Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner agreed that citizen participation was an important value for the City, but he did not <br />think the charter amendment as phrased was sufficiently detailed enough. It was so broadly <br />stated that it was both vague and ambiguous. Mr. Meisner said that no public process the council <br />devised by ordinance would satisfy complaints against the values stated in the charter <br />amendment. He anticipated endless litigation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted he was limiting staff input to legal counsel. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner, saying that if the council wanted such a <br />provision, it should rewrite it. The provision had the potential of leading to endless litigation, <br />because no one could say for sure what the provision actually meant. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that legal counsel comment could be interpreted as biased in one way or <br />another, and noted that there had been legal input on all the items before the council. Mr. Klein <br />indicated he did not intend to offer comment on any other item. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section ]6 <br /> (2) (b) related to the purchasing authority of the City Manager as proposed by the <br /> Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly argued that contrary to the staff analysis, the prevision would not erode the authority of <br />the manager, but enhance council awareness of significant City operations. The committee had <br />discussed placing a dollar amount on the contract involved, but determined that might be <br />inappropriate with inflation and the passage of time. The committee had discussed contracts of a <br />relatively high amount, and many council-manager cities have a council sign-off on major <br />contracts. Mr. Kelly noted that the committee voted 6:1 for the recommendation. He anticipated <br />that most such authorizations would be placed on a council Consent Calender, and unless the <br />item pulled, it would not result in much cost or affect the length of meetings. However, it would <br />give the council and the public awareness of the City's largest contracts. <br /> <br />No one spoke in opposition to the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section <br /> 16(2)(c) related to the hiring and firing authority of the City Manager as proposed by <br /> the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor argued in favor of the motion, saying the council's most important task was hiring a city <br />manager and evaluating that person's performance. Among the manager's most important tasks <br />was hiring the executive managers. Ms. Taylor said that if the council did not know why someone <br />was hired or resigned, it inhibited the council's ability to evaluate the manager. She preferred <br />even stronger language, saying the manager could take the council into his confidence if he or <br />she wished. If the reasons for a hiring or firing were explained to the council, it would have a <br />better sense of the manager's performance. Since the council cannot interfere in personnel <br />decisions, the council should at least be informed. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />