Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor did not want to examine the toxics right-to-know charter amendment because it was <br />so recently passed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted an in-house legal counsel and a performance auditor and said that the present <br />form of government made it difficult for the council to have its way on those issues. She <br />suggested that each councilor, including incoming councilor Bonny Bettman, and the mayor <br />choose two members from the list of applicants for an advisory committee and vote on a final <br />slate of eight to ten members. She advocated for the committee process to begin soon. She <br />advocated for frequent check-ins from the advisory committee so the council could discuss its <br />progress. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Lee's question about what problem existed, Mr. Kelly noted he received what <br />he termed a "fair amount" of constituent questions about areas of the charter that were of <br />concern to residents. Independent of any problem, he believed said that the charter should be <br />examined periodically. It had been 25 years since that had happened. Maybe no changes would <br />result, but it was appropriate to have the review. He thought the council could give the effort <br />time, but suggested that the council's involvement would not occur until after the advisory <br />committee had finished its work. <br /> <br />Regarding the mayor's concern about the timing of the boundary issue, Mr. Kelly was willing to <br />make it a priority but did not want to impose a time line on the committee if members did not <br />think it would work. <br /> <br />Regarding the issue of a broad review versus topic review, Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the <br />committee's charge not be overly broad. He suggested that the charge include a list of topics of <br />interest to the council, including the broad topics mentioned, to avoid overly constraining the <br />committee. Members might have topics to add to the list. He wanted his suggested items listed <br />for the committee to ensure that they were discussed. He mentioned some of the items on his <br />list, saying he merely wanted to have committee discussion of them as he was unsure of his own <br />position on them. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was comfortable with the council/manager form of government, but suggested it <br />came in "many flavors." <br />Mr. Rayor agreed in principle with the remarks of both Mr. Lee and Mr. Kelly. He thought the <br />issue of charter review could be highly political and he did not want that. He supported ward <br />representation as opposed to at-large representation because of the difficulty of representing <br />people from all over the city. He also supported the council/manager form of government. While <br />he had concerns about embarking on a charter review, his concerns were somewhat assuaged <br />by Ms. Taylor's suggestion for appointing members of the committee and Mr. Kelly's suggestion <br />for topic referrals. <br /> <br />Addressing the topic of a broad versus specific review, Mr. Meisner pointed out that many of Mr. <br />Kelly's suggestions were about items currently not in the charter, which argued for a broader <br />review. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if there would be new boundaries for the 2002 elections. Mr. Johnson said <br />yes. There would be new boundaries for wards, commission districts, and State and federal <br />districts. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />