Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said that like Ms. Bettman, he had been waiting for the "secret." He said that elected <br />officials often lobby one another; that is what they do. He did not understand Mr. Papa's concerns. <br />All councilors called one another and discussed the issues facing them and possible solutions. <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of notifying other councilors in advance of a motion, Mr. Kelly said that the <br />council had previously agreed that, when possible, members would notify their colleagues in <br />advance of offering such a motion. He said the agreement worked the majority of the time, noting <br />that all councilors were surprised by motions at some point. He said that he was told five minutes <br />before he entered the meeting room that there could be a motion to reconsider, and that only <br />occurred because he happened to stop by the mayor's office before going on to the McNutt Room. <br />He said that it was not as though some were notified and some were not. He said that media <br />learned of the topic mid-discussion as they watched the meeting on Community Television and <br />subsequently rushed to City Hall. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not think that the mayor's conversation with Mr. Mylenek was out of line, or that Mr. <br />Mylenek's letter had changed any councilor's mind. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the issue was less about the merits of the situation than about some <br />people feeling excluded from the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly, adding that he hoped <br />councilors did, in fact, interact outside of council meetings and check in with each other. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner suggested the only good thing about the discussion was that it avoided a motion to <br />reconsider the council's June 11 action. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Poling's dissatisfaction with the process that occurred before the January <br />decision to initiate the renaming process. He thought the process should have been much more <br />public. He reminded the council and audience that the process was not initiated by the council or <br />the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but rather by the Board of <br />County Commissioners. While he agreed that the process could have been more public, he did <br />not think that was a matter of anyone's fault. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that like Ms. Nathanson, he had concluded by June 11 that the council's action of <br />June 9 was not the correct one, and that the committee process proposed had no chance of <br />working. However, he did not go to City Hall on June 11 with the expectation of considering the <br />issue again. When he saw the mayor and shared his concerns, the mayor encouraged him to call <br />Ms. Nathanson. At that time, Ms. Nathanson indicated her intent to offer a motion to reconsider <br />the June 9 action. He was not contacted or instructed by the mayor; to the contrary, he went to <br />the mayor's office with his concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner emphasized that the City of Eugene was not paying for the signage changes required <br />for the name change. In fact, a County commissioner testified before the council that the name <br />change was such a priority for County residents that the Board of County Commissioners offered <br />to pay those costs. <br /> <br />Speaking to comments he received from members of the public claiming they had no opportunity <br />to comment on the street renaming, Mr. Meisner said that there were two well-attended public <br />hearings and ample notice of the issue was given. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />