CC Minutes - 10/22/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

serve. He pointed out that additionally, Ms. Solomon was a west Eugene resident, and the only person from Ward 6 on either the Planning Commission or Budget Committee. He commended her work on the Budget Committee and Budget Citizen Subcommittee. Ms. Bettman said geographic diversity on boards and commissions was important to some councilors. She believed that geographic diversity was one of several kinds of diversity the council should consider when making appointments. She thought that the Budget Committee lacked economic diversity and advocated for representation from Iow-income citizens. For that reason, she supported reopening the process, and trying to recruit unsuccessful applicants for the Planning Commission and Human Rights Commission vacancies to apply for the Budget Committee. Mr. Rayor supported the motion. He said that Ms. Solomon had a good interview, but she did not speak much at Budget Committee meetings. However, her interview persuaded him she could participate now. He said that he "was on the edge so much" and wanted to give Ms. Solomon the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Rayor, saying that Ms. Solomon's participation had been an issue for him as well. He had expected by the third year of being on the committee that she would have been a more active contributor. Reappointing her would mean that level of contribution would continue for another three years. He would rather, given the limited pool of applicants, reopen the application process and attempt to get the diversity Ms. Bettman referred to. Nothing prevented the council from reappointing Ms. Solomon if another successful candidate was not found. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly. He expected that every member on the Budget Committee would "carry their weight." He had not heard Ms. Solomon speak to Bethel issues when they arose, and had no idea of her positions, values, or goals. Three years was an adequate time to "come up to speed" as well as greater participation in "what needs to be a collegial body." He concurred with Ms. Kelly that Ms. Solomon could be reappointed if no one else came forward. Mr. Meisner said he wanted an active participant who did not take the time of the committee without contributing. Mr. Farr said that like the council, there were two or three councilors and two or three lay members who dominated the floor. Every meeting the same people dominated the conversation. Other people were less forceful, and Ms. Solomon was not the only committee member who did not talk a lot. He said that it was his belief that if one did not have anything particular to say, or agree with the comments of others, why waste the time of the committee? He had talked to Ms. Solomon many times about her feelings, and believed that she was an active member of the committee whose next term would include more aggressiveness in speaking, even though that was not his preference. Mr. Pap8 did not want to set a precedent by reopening the process because the council did not like the pool of applicants. There was a sufficient pool of applicants for the committee and the process had been well-publicized. He did not favor gerrymandering the appointments. He agreed with Mr. Farr that time at the microphone was not the highest qualification for participation on committees and commissions. He pointed out that Ms. Solomon had participated in subcommittees at which none of the councilors were present. He had been personally contacted by Ms. Solomon about budget issues. Mr. Pap8 suggested that quiet lobbying could be more effective than "mike time" before the entire committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 13 Work Session