Laserfiche WebLink
council was to go on sister city trips, funding for that purpose should be included as a line item in <br />the budget, where it could compete with other priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson indicated staff would prepare revisions regarding the use of the Consent Calendar to <br />the appropriate section of the operating agreements. <br /> <br />The council took a brief meeting break at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at 6:55 p.m. <br />GOVERNANCE <br /> <br />Mr. Lee summarized the issue of governance as how policy making was defined, and what it <br />meant for the council to make policy, and at what level of detail. Mr. Meisner asked the council <br />and staff to identify specific problem areas related to the topic. Mr. Johnson suggested that an <br />example was the Planning Commission's role in the review of the Land Use Code Update. <br />Following that review, the council added a substantial number of work sessions and extended <br />time lines for public involvement. What was the role of the commission, and where was the <br />balance between bodies. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated he would like to schedule a work session specific to the topic so the <br />council had more time for discussion. He suggested that the item be discussed when the <br />process session for the new council was scheduled. There was general concurrence. Mr. Kelly, <br />however, advocated for round robin comments on the issue tonight because of the importance of <br />the topic. He wished to respond specifically to the manager's comments regarding the Planning <br />Commission. He believed any attempt to draw a line between policy and management was <br />impossible, and that it was staff's role to let the council know when it was stepping over that line. <br />Regarding the Land Use Code Update, Mr. Kelly did not feel that the council's actions ignored <br />the commission's review. He viewed the commission as advisory to the council, which could <br />make a different decision than the commission recommended. He further maintained that the <br />council was discussing issues the commission had never gotten around to discussing. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that doing less on the Land Use Code Update because of the commission's <br />review meant the council would be giving a significant level of deference to that advisory body. <br />He said that each councilor had their own pet issues related to the update. He believed that the <br />content of the recommendation made a difference. Mr. Meisner said that the manager was quite <br />capable of letting the council know if it was intruding on his authority, and he appreciated it when <br />the manager did so. Responding to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Meisner said that the same <br />was true of other employees. Mr. Johnson observed that it was difficult for lower level staff to tell <br />the council it had exceeded its authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee suggested that trust was the main issue; if the council trusted the manager, delegation <br />would occur; otherwise, he believed the council had a tendency to micromanage. He thought the <br />relationship between the council and the manager was currently good, and that created an <br />opportunity for the council to be visionary. He said that at the current time, the council seemed to <br />have no vision as a body, and should take advantage of the situation to do some visioning. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed with the remarks of previous speakers. He believed that the council should give <br />staff general direction rather than attempt to do a detailed review of, for example, the solar <br />provisions of the update. He thought the council spent too much time on such issues. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br /> <br />