Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Walston that Subsection (1) of Section 51 would also be <br />proposed to the voters for deletion if the motion passed. Ms. Bettman said that housekeeping <br />items should be noncontroversial, and while she had no problem with the language, she did not <br />think it was a good idea to include the item if it could be construed in any way as controversial. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion and hoped that the council would address each issue by <br />placing a motion on the table prior to discussion as a way to focus discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson indicated that staff identified an additional minor housekeeping change in Section 16, <br />which clarifies the role of the manager in the budget process; as State law allows a biennial <br />budget, he recommended as a friendly amendment to the motion that the word "annual" be <br />struck. Mr. Kelly determined the City Manager would seek council authority to move to a biennial <br />budget process. He and Ms. Nathanson accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted that she e-mailed a request to the mayor that the Citizen Charter Review <br />Committee members be involved in the discussion so they could offer clarifications of <br />interpretation. Mayor Torrey said he discussed the issue with the manager and they agreed that <br />the council alone should be involved in the discussion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the nature of the Toxics Board's objections to <br />the changes proposed by the committee to Section 54, Mr. Lidz said that the change proposed <br />by the committee responded to the Court of Appeals' decision related to the amendment and <br />struck the language the court declared invalid. The board objected to the change because it <br />believed even if the language was not in effect because of the court decision, it would breach <br />faith with the voters to remove the language from the charter. He reiterated that the language in <br />question was not in effect because it could not be applied. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to keep all the housekeeping items together, but pointed out if a councilor <br />disagreed as to whether an item was a housekeeping item, voters might also disagree. She <br />wanted all the charter changes to be offered to the voters on the November 2002 ballot. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought it important to have unanimous agreement about the housekeeping items <br />because she thought the voters would take that fact into consideration as they considered the <br />ballot measure. She thought the changes suggested to Section 54 could be listed as a minor <br />change as a separate measure. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson wanted to keep the housekeeping items together, but did not want to jeopardize <br />them by bundling them with something controversial. <br /> <br />Because of the concerns shared by Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman about the potentially <br />controversial nature of the changes being proposed to Section 54, councilors agreed by friendly <br />amendment that it was not part of the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion, with the friendly amendments enumerated above, passed <br /> unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to allow the members of the <br /> Citizen Charter Review Committee to participate in the discussion if they <br /> asked to be recognized. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />