CC Minutes - 02/14/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

program, which made it easier to run reports and track applicants from the point of application to the point of appointment. Ms. Walston referred the council to a sample report included in the meeting packet. She said that a complete listing of the City's boards, committees, commissions, and department advisory committees had previously been provided to the council. That information would be published on the City's Web page. Ms. Walston requested council direction on several issues, including term limits, lack of consistency among the membership term lengths of committees, the expiration date of intergovernmental and ad hoc committees, which was now different from the standing committees to the council, resulting in two recruitment processes. She recommended an annual, more focused process with a media event; perhaps concurrent with the Eugene Celebration. Ms. Walston said that it could also be an opportunity to involve the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) in the recruitment process. Ms. Nathanson liked the concept of an annual recruiting process. She asked why the City should be consistent with regard to term lengths. She suggested there may be good reason some committees had longer term lengths than other committees; on some committees, experience may be crucial because of complex topic matter and the steep learning curve associated with service on the committee. Ms. Nathanson said that some committees may want to suggest longer term lengths. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson, citing the Planning Commission as an example of an advisory committee that might need longer terms. He was concerned about the City's effectiveness in recruiting a broad range of candidates for its committees. He was intrigued by the idea of using the Celebration as a recruitment vehicle to get to the people "where they are." Mr. Meisner liked an annual recruitment if it was more effective. He did not think the City did a good job of advertising such volunteer activities; unless people scanned the paper very carefully or were computer-literate, they were unaware of such opportunities. Mr. Meisner disliked the current application form and said that the questions on the application were not particularly relevant. The City did nothing to ensure a person was providing accurate, complete, and truthful information. He also called for standardized supplemental questionnaires. Mr. Meisner said that the council also needed to acknowledge that the interview process was vital and attendance at interview meetings should be obligatory, and not optional, for individual councilors. Mr. Meisner did not favor term limits but thought it important the council was aware of how long people served. He did not see consistency in term length as a necessity. Mr. Meisner was unhappy with the changes to citizen involvement made in 1993. He regretted the loss of what he considered important groups, such as the Bicycle Commission. He did not find the voter or neighborhood pool to be particularly random in implementation, and questioned whether the recruitment process was as open as it had formerly been. Mr. Kelly liked the annual recruitment proposal and many of the other ideas proposed by staff. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner that consistency was not necessarily a desirable goal. He noted the suggested motion referred to the need to achieve consistency, and he suggested it instead refer to the need to clarify the Eugene Code, which was inconsistent as to the topic. He saw no need for universal term limits. Mr. Kelly congratulated staff on the database and said he looked forward to seeing the information on the Web. He believed that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 9 Work Session