilor before the meeting for information and discussion, but not to work out "deals." It is important for councilors to contact councilors serving on pertinent committees and commissions. She suggested possibly having less formal dinner meetings, with no agendas, but rather briefing sessions for each other on respective committee assignments. e Mr. Obie explained there were things that one wanted to commit X hours to; 80 percent of the time is spent dealing with issues that they have not bought into to that degree. The other 20 percent of the time is spent with issues that are really important to an individual councilor. There is a good chance that on a majority of the issues councilors will agree with each other. If every member can be committed to accomplish what they want and that does not conflict with others' philosophies, that is a big step--they can deal with the 20 percent in the spirit of compromise. In the past council they had spent three years of frustration because they could agree on nothing. Ms. Miller referred to page 1, "An overriding need to agree all the time." She suggested a general consensus is acceptable broadly in the community. Mr. Murray remembered council's ground rule on consensus was not to be unanimous, but "let's hash it out here and once we buy into it, let's not reintroduce the problem next week." They agreed to give an issue six to nine months' moratorium after a decision had been reached before raising the issue again. Mr. Lindberg looked forward to the next goal-setting session and a discussion of individual goals and what the City Council was hoping to achieve. Mr. Murray suggested a broader discussion of values. Philosophical and political points of view are not covered in the goal-setting sessions. It was suggested that time be allotted to go over larger issues. The councilors discussed a mechanism: Monday night agenda being for public hearings, Wednesday 11 to 2 for bigger issues and process issues. What council wants to do should be discussed in an informal setting several times a year--"mini-sessions" on a quarterly basis, "dreams, schemes and assessment policies." A poll of the councilors indicated Friday afternoons would be preferred over Saturdays for such discussion sessions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 4