Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

resources or personnel? If the council had not taken a position on those bills, could staff take a position on behalf of the City organization on those bills? Speaking to the resolution mentioned by Ms. Walston, Ms. Bettman said that City Attorney Jerome Lidz indicated to the CCIGR that the resolution was ambiguous. Mr. Pryor thought Ms. Bettman raised legitimate questions that were based on a lack of clarity, consistency, or transparency in the process now being used. He said that it appeared the committee was a tradition that preceded the current council. He was concerned about the authority of the committee as opposed to the council, and about the authority of the manager as it related to the committee and council. His second concern was ensuring a procedure that ensured appropriate oversight, accurate representation, and that the default position the City took was the most inclusive of its position. Mr. Pryor thought that the tradition was that the vote of the CCIGR was the official position of the City unless the council voted to overturn it. He did not want the City’s default position to be one that could be set by two people representing a majority of the committee. Mr. Pryor thought the council needed a procedure that allowed staff to lobby in Salem with the confidence it had the council’s endorsement, not the endorsement of one or two councilors. That could result in staff taking one position one week and reversing itself the following week. He would prefer to be silent rather than take a position on legislation that would be changed later because of the haste of the process. Mr. Pryor pointed out that that when he raised a split committee vote to the council, it led to significant discussion and debate, which suggested to him that the City was taking positions in Salem that, unless someone made an effort to change, were being set by three people. He preferred instead that committee actions be ratified by the full council in what ever timely system could be established before staff lobbied in Salem. Mayor Piercy said she was a “substitute member” of the CCIGR if someone was absent. She said that council’s operating agreements indicated that the committee’s split votes were to be automatically brought up at the council, but that was not occurring. Mr. Pryor had taken the initiative to bring those votes forward. Mayor Piercy said the history of the resolution delegating the authority over human resource bills and collective bargaining had been debated before by past councils. She believed the charter was clear about the specific City personnel issues within the purview of the manager but said there were larger policy debates occurring at the State level, and the City needed to participate in those discussions. She contended the council was delegating a policy role to the city manger through the resolution. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mayor Piercy. She recalled that in the past, the council considered the CCIGR’s recommendations on the Consent Calendar and individual councilors pulled items. She thought for the entire council to consider every single bill, it would need longer weekly meetings and would not be able to have a break. Ms. Taylor did not think the committee process represented a matter of two people setting policy. If other councilors did not like a position taken by the committee, they could ask for discussion. Mr. Zelenka determined that Ms. Wilson considered herself governed by the majority vote on the committee. Ms. Wilson said the City’s most important asset in Salem was its credibility. She could explain a single changed position, but not twenty of them. It was not an issue for some bills because they were not moving. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session