CC Minutes - 01/14/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor thought that Section 16(2)(c) regarding appointment and dismissal of department directors addressed the concerns that had been expressed. He determined from Mr. Johnson that Section 51 was moot after 1982-1983 and a preface tying the document to the State Constitution was not necessary. Ms. Bettman suggested a memorandum on Section 51 might be useful. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 11, Council - Journal, and asked if the committee considered striking the section or modifying it. Mr. Tollenaar said that the text was suggested by the City Attorney. Ms. Bettman indicated interest in revisiting that section. Ms. Bettman said the revised section on conflict of interest did not appear to address what a councilor would do in a case of a conflict of interest. Mr. Tollenaar said the language suggested was a minimum. If adopted by the voters, the council would implement it by ordinance and could go beyond what was stated and create more stringent requirements. He noted that the appendix contained a copy of the Salem code of ethics, which included many provisions that the committee had liked. Mayor Torrey asked if the committee had considered taking a contract approach to the performance audit issue, for example, four contracts at $25,000 to audit specific council questions, as opposed to hiring a new position. Ms. Colbath said that the committee did discuss contracting, but those opposing the contract approach believed it did not allow for independence because the city manager would hire the contractor. Mayor Torrey asked if the provision for ten day's notice of an ordinance was triggered by an amendment to an ordinance. Mr. Tollenaar clarified that the council would not have to renotice the item but the council would have to postpone action to another meeting if substantial changes were proposed. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Ms. Bettman regretted the defeat of instant runoff voting but suggested it was a good idea that had yet to "catch on" with the voters. She thought the City should continue to work to pass another measure. Ms. Bettman said the council was dependent on the City Manager as to how policies were implemented, and even with the new evaluation process, many questions the council looked at during its evaluation of the city manager were unanswerable. For example, the council had no way to evaluate the city manager's relationship with personnel. She thought the committee's recommendations for a performance auditor and for council involvement in the hiring and dismissal of department directors would help improve the situation. While staying within the parameters of the council/manager form of government, the council would be better able to do its job. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 10 Work Session