Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly emphasized that he could not support the motion without the phrase "if they asked to be <br />recognized." He encouraged the council to take advantage of the committee members' <br />expertise. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he did not support the motion as it was not in keeping with past council <br />practice. He said the council could always ask questions of members in attendance, and noted <br />that the council heard the committee's final presentation and received its final report. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor denied that the motion was not in keeping with past practice; when Ken Tollenaar, a <br />member of the committee, was on the council, it had occurred at least once. If the council was <br />overlooking something or misinterpreting the committee's intent, she thought it would be valuable <br />for the council to hear from the members. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Meisner. He said that if the council had questions of the committee <br />members, councilors could ask them. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that it did not matter what the committee meant, what mattered was the text <br />before the council and the legal meaning of that text. He said the council could always ask <br />questions, but the committee could no longer speak as a body. He pointed out that not all <br />members were present, and individuals would be speaking as individuals rather than as <br />members of the committee. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 4:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly voting yes. <br /> <br />The council returned to discussion of Section 54. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the Toxics Board supported retaining the current language, acknowledging <br />that the text in question was not valid. However, State law changes, and if the text was in place <br />if a change occurred, it could be valid again. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to put amendments to Section <br /> 54 back on the housekeeping list, except the proposed amendments to <br /> Section 3(A) and 3(E)(5). <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that other amendments were acceptable to the Toxics Board, and the two <br />subsection changes were controversial and should not be considered housekeeping items for <br />that reason. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He thought it satisfied the concerns expressed by Ms. <br />Nathanson and Ms. Bettman. The changes would be considered later under the topic of minor <br />amendments. He pointed out that in addition to substantive changes, Section 3(A) also included <br />three very minor wording and renumbering changes, and he wanted to ensure that those went <br />forward in the housekeeping changes. Ms. Bettman concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would support the motion because it was regarded by at least one councilor as <br />controversial. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />