Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Shepard ascertained by a show of thumbs up that the majority of the council wished to continue with <br />the current practice. <br /> <br /> <br />4. Other Issues <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked what guidelines there were regarding how one councilor spoke regarding other councilors’ <br />opinions and beliefs. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said the guiding rule was that one should treat others as they wanted to be treated. She viewed <br />speaking badly about a councilor as she viewed speaking badly about any other person for any reason. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that the councilors were more accountable to the public than to one another. She said <br />one could not control the personalities of other people. She noted that when she was asked about the <br />opinions or views of other councilors by a member of the press, she advised them that she did not speak for <br />others. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted that she wanted to make two changes. She intended to read the Consent Calendar aloud <br />at meetings because people in the audience, and especially the television audience, did not always know what <br />was on it. Another change she intended to make was that she planned to ask the council president and vice <br />president to consider placing on the agenda for discussion any bills from the Council Committee on <br />Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She also wanted to discuss the <br />council’s position and how to improve the meeting process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that these were duties and responsibilities that the council officers had “heretofore not <br />enjoyed.” She felt this should be formalized in the process agreement. She believed that the “enhancement” <br />of the duties of the City Council officers was a “big discussion.” She said at present the council officers did <br />not have the authority to block things or place items on the agenda. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said she was looking at this as a way to place motions on the table and she wished to discuss <br />any CCIGR bill on which there was a split vote. Ms. Bettman responded that the procedure, as it stood, had <br />been for the councilors to take responsibility and review the bills and then, if they chose, they could call out <br />a bill. She saw the change the Mayor was proposing as redundant and a layer of bureaucracy that was not <br />needed. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy responded that it was fine to choose a different way of conducting the CCIGR work. From <br />her perspective, she wanted to highlight the things that did not have the unanimous support of the CCIGR in <br />order to see if it was the will of the council to discuss them further. She underscored that the direction for <br />the City’s intergovernmental work should come from the whole council and not just from the CCIGR. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. She thought the Mayor’s proposal would be time-consuming. She <br />reiterated that it was up to the councilors to read the information from the CCIGR and to call out anything <br />that merited further discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Walston related that the new Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, planned to provide <br />a weekly newsletter to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the authority of the council officers should be discussed in the process session. She <br />wanted to maintain the current process until there was another process session to discuss it. Mayor Piercy <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br />