Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor questioned what elements of the committee's recommendation would have to be <br />referred to the voters and which could be implemented through ordinance. Mr. Tollenaar said that <br />all the recommendations required charter amendments, which must be referred to the voters. The <br />CCRC had, in some instances, recommended the adoption of particular ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested that Mr. Johnson prepare an analysis of the committee's recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested that it was difficult to know when a department director was asked to leave <br />as opposed to being fired; for that reason, he believed there was a gap in the recommendation. <br />Regarding the recommendation for protected ordinance process, he suggested that could become a <br />hard to manage process, and likened the protected ordinances to potential land mines. In response <br />to the first comment, Mr. Tollenaar acknowledged that in the case of a forced resignation, the <br />council would not be briefed, but pointed out that city managers were different, and perhaps a <br />future city manager would honor the spirit of the proposed charter amendment and volunteer to <br />report even if such a report was not required. Ms. Colbath added that while the committee was <br />trying to avoid impinging on the city manager's authority to appoint and remove department <br />directors, it also wanted to overcome somewhat the idea that the council could not ask questions <br />about such situations by allowing the city manager to go to the council and give it information. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Rayor's comments about the protected ordinance approach, Ms. Colbath said <br />the committee discussed the concept that it might not be used in the way members hoped. She <br />believed it would take time to see how the proposed ordinance would work out. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked the committee and congratulated it for completing its ambitious work <br />program in one year. Referring to the proposed changes to Section 32, she asked if the committee <br />had discussed under what circumstances it would be appropriate for public notification and a <br />public hearing to be waived, and if it discussed the potential of codifying that change. Ms. <br />Bettman also asked if certain committee discussion topics generated more public comment than <br />others. Responding to the first question, Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee discussed what <br />constituted an emergency, and concluded that the emergency clause was often attached to <br />ordinances for reasons that have nothing to do with the threats to public welfare, but the exigencies <br />of the situation. The committee agreed that it was best that the council determine whether a <br />situation was an emergency, and require the council to define those circumstances in the ordinance <br />that would result. Responding to the second question, Ms. Colbath said early in the process, <br />people came to meetings and suggested charter amendments regarding campaign finance reform. <br />Later the committee received comments regarding the topic of an in-house legal counsel. She had <br />also discussed the performance auditor position with several people, and received positive <br />feedback. Mr. Tollenaar added that during the first three months of its deliberations, the <br />committee received considerable input on instant runoff voting (IRV), a topic that he hoped was <br />not completely dead. The committee received quite a bit of input on the subject of an in-house <br />counsel, particularly in terms of cost; some was well-informed input, and some was not. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />