Item A: City Council Process Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly agreed with this, in essence, but questioned putting it into the Consent Calendar. He thought because an ordinance was the law it should require an official vote. Ms. Taylor remarked that there were too many things on the Consent Calendar that did not belong there. Mr. Carlson clarified that 3.02 of the Operating Agreements precluded the inclusion of ordinances in the Consent Calendar. Mr. Poling agreed that an enacting ordinance should be clearly voted on by the council body. He noted that Consent Calendar items were not mentioned in meetings so that the viewing public knew it was on the agenda. Ms. Rose said the only thing one might want to consider would be to wordsmith Section 3.02, so that the language matched the changes in the charter. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Rose affirmed that by wordsmithing she meant the deletion of the words ‘because of charter requirements’ from the language of section 3.02. She felt she had clear direction from the councilors to keep enacting ordinances from being included on the Consent Calendar. 2. CCIGR Committee ? Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session Ms. Shepard explained that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) was in preparation for the 2007 Legislative Session. City Manager Taylor related that Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy brought this item forward with regard to how items, such as resolutions not directly related to the legislative session, become part of the regular agenda. This had brought up the preparation for the legislative session and how to address a division of opinion on the CCIGR in the course of a regular meeting. He said one suggestion was to make such a division into an action item. Mr. Pryor was uncertain of the exact process the CCIGR work underwent. He recalled that he had heard that an item on which the CCIGR was in agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar and items on which the CCIGR was not in agreement be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Kelly understood that items that were not unanimously approved were highlighted for “pre-review” by the councilors. He said anyone who wanted a discussion on an item could then request it be placed on the agenda. Ms. Bettman agreed that was the process, as did Mr. Papé. Ms. Taylor noted that the councilors could pull items that had been agreed upon from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Carlson cited the last paragraph on Agenda Item Summary (AIS) page 5, Attachment A: Intergovern- mental Relations Committee Process. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 2 Process Session