CC Minutes - 07/22/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly spoke in support of the motion, saying that the same arguments apply to the motion as the previous motion in terms of clarifying and updating the existing detail that existed in the charter. He pointed out that the existing charter also called for an explanation of why an ordinance should take effect in less than 30 days. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the new section on ordinances adopted by initiative as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly spoke in support of the motion. He believed that the proposal provided a new choice to the council rather than taking away from its power. He cited the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment as an example of an amendment that might have been passed as a protected ordinance, had that option be available to its proponents, who were concerned that the City Council might change it. The provision provided a way to enact a law that was hard to change but not impossible to change without cluttering up the charter. Mr. Kelly said the amendment provided another tool for the citizens. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Meisner and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly noted that the council had completed work on the CCRC's recommendations and thanked the council for agreeing to the expedited process. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to refer to the voters amendments to Section 16(2)(c) related to the hiring and firing authority of the city manager as proposed by the CCRC to this language: "After appointing, dismissing, or accepting the resignation of a department director, the city manager shall explain to the council the reasons for the action taken unless prohibited by law. The report required by this subsection may be made to the council in executive session." Mr. Kelly noted that the language in the motion was the alternative language Ms. Nathanson previously referred to. Mr. Rayor noted his support for the alternative text. Ms. Nathanson said there had been concern expressed by some that the proposal could result in a power play between the council and manager but she did not interpret it that way. The alternative language addressed her concerns about confidentiality and legality. She said that although it did not happen often, sometimes the community was puzzled or troubled by a personnel action taken by the manager. At times the action had risen to the level of a political problem. Ms. Nathanson said that the motion gave the council an opportunity to act on behalf of all the public, hear what happened, and make its own determination. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Nathanson. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 13 Work Session