CC Minutes - 01/17/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson noted typographical errors on pages 9 and 12 of the December 11 minutes. Ms. Nathanson referred to paragraph 4 on page 21 of the December 11 council meeting minutes and asked that the following change be made: "She expressed her pleasure with some aspects of the ballot results, like the wide geographical range of members as well as diversity in age. She raised a concern that there was only one female was a nominee, and she also raised a concern that one of the nominees lived outside the city limits." Referring to paragraph 4 on page 3, Ms. Nathanson requested the following revision: "Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the discussion was not only about intracity 'm~erd4~ travel but about ~'-*~'-"~*,, traffic off local streets." intercity,,~'-*~'-"~*,,,,, ~v,,¢ travel as well...The parkway could take intercity ......... ¢ Ms. Bettman referred to paragraph 3 on page 6 of the November 27 minutes and asked that the following change be made: "Councilor Bettman reiterated Councilor Rayor's statement that Ballot Measure 7 was a disaster but expressed a hope that the City could explore local strategies for mitigating the impact,,~+o v,,~,~'~'"+ ....... ,,w,~'4 ~-~' mitigated ,v~,,~.~'-"'-" .... Ms. Bettman asked that fourth sentence in paragraph 1 on page 19 of the December 11 council meeting be deleted. Ms. Bettman asked that paragraph 2 on page 22 of the December 11 work session be modified as follows: "...under-represented in the applicant pool, and therefore would be under-represented on the committee..." Mr. Meisner said he would not support the motion because the council was not following the agreed-upon process for clarifications and corrections. Corrections were supposed to be sent to the minutes recording staff for verification. He said that the minutes were not intended to reflect what councilors meant to say, but what was actually said; if there was a scrivener's error or a mischaracterization, that should be checked. Mr. Meisner suggested that councilors offer clarifications of their intent rather than correct the record. He reiterated that the process was not being followed. Mr. Farr concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks but indicated he would support the motion. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council discuss the issue at its upcoming process session. Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Meisner for raising the subject. She indicated she had followed the agreed-upon process. She suggested that there were different ways to interpret the phrase "what I meant was." In some cases, a councilor may not have said something quite the way he or she intended. Because the minutes were not a verbatim transcript but a summary of councilor's comments, in other cases sometimes a statement was well-reflected because of how much it was condensed. Mr. Meisner concurred, saying he merely wanted to see such corrections verified with the minutes recording staff. Ms. Taylor noted her concurrence with the remarks of other councilors. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Meisner voting no and Mr. Pap8 not having arrived at the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 2 Work Session