Laserfiche WebLink
If the committee assigned a bill a status of Priority 1, Oppose, she did all she could to kill the bill. If the <br />committee assigned a bill a status of Support, it was slightly easier to change the City’s position. Mr. <br />Zelenka determined from Ms. Wilson that the council had switched the committee’s position about five times <br />this year. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said his dilemma was that the legislature moved fast, which was why the City Council had the <br />committee. He did not have time to track all the bills and thought the process had worked well in the past. <br />He said that every process has “foibles and bruises and bumps” associated with it. He asked Mr. Pryor <br />what he would do in the absence of the committee process to respond to the immediacy of the legislative <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor did not think the entire system was broken. On unanimous votes, the current system probably <br />worked well, as it was most likely that the entire council would endorse those positions. His principle <br />concern regarded split votes. He preferred to leave the process in place, but where there was a split <br />committee vote, he did not want the lobbyist to take a position to Salem as the position of the City. He said <br />that might put Ms. Wilson in a bind, but would also prevent her from having to change the position later on. <br />Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the City “had been operating like this for years” and he did not think the issue <br />of split votes had been a problem before. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if staff resources could be available in the case of a 2:1 committee vote on a high <br />priority issue to get the issue to the City Council in the interim before scheduled council ratification. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would move to rescind Resolution No. 4139. She said if staff had a concern that <br />committee review of a bill had charter implications, it could indicate that. She thought the council needed to <br />review those bills because they addressed broad policy issues, and otherwise the opinion of City staff would <br />be given more weight than that of the elected representatives. She would then move to create operating <br />agreements for the committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the manager to return with a resolu- <br />tion rescinding Section 7 of Resolution 4139. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would support the motion because when the lobbyist spoke in Salem she spoke for the <br />body, and he thought the City’s policy should be driven by the council rather than staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor also supported them motion, emphasizing it was no reflection on the City Manager, and <br />suggesting that whatever resulted needed to be a collaborative process given the importance of having staff <br />expertise. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff, in collaboration with the <br />CCIGR and the Intergovernmental Relations Manager, to draft operating agreements for the <br />CCIGR and to bring them back to the City Council for approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka hoped whatever process was developed allowed the City to be able to respond quickly to events <br />in Salem. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor indicated support for the motion. He did not want to create a burden on staff but believed the <br />council could move in a more transparent and timely fashion. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />