06/06/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilors Obie, Smith, and Miller saw a benefit to councilors' brainstorming informally together. Ms. Wooten expressed her reservation that it not be the same councilors interacting on a regular basis. She wanted to avoid the develop- ment of firm coalitions on the council. e Mr. Obie referred to ward politics. He did not want to see ward politics in Eugene. He hoped councilors would take a broader city-wide perspective on issues. Ms. Wooten spoke of lincoln School and the Lincoln closure issue, which she saw as a city-wide issue--a land use issue, according to the advice of the City Attorney and the Planning Department. She saw this issue in the context of the Metro Plan. Mr. Lindberg explained that he had a similiar problem concerning the current funding problems of the University of Oregon in the Legislature. On the one hand, it appeared to be a conflict of interest--a ward issue. He concluded that it might be more appropriate to have another councilor present the case. His presentation of the issue might have been interpreted as a parochial interest. Ward politics should be legitimate since wards are the grass roots areas first affected by a problem. Ms. Wooten explained that she brings ward-related problems to staff. If problems appear to be of city-wide interest or concern, she brings them to the council, after seeking staff help. Ms. Smith suggested a further meeting topic: "What role should the City Council be playing in terms of their basic concerns?" What parameters do they want to put on themselves in the area of advising or dictating to other governments? Mr. Lindberg suggested raising process questions such as: 1) is this a parochial or city-wide issue? 2) is this an item that can be settled outside the meeting? 3) is it time to cut bait? Mr. Murray suggested just using the ground rules as they are, but using them more often and more effectively. The council turned to the flow chart. Ms. Miller explained that they did not have time to discuss whether people take positions before they start debate. The way the meetings are set up, the matter is read, there is staff presentation, they ask questions of staff, there is a public hearing, and there is debate of the council. A motion is made, and they vote. Ms. Smith saw the benefit in having the motion at the end so it could be altered after hearing testimony. Ms. Miller explained that councilors had a tendency to state a position at the time that they should be asking questions of the staff. This made it difficult for staff to answer questions since the councilor would be just building her/his case. She referred to the balloon on the flow chart. It is destructive to the process because they need to get information out before starting debate. It is destructive for councilors to tell the public how they are going to vote even before the public hearing takes place. Councilors agreed and suggested it was fair for the mayor/acting mayor to call them on this if they did this in the meeting. She said that she would pass this suggestion on to Mayor Keller. Mr. Murray summarized that the council agreed it was acceptable for the chair to exercise stronger direction when councilors are discussing a question or expressing an opinion at the "questions of staff" stage of the proceedings. He pointed out that the councilors had started to discuss dinner meetings. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 5